Reply #274: You're being nonsensical

[DatManFromNawlins]

If a President had a mandate, then it would seem that the opposition party would go along with his whims.

That is never the case. The one who pushes back the hardest is the sore loser.

Suppose that in 2008, it is Bush who is going for and gets his 2nd term. How hunky dory are you with him just enacting whatever policy he wants? Because of his "mandate." I seem to explicitly recall people here throwing 7 layer shitfits and vowing to snuff out his initiatives at every turn in 2004, angry as hell because they could not believe he had won again. Not much of a mandate. Oh, he got most of what he wanted, but that wasn't because of a mandate. That's because he could count on his opposition to fold like a cheap suit.

And as soon as Obama became President, Republicans en masse declared that they were going to oppose his "liberal" direction. And they have been extremely successful, despite their low numbers in the House and Senate. Exactly what kind of mandate does one have if he can't even manage to rally a filibuster-proof majority?

Presidents have NO mandates. They simply have the power of the Presidency. All that bullshit about mandates is crazy talk meant to fill the airwaves of the 24/7 news cycle. It is an expression, nothing more.