Comments on: 52?

By: jerry

jerry — Mon, 12 May 2008 18:34:13 +0000

How many points does a basketball team have to win by for them to claim it was a romp, a slam-dunk, or ….?

Anything closer than 54 - 46 feels like a close game to me.

By: midderpidge

midderpidge — Mon, 12 May 2008 02:01:34 +0000

Methinks Haplo has the hysterics on the wrong side of the pond. OMG!!! Bankrupt!!! There won’t be enough money!!! ARMAGEDDON IS NIGH!!!

I guess end of days type talk is the norm for alot of the right wing base, so maybe they don’t recognize it as hysterics.

A simple hint for Haplo: doing something substantive does not mean overblowing a problem 40 years down the road in an effort to pass trillions of dollars of tax payer money to wall street corporations.

By: Enlightened Liberal

Enlightened Liberal — Sun, 11 May 2008 12:13:45 +0000

Perhaps you can explain to us then Haplo how the Republican privatization plan would stabilize Social Security. Give us some details, please.

By: Haplo9

Haplo9 — Sun, 11 May 2008 08:04:16 +0000

Yes, horrors, the Republicans (for once) actually tried to do something substantive about Social Security’s long term solvency. Not that any of you would agree, but the Democrats were clearly in the wrong when it came to this. All we got from Democrats then was hysterics, and all we get from Democrats now is a plan to increase payroll taxes a little bit so that they can kick the can down the road far enough that it’ll be someone else’s problem when the bill comes due.

By: Enlightened Liberal

Enlightened Liberal — Sun, 11 May 2008 02:48:06 +0000

Not to mention, any time a Republican loses it’s because he isn’t conservative enough. And, anytime a Democrat wins is because he is conservative. At the same time, Democrats only win because conservatives stay home.

By: kodos423

kodos423 — Sat, 10 May 2008 22:37:34 +0000

Um, any win is a mandate if the winning candidate is a republican. Any win for a democrat of less than 85% is a clear mandate for the republicans.

Not that I’m telling you anything you don’t already know…

By: TX Liberal

TX Liberal — Sat, 10 May 2008 22:29:01 +0000

Around 7 to 8 percent would be my guess but it depends on how many people are running (serious candidates that is) and what is the makeup of Congress. A margin less than that could be considered one if big gains were made in the president’s party. On the other hand, even a larger gain in the margin would not necessarily be a “mandate” if the opposite party were to win control of Congress.
Just my opinion.

By: Soullite

Soullite — Sat, 10 May 2008 21:57:00 +0000

Yeah, the privatization thing was kind of hilarious. It’s like they thought to themselves ‘You know that thing we’ve always wanted to do, but always thought it would bring political armageddon? Lets do that and see how it goes.’

Jerry, a 10% spread is simply impossible without a major third party candidate. The parties are ideological centered now, this isn’t 1932 where ideology didn’t predict party, and voters freely moved between the two. People always vote more or less the same way these days, with maybe 4% of voters honestly up for grabs. I’d imagine thats where the ‘52%’ numbers comes from. thats about a 4% difference. You just won’t likely ever see higher than that before a major realignment takes place. I’d imagine if Obama wins with 52% and governs well, we’ll see a much wider margin in 2012. but 52% will be the modern equivalent of getting every last independent, non-leaning voter.

By: jerry

jerry — Sat, 10 May 2008 20:39:34 +0000

52 seems way too low to me. Perhaps because of GWB’s claim to a mandate. It’s just pulling numbers out of my butt, but I think a mandate is much much closer to a 10% spread than that.

I think that less than 10%, you should govern as you wish, but you don’t get to claim it’s a mandate.