What Exactly did the Two Thirds Tell Obama?

[rogue06]

As Rogue wrote in the other thread, I don't put too much stock on the "mandate" of elections. Here's an article explaining the 2014 GOP "wave" in recent historical context (from The American Conservative, of all places). The party or parties who win elections will rightfully, as Rogue also noted, seek to implement the policies they campaigned on. For the 2014 GOP, that means the almost-certainly contradictory ideas of "compromise" and "stopping Obama." For Obama, that means the ideas of immigration reform, protecting the ACA from legislative sabotage, and growing the economy to the benefit of the middle class. Each party has a responsibility to pursue good legislation and, to a lesser extent, their respective agendas. Past that, the only mandate that really exists is honest representation of the majority of your constituents.

Fascinating choice of language there

So whenever elected officials seek to repeal legislation -- something that they promised to do when they ran for office -- is it "legislative sabotage"? Or does that only take place when they seek to repeal something you like?

[Sam]

Fascinating choice of language there

So whenever elected officials seek to repeal legislation -- something that they promised to do when they ran for office -- is it "legislative sabotage"? Or does that only take place when they seek to repeal something you like?

Hey, full on repeal is fine — Obama promised to block that, too. I'm talking about Republicans pretending that we can repeal just parts of the law while keeping the good stuff. Like how they want to kill the employer mandate without providing for higher subsidies or how they want to kill the individual mandate while pretending that the law doesn't collapse if you take out one leg of the stool. Legislative sabotage like that.

[rogue06]

It's not an assumption precisely because we still have issue polling. So we can see, for example, that the majority of Americans still don't want Obamacare repealed

That, as a recent news story on CNN (or Bloomburg), depends heavily on the wording used in the polling. If you ask if you want it "replaced" then as a recent poll conducted shows there is 59% in favor. Even among Democrats it was real close to half in favor of replacing.

And even in those polls that ask if someone wants it "repealed" a substantial portion of those who want it "fixed" (make some changes) say that while they like certain aspects (and hence don't want it repealed) they essentially for all intents and purposes want to gut it leaving only a few features.

ETA: And how you categorize matters too. Place those who want to keep or fix it in one category and you get one result. Put those who want to fix or scrap it together and you get a different one.

the majority of Americans still want a pathway to citizenship.

There is another one that the wording makes a world of difference. If you ask someone if they want "a pathway to citizenship" for those who enter the country illegally I'll bet that even most of those who are vehemently opposed to how Obama is handling the situation would say yes.

Now conduct a poll and ask if someone supports "amnesty" for illegal immigrants and how much do you want to bet that a strong majority would say no?

[Sam]

That, as a recent news story on CNN (or Bloomburg), depends heavily on the wording used in the polling. If you ask if you want it "replaced" then as a recent poll conducted shows there is 59% in favor. Even among Democrats it was real close to half in favor of replacing.

And even in those polls that ask if someone wants it "repealed" a substantial portion of those who want it "fixed" (make some changes) say that while they like certain aspects (and hence don't want it repealed) they essentially for all intents and purposes want to gut it leaving only a few features.

You'll have to provide the polling to support a majority of the population wanting the ACA to be gutted. The disapproval rate includes those who (like me) don't believe the ACA is progressive enough but they (like me) certainly don't want to see it "replaced" with whatever the GOP comes up with to fit its entirely truncated space (i.e., tax deductions for high-deductible plans). I've seen no polling that suggests that Obamacare is to the left of a majority of the population, let alone polling to suggest that a majority of the population support a policy to the right of Obamacare. So the point remains standing.

ETA: And how you categorize matters too. Place those who want to keep or fix it in one category and you get one result. Put those who want to fix or scrap it together and you get a different one.


There is another one that the wording makes a world of difference. If you ask someone if they want "a pathway to citizenship" for those who enter the country illegally I'll bet that even most of those who are vehemently opposed to how Obama is handling the situation would say yes.

Now conduct a poll and ask if someone supports "amnesty" for illegal immigrants and how much do you want to bet that a strong majority would say no?

Since Obama supports the Senate bill that provides a pathway to citizenship and not vague "amnesty" (which could mean the 13-year pathway to citizenship or immediate amnesty or anywhere in between), I think the question is moot. The majority of Americans support something similar to a bill that has already passed the Senate, that Obama is willing to sign, and that could have passed in the House at any point in the last year if it had been brought to a up/down vote. Obama has every right to claim that the majority supports him on advocating that.

[Raphael]

...that the majority of Americans still want a pathway to citizenship.

America has a pathway to citizenship.

[Sam]

America has a pathway to citizenship.

"Pathway to citizenship" has a specific meaning in this case: the concept that undocumented residents currently in America should be allowed to remain residents and have a process through which they can receive citizenship without returning to a country of origin (or, in the case of DREAMers, a parent's country of origin).

[Raphael]

"Pathway to citizenship" has a specific meaning in this case: the concept that undocumented residents currently in America should be allowed to remain residents and have a process through which they can receive citizenship without returning to a country of origin (or, in the case of DREAMers, a parent's country of origin).

ya mean illegal immigrants who circumvented the legal process by which they could become US citizens.

Call it what it is Sam.

(and yes, as a legal immigrant to my adopted country, where I now hold Citizenship it's a topic I have some serious opinions on)

[Sam]

ya mean illegal immigrants who circumvented the legal process by which they could become US citizens.

Call it what it is Sam.

(and yes, as a legal immigrant to my adopted country, where I now hold Citizenship it's a topic I have some serious opinions on)

That's fine. The point isn't whether immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship is rewarding bad behavior or unjust in some way. The point is that the majority of Americans support such a process for immigrants already in the country and so Obama can correctly say that his policy regarding immigration reform better represents the will of the People, even if most of those people didn't vote in the last election.

[Paprika]

What is your opinion?

Referendum.

[Raphael]

Referendum.

They're expensive, you can't have one on every policy the government wishes to enact. And for us, if they are citizen initiated, they are non-binding on the government......for example, on the topic of "Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?" (to try and repeal the anti-smacking law), 87.4% of people who voted in it voted No. (i.e. they are against the law). The government ignored the result.

And, as National argued, they had specifically campaigned for selling 49% of the power companies, and Labour had campaigned specifically for not selling them. They pretty much both campaigned as if it was a single issue election. So it was kind of a referendum.

[Darth Executor]

That's fine. The point isn't whether immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship is rewarding bad behavior or unjust in some way. The point is that the majority of Americans support such a process for immigrants already in the country and so Obama can correctly say that his policy regarding immigration reform better represents the will of the People, even if most of those people didn't vote in the last election.

His policy of legalizing all the illegals with no intent of protecting the border (just like the lying democrats did with Reagan) is not representative of the will of the people, which is itself incoherent (two questions asking whether people prioritize border security or addressing the immigrant status have wildly different result). The issue is definitely a loser for right of left politicians though:

"If a candidate for U.S. Congress supports a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, would that make you more likely to vote for that candidate, less likely or wouldn't it make much difference in your vote?"

More likely Less likely Not muchdifference Unsure
% % % %

9/4-7/14

27 36 34 3

2/27 - 3/2/14

30 38 29 3

[Paprika]

They're expensive, you can't have one on every policy the government wishes to enact.

You don't say. But this was an sufficiently important decision that parties campaigned solely on it, was it not?

And for us, if they are citizen initiated

Which is why the government should initiate it.

And, as National argued, they had specifically campaigned for selling 49% of the power companies, and Labour had campaigned specifically for not selling them. They pretty much both campaigned as if it was a single issue election. So it was kind of a referendum.

Not quite because the vote is on people, not issues. Or are you suggesting that whoever represents the party doesn't matter, as long as the party line is spouted?

[Timothy]

Apparently Obama heard them say "I didn't care enough to vote, but if I did care at all, I would have supported all of your policies."

Here is what I heard them say - "My opinion doesn't matter".

[Raphael]

Apparently Obama heard them say "I didn't care enough to vote, but if I did care at all, I would have supported all of your policies."

The real silly thing is that both sides of the political spectrum will try claim the missing voters as being their supporters, where in reality they are probably split fairly evenly down the lines.

What they also miss are the voters who vote for party XYZ not because they support party XYZ, but because they really don't want party ABC in power.

I know a lot of people who voted National in NZ's last election (was in September), not because they supported National, but because they didn't want the Labour/Greens/NZ First/InternetMANA (with Kim Dotcom calling the shots) in power.
So while National got their best result ever, a lot of people who don't agree with their policies didn't vote for them because of their policies, but because we didn't want a certain German criminal to buy our political system (and the policies the Greens and Labour were coming up with competing for the hard left vote were downright scary....the economic policies along would have made Robert Mugabe look like an economic genius).

Which comes back to what Paprika and I were talking about, is a referendum the right thing to sort out what important policies should be enacted, or should an election that has been strongly campaigned on that policy count as the referendum?

Here is what I heard them say - "My opinion doesn't matter".

I've seen several reasons why some people don't vote. the first is what you have there.
The others are "all the candidates suck so I won't vote for anyone"
Another is the very dangerous "my party has enough support, so I don't need to vote" (dangerous because if enough people think that, popular parties perform very badly in the polls)
and along with that one is the "my party is going to tank so badly my vote won't count"

[robrecht]

What I thought Obama meant was simply that the majority of the people thought the election, the candidates, their campaigns, the political parties, the government, etc, were all irrelevant to their lives. Obama feels some responsibility to make the government more relevant.