Election 2020

[Jim Butler]

When was the last time that the candidate of one party was elected President while his party lost seats in the House?

2016. Trump elected president, GOP lost 6 seats.

Possibly like Biden’s misappropriation of information,  the above response was ‘misappropriated’ another forum member .....

When was the last time that the candidate of one party was elected President while his party lost seats in the House?

Four years ago--Republicans lost six House seats in 2016. However, this is the first time since 1884 that a Democrat was elected President without a Senate majority during the first two years of his term, assuming that the Republican candidate wins at least one of the two Georgia runoffs.

James, sometimes I think you look for reasons to be offended. Also, you don't need to insert yourself into every situation. If Altheist was offended, he can fight his own battles. He's been on this board a long time; he knows what to do.

Pr. Johnson saw my question and he answered it. The man knows his history. Most likely, he didn't see Aletheist's response, much less "misappropriated" it. Heck, I didn't see Aletheist's response. Had I done so, I would have written a note of thanks to him as well.

Please remember the 8th Commandment and the need to "explain everything in the kindest way." You need to delete your post and apologize for making your accusation.

[D. Engebretson]

Last night Biden took to the podium to make a statement, coming short of claiming victory, but noting that their path to the White House appears certain.  But what concerns me was that in his statement he claimed that in this anticipated victory, which we all know is by razor thing margins in battle ground states, is a "mandate for action."  Biden claimed that those who voted for him have "given us a mandate for action on COVID, the economy, on climate change and systemic racism." Yet in the same breath he claims that he needs to heal the nation and press for unity. 

With Democrats projected to lose seats in the house, not gain them, I'm wondering if that shouldn't temper this "mandate" just a bit. If other Republican gains throughout the country in more local, state-level races also should give him a moment of pause before he sets off on a certain "mandate." Some of the very things that divided those who voted in this election are still on the table, but Biden proposes to have a mandate to push through an agenda he had all along. That will not unify or heal.  It will exacerbate the divide.

Obviously he doesn't tell us just what this perceived "mandate" will empower him to do once he is in the White House.  Pelosi is already celebrating his win and what that means.  Yet all around them is the evidence not of a "blue wave" endorsing their agenda, but unexpected projected losses. And a presidential election that was anything but a landslide, but is coming down to painstaking vote-by-vote counting with some questions remaining as to irregularities there as well. 

I hope he walks back the "mandate" talk.  It's not going to pull folks across the aisle to work with him in happy unity.     

[Randy Bosch]

Last night Biden took to the podium to make a statement, coming short of claiming victory, but noting that their path to the White House appears certain.  But what concerns me was that in his statement he claimed that in this anticipated victory, which we all know is by razor thing margins in battle ground states, is a "mandate for action."  Biden claimed that those who voted for him have "given us a mandate for action on COVID, the economy, on climate change and systemic racism." Yet in the same breath he claims that he needs to heal the nation and press for unity. 

With Democrats projected to lose seats in the house, not gain them, I'm wondering if that shouldn't temper this "mandate" just a bit. If other Republican gains throughout the country in more local, state-level races also should give him a moment of pause before he sets off on a certain "mandate." Some of the very things that divided those who voted in this election are still on the table, but Biden proposes to have a mandate to push through an agenda he had all along. That will not unify or heal.  It will exacerbate the divide.

Obviously he doesn't tell us just what this perceived "mandate" will empower him to do once he is in the White House.  Pelosi is already celebrating his win and what that means.  Yet all around them is the evidence not of a "blue wave" endorsing their agenda, but unexpected projected losses. And a presidential election that was anything but a landslide, but is coming down to painstaking vote-by-vote counting with some questions remaining as to irregularities there as well. 

I hope he walks back the "mandate" talk.  It's not going to pull folks across the aisle to work with him in happy unity.     

Mandate: "the authority given to an elected group of people, such as a government, to perform an action or govern a country" (Cambridge English Dictionary).

Mandate is another one of the far too many words that have been given power far beyond what it means.
If you win office by one vote, or if you are appointed to a position by a higher authority, you have been given a mandate.
Simple as that.

[D. Engebretson]

Last night Biden took to the podium to make a statement, coming short of claiming victory, but noting that their path to the White House appears certain.  But what concerns me was that in his statement he claimed that in this anticipated victory, which we all know is by razor thing margins in battle ground states, is a "mandate for action."  Biden claimed that those who voted for him have "given us a mandate for action on COVID, the economy, on climate change and systemic racism." Yet in the same breath he claims that he needs to heal the nation and press for unity. 

With Democrats projected to lose seats in the house, not gain them, I'm wondering if that shouldn't temper this "mandate" just a bit. If other Republican gains throughout the country in more local, state-level races also should give him a moment of pause before he sets off on a certain "mandate." Some of the very things that divided those who voted in this election are still on the table, but Biden proposes to have a mandate to push through an agenda he had all along. That will not unify or heal.  It will exacerbate the divide.

Obviously he doesn't tell us just what this perceived "mandate" will empower him to do once he is in the White House.  Pelosi is already celebrating his win and what that means.  Yet all around them is the evidence not of a "blue wave" endorsing their agenda, but unexpected projected losses. And a presidential election that was anything but a landslide, but is coming down to painstaking vote-by-vote counting with some questions remaining as to irregularities there as well. 

I hope he walks back the "mandate" talk.  It's not going to pull folks across the aisle to work with him in happy unity.     

Mandate: "the authority given to an elected group of people, such as a government, to perform an action or govern a country" (Cambridge English Dictionary).

Mandate is another one of the far too many words that have been given power far beyond what it means.
If you win office by one vote, or if you are appointed to a position by a higher authority, you have been given a mandate.
Simple as that.

It is true that the idea of mandate in its simplest form means simply the authority to carry out the duties of a given office or position by virtue of a vote or an official appointment.  And you are right that this word has been given far too much "power" beyond what it means in its most basic sense.  For that reason I wish he would back away from it.  Mandate, in most minds, means the support and authority to implement specific policies and programs. If Biden has a "mandate" it is to govern, to run the country as its chief executive. And if he believes he has a "mandate" to to unify and heal, then he needs to decide early on just how aggressive he plans to be on those other areas of perceived mandated authority.  If he tries to do both with equal vigor, not all will succeed.

[Jim Butler]

Last night Biden took to the podium to make a statement, coming short of claiming victory, but noting that their path to the White House appears certain.  But what concerns me was that in his statement he claimed that in this anticipated victory, which we all know is by razor thing margins in battle ground states, is a "mandate for action."  Biden claimed that those who voted for him have "given us a mandate for action on COVID, the economy, on climate change and systemic racism." Yet in the same breath he claims that he needs to heal the nation and press for unity. 

With Democrats projected to lose seats in the house, not gain them, I'm wondering if that shouldn't temper this "mandate" just a bit. If other Republican gains throughout the country in more local, state-level races also should give him a moment of pause before he sets off on a certain "mandate." Some of the very things that divided those who voted in this election are still on the table, but Biden proposes to have a mandate to push through an agenda he had all along. That will not unify or heal.  It will exacerbate the divide.

Obviously he doesn't tell us just what this perceived "mandate" will empower him to do once he is in the White House.  Pelosi is already celebrating his win and what that means.  Yet all around them is the evidence not of a "blue wave" endorsing their agenda, but unexpected projected losses. And a presidential election that was anything but a landslide, but is coming down to painstaking vote-by-vote counting with some questions remaining as to irregularities there as well. 

I hope he walks back the "mandate" talk.  It's not going to pull folks across the aisle to work with him in happy unity.     

He has a very simple mandate: he's not Donald Trump.

He cannot claim a mandate for any of his policies; he never really campaigned on them. His strategy was to let Trump campaign against himself. It was a good strategy, but...

The other issue is that we are not a parliamentary system. Boris Johnson could claim a mandate for Brexit. He campaigned on it and he won a majority in British Parliament.

But Dems lost seats in the House and if they have a majority in the Senate, it will only be 51-50 or 51-49. That means if he wants something done, he's going to have to go narrow and piecemeal. No big things.

Of course, he will have the administrative state and his executive orders. However, he may find that there are district judges that are just as willing to grant nationwide injunctions against his orders as there were district judges willing to grant them against Trump orders. And there might be a court majority in favor of overruling Chevron which may end a lot of administrative abuse.

[Dan Fienen]

I find it interesting that Democrats have spent the last 4 years loudly proclaiming that because the 2016 election was so close, Trump did not have a mandate. Now in another very close election, Biden is claiming a mandate. Now both Trump and Biden by being legally elected have similar mandates to function as chief executives of this nation. But as has been pointed out, if Biden wants to be not the president of the Democrats but the American President, that we not have Red states and Blue states but American states, his mandate is not to run roughshod over those who did not vote for him. One does not really unify the nation by dismissing those who did not vote for Biden as racist idiots as some voices from the left are doing.

[James J Eivan]

When was the last time that the candidate of one party was elected President while his party lost seats in the House?

2016. Trump elected president, GOP lost 6 seats.

Possibly like Biden’s misappropriation of information,  the above response was ‘misappropriated’ another forum member .....

When was the last time that the candidate of one party was elected President while his party lost seats in the House?

Four years ago--Republicans lost six House seats in 2016. However, this is the first time since 1884 that a Democrat was elected President without a Senate majority during the first two years of his term, assuming that the Republican candidate wins at least one of the two Georgia runoffs.

James, sometimes I think you look for reasons to be offended. Also, you don't need to insert yourself into every situation. If Altheist was offended, he can fight his own battles. He's been on this board a long time; he knows what to do.

Pr. Johnson saw my question and he answered it. The man knows his history. Most likely, he didn't see Aletheist's response, much less "misappropriated" it. Heck, I didn't see Aletheist's response. Had I done so, I would have written a note of thanks to him as well.

Please remember the 8th Commandment and the need to "explain everything in the kindest way." You need to delete your post and apologize for making your accusation.

But then you are not aware of the rest of the story ... the prejudicial censoring censoring of some members posts... not necessarily mine ... while the garbage of others remains ... becomes intolerable at times.

Perhaps you have missed Rev Johnson’s snippy comments in the past ... had I done as he did, ... well guess you know the rest ... yes, there is a great amount of eighth commandment violation ... especially here, pointing out a double post seems to pale in comparison ... if indeed stating the truth is a violation of the eighth commandment ... then some may rarely be guilty of such violations.

[James S. Rustad]

   I have heard of conservative media attacking pollsters for "interfering" in the election, as if providing information was "interfering." Fox had one story attacking the "errors" of the pollsters, which began with a "they are all wrong" type lead and then it turns out that the "errors" were that they didn't properly predict the margins by which Biden won several states. It was sort of like sayng "Yeah, we lost, but you were wrong. We didn't lose by as much as you predicted!"

I have heard accusations that the polls showed Biden way ahead as a means of voter suppression - pushing Trump voters to not bother because Biden was clearly going to win.  I don't buy that.

As for still being right and just missing the margin?  Polling predicted Biden to win Wisconsin by almost the same margin Hillary was.  Biden eked out a win while Hillary did not.  Does that mean the 2020 polls are more accurate than in 2016?  I think not.

[Dan Fienen]

Perhaps the real take away from the 2016 and 2020 election is to not take the polls so seriously. For all the efforts that have gone into making polling more of an exact science, it is not. The margin of error in polling is not just a matter of statistical analysis of the polling data and ensuring a broad enough and random enough sampling.  Polling relies on those polled giving truthful answers. It is not unlikely that in a highly charged atmosphere such as surrounded these elections, when to support or vote for one candidate has been widely condemned as being not only unwise, but evil and despicable, for people who actually intend to vote for him to not wish to say so publicly, or even to a pollster. Polls are are also only as good as the way the questions for the polls are crafted. Bias, even unconscious bias can affect the outcome and lower the final accuracy.


I am not accusing the pollsters of lying or trying to manipulate the election. I'm just saying that polls are inherently more unreliable than has often been thought and probably cannot be made much more accurate. In the end, there is only one poll that really counts, the one taken by the ballot box, and predicting that outcome will inevitably be iffy.

[peter_speckhard]

Peter writes.."To me, classifying everyone as racist or anti-racist is scorched earth. To many on the left, that is just the fact of the matter, so they don't think they've engaged in the type of scorched earth politics they deplore when the other side thinks they have."


Who has classified "everyone" as racist?  Who are the "many on the left" who think this is "just a matter of fact." 

Please explain .... "To many on the left, that is just the fact of the matter, so they don't think they've engaged in the type of scorched earth politics they deplore when the other side thinks they have." 

Might we, for a few more days, take a deep breath and cease the divisive blame game that will not contribute to the healing our nation needs.

Marie

Marie, the issue in the conversation was stopping the scorched earth politics. I pointed out that nearly everyone agrees we should stop scorched earth politics, but few people recognize their own tactics as scorching the earth. In other words, people engage in scorched earth tactics without realizing it, then wonder why other side doesn't come together once the winner is determined. As an example, I said many people on the left insist we should not think not in terms of racist/non-racist. That is how conservatives typically think; unless I am a racist, I am not a racist. Rather, these particular progressives insist we should think in terms of anti-racist/racist. That is, unless you are an anti-racist, you are a racist. That many people on the left make this argument really isn't a disputable claim; I could link to fifty articles by fifty different people, all on the left, making this exact point. The goal of such articles is to shift the default assumption from one of non-racism unless proven otherwise to racist unless proven otherwise. You are the one disputing the point and asking for evidence. My response is simply to ask what good such evidence would do. If such evidence just moves the discussion from "I don't think such an opinion is mainstream," to "I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with such an argument," then I'm not going to waste my time. It will just be another rabbit hole. But if we agree in advance that anyone who argues that we should see America in anti-racist/racist categories instead of non-racist/racist categories is engaged in scorched earth politics, then it would potentially be fruitful to demonstrate to anyone who doubts it that it is a mainstream opinion.

[Richard Johnson]

Pr. Johnson saw my question and he answered it. The man knows his history. Most likely, he didn't see Aletheist's response, much less "misappropriated" it. Heck, I didn't see Aletheist's response. Had I done so, I would have written a note of thanks to him as well.

Thanks, Jim. Exactly right, I did not see Aletheist's response--fairly common for someone to respond to a post without scrolling ahead to see if anyone else has done so. I still hadn't seen it until I read James' outburst.

And, full disclosure, while I hope I do "know my history," actually more to the point I know how to look up things when I become curious about them. You asked an interesting question, I didn't know the answer, I looked it up.

[Jim Butler]

When was the last time that the candidate of one party was elected President while his party lost seats in the House?

2016. Trump elected president, GOP lost 6 seats.

Possibly like Biden’s misappropriation of information,  the above response was ‘misappropriated’ another forum member .....

When was the last time that the candidate of one party was elected President while his party lost seats in the House?

Four years ago--Republicans lost six House seats in 2016. However, this is the first time since 1884 that a Democrat was elected President without a Senate majority during the first two years of his term, assuming that the Republican candidate wins at least one of the two Georgia runoffs.

James, sometimes I think you look for reasons to be offended. Also, you don't need to insert yourself into every situation. If Altheist was offended, he can fight his own battles. He's been on this board a long time; he knows what to do.

Pr. Johnson saw my question and he answered it. The man knows his history. Most likely, he didn't see Aletheist's response, much less "misappropriated" it. Heck, I didn't see Aletheist's response. Had I done so, I would have written a note of thanks to him as well.

Please remember the 8th Commandment and the need to "explain everything in the kindest way." You need to delete your post and apologize for making your accusation.

But then you are not aware of the rest of the story ... the prejudicial censoring censoring of some members posts... not necessarily mine ... while the garbage of others remains ... becomes intolerable at times.

Perhaps you have missed Rev Johnson’s snippy comments in the past ... had I done as he did, ... well guess you know the rest ... yes, there is a great amount of eighth commandment violation ... especially here, pointing out a double post seems to pale in comparison ... if indeed stating the truth is a violation of the eighth commandment ... then some may rarely be guilty of such violations.

I served as moderator for the e-mail list "LTHRN-L" for many years. One of the things that always frustrated me is when I'd deal with someone on the list about some sort of bad behavior and s/he would inevitably start pointing to the bad behavior of others, usually the person with whom s/he was having the dispute.

Simply put, I am not talking about other posts. I am not talking about the errors of others.  I am talking about this one.

Why can't you simply say, "Pr. Johnson, I wrongly accused you of stealing someone else's post. I withdraw the comment and ask you to forgive me"? No one is perfect. Owning our errors, confessing them, and asking forgiveness is always proper. My experience has been that doing so gets me a ton of respect in the eyes of others.

As for any censorship on the part of the moderators, I'll respond to you the same way I have Charles Austin: It's their playground. If you don't like their rules or how they are enforced, go start your own discussion group. I don't always agree with the moderators' decisions, but they are the ones authorized to make those calls. As someone who served as a moderator of a discussion group for several years, I can tell you it's not a lot of fun. There are a lot of judgment calls and people are rarely pleased by them. I may agree with their decision; I may disagree. Usually, I'm just glad I don't have to make the call.

I ask you again to withdraw the comment and apologize for it. It's a small thing, but an important one.

[Dan Fienen]

Life isn't always fair and moderators aren't always fair. I find it somewhat sad to realize that it seems from my observation that those who complain the most about how unfair the moderators were to them are also the ones about whom other posters complain the most. Charles and James, when they are not complaining about each other, complain that the moderators aren't fair to them.


It has taken me far too long to realize that this forum is much more interesting when we discuss theological issues, the passing scene, or even politics, church or state, than when we discuss the personal failings of other posters. Of course I also find it tiresome that on the national scene it seems that far too often what people say is dismissed because they are, of course, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, misogynistic, and the like rather than explaining why what they say is all that.

[Charles Austin]

I do not believe I have ever complained that the moderators have been unfair to me. Some posters, yes, but not the moderators.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Last night Biden took to the podium to make a statement, coming short of claiming victory, but noting that their path to the White House appears certain.  But what concerns me was that in his statement he claimed that in this anticipated victory, which we all know is by razor thing margins in battle ground states, is a "mandate for action."  Biden claimed that those who voted for him have "given us a mandate for action on COVID, the economy, on climate change and systemic racism." Yet in the same breath he claims that he needs to heal the nation and press for unity. 

With Democrats projected to lose seats in the house, not gain them, I'm wondering if that shouldn't temper this "mandate" just a bit. If other Republican gains throughout the country in more local, state-level races also should give him a moment of pause before he sets off on a certain "mandate." Some of the very things that divided those who voted in this election are still on the table, but Biden proposes to have a mandate to push through an agenda he had all along. That will not unify or heal.  It will exacerbate the divide.

Obviously he doesn't tell us just what this perceived "mandate" will empower him to do once he is in the White House.  Pelosi is already celebrating his win and what that means.  Yet all around them is the evidence not of a "blue wave" endorsing their agenda, but unexpected projected losses. And a presidential election that was anything but a landslide, but is coming down to painstaking vote-by-vote counting with some questions remaining as to irregularities there as well. 

I hope he walks back the "mandate" talk.  It's not going to pull folks across the aisle to work with him in happy unity.     

For many of us "action on COVID, the economy, on climate change, and systemic racism" is not a Democratic issue, but a global one. Until specific actions are presented and congress can back (or deny) them; I think actions on these issues is a global necessity for the future of life on this planet.