NRA still has sway in Democratic controlled Congress

The National Rife Association, with approximately four million members, is beginning to flex its political muscle with the Democrats in control of both Congress and the Executive. The NRA threatened to show its influence when the measure to give Washington, D.C. a full-voting representative in the House passed in the lower chamber of Congress. Suddenly, the bill was stalled in the Senate.

"The National Rifle Association's lobbyists made it clear to lawmakers that they believed the bill should include a measure to overturn the capital's gun control laws. Left mostly unsaid, but well understood by all 535 members of the House and Senate, was that failure to do so would unleash a barrage of political pain on resisters."

The NRA's political action committee spent $15.6 million in the last two election cycles, donating money to candidates who are "pro-gun" and more to the challengers of others who oppose them.

With the NRA readying itself for a battle against those in Congress who oppose them (regarding lifting the gun control laws in DC):

1. Do you think this is a situation meant for compromise? Is public safety going to take a back seat to politics?
2. Do you feel this is the perfect situation for the two parties to fully distinguish themselves from one another (the need for a clear divide and definition of what each party represents/stands for)?
3. Can Democrats maintain their majority status while taking on such a controversial issue? Would taking a "Democrats are for certain gun restrictions" stance damage the party, or make them look stronger?

Obama and the Impossible Mandate

Did Barack Obama earn an electoral "mandate" through his overwhelming victory in 2008? To determine whether or not, we must understand that "mandate" is a rather relative term. What would define a "mandate?" Simply winning an election does not give authority to dictate terms to a heterogeneous America, nor decentralized political parties. Other considerations must be examined, such as political climate, and recent electoral trends.

To decide whether or not Obama has/had an electoral mandate, we would need a similar situation from past events to compare it to. One such is the 1984 reelection by Ronald Reagan over his Democratic challenger Walter Mondale. Reagan won handily, garnering 49 of 50 states, minus Minnesota and Washington, D.C. Simply looking at the electoral map, one would think that such a victory would result in Reagan having a political "mandate." However, he was reelected with 58.8% of the popular vote, not breaking the 60% threshold that "in a close election a vote split as large as 60-40 would be understood as very large, but the disadvantaged party nonetheless would be supported by a very large minority of that group." In other words, simply winning an election, even on a national level, does not result in absolute support for either your platform, nor your party.

Barack Obama won the general election with 52.9% of the popular vote. Again, by looking at the electoral map and counting 365 out of a possible 538 electoral votes may seem like a hefty victory. But Obama's victory goes much further than him merely winning the presidency. Taking into account electoral trends that began to shift in 2006, we have witnessed changes not only in presidential politics, but in congressional and gubernatorial respects as well.

The 2008 election (and the 2006 mid-terms which preceded it) was more of a social change relating to the type of policies that the general population would desire, as opposed to the policies that had led the country for the eight years prior. While Ronald Reagan enjoyed his electoral victory, he still found the House of Representatives in control of the Democrats. Barack Obama, on the other hand, had Congressional control in both the House and Senate shift to his party in 2006, and earned heavier gains by down-ticket voting during his election in 2008. This was due to the electorate having both frustrations and anxieties over many issues that had surmounted in the previous six years, mainly revolving around the war in Iraq (and the policies therein) along with a litany of scandals involving Republicans (ex: Tom DeLay).

What was seen in both the 2006/2008 elections was a "mandate" not just for President Obama, but for Congress as well. This can be argued by the newly formed "blue states" such as Virginia. Once a Republican stronghold, Virginia now has a Democratic governor, two Democratic Senators, and the majority of the Congressional delegation. It symbolizes a political shift that counters the "we live in a center-right country" argument. Control of Congress (at least in the House) is overwhelming, and the Democrats' power has already been exercised. The Senate, while having 58 seated (emphasizing "seated" pending Minnesota) Democrats, encounters more problems exercising its power due to the Senate being a more moderate chamber (due to its members being elected "at-large" and having to appeal to massive constituencies). But nonetheless, the shift in power to the Democratic party has been renowned. Pending their policies take shape and are received positively by the electorate, they could be poised for even further gains in both Congress and in the number of Governorships they possess.

Does Barack Obama have an electoral mandate? Yes. Not due solely to his election, but with other political considerations taken into account, including the shift in political ideologies felt across the nation.

Since he has this "mandate," what does it mean and how does he exercise it? Simply put, not much. The term "mandate" is similar to "political capital" in that it is up to the individual to determine what exactly that means. It can be easily seen that the American people were desperate for a difference in the politics they had experienced from 2001-2009, and Barack Obama is obligated to take action. By being elected, the people chose him as the person whose ideologies best matched their own. But there is a great amount of difficulty in exercising this "mandate" which he seemed to earn. Decentralized parties, such as his own, are forced to make concessions on policy objectives. Members have formed splinter groups such as The New Democrats Coalition and Blue Dog Democrats who are more moderate or fiscally conservative. There is nothing that can be done by President Obama to make members of his own party vote a certain way. Of course, he can "go public" and hope that the American people push their respective representatives to vote a certain way. But many of these representatives who belong to such groups come from "purple states" where their reelection will be dependent on garnering the support of independents and some conservatives.

Barack Obama finds himself in a grey area, where although his party controls both chambers of Congress, he is encountering opposition from his own party that may hinder his legislative agenda. The electorate will not remember what Obama wanted to  do, but what he got done. Even though he will try to use his political "mandate" to push for reforms, it has yet to be seen whether or not he is capable of centralizing his own party under his leadership.

Exit Polling and Collective Conclusions

On November 4th, 2008, more than 125 million people went to the polls to perform their civic duty and cast their vote for President of the United States. Unlike elections over the past few decades, there was an unpresedented number of new voters that went to the polls to decide whether John McCain, the Republican candidate and Senator from Arizona, or Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate and Senator from Illinois, would be the right choice to lead our country through this nation’s most trying time in more than 60 years. 

Barack Obama won the historic election by a margin of 53%-46%, and more than 8 million votes (NBC). Winning the popular vote seemed to be easy, due to the surge of African American voters and the overall larger ratio of registered Democrats to Republicans. But as we had seen in the election of 2000, the popular vote, in the end, is not the most important factor in claiming victory. The Electoral College, the system of allocating electors awarded for a state’s overall victory, takes a Constitutional priority over the popular vote. How did Senator Obama manage to pull off such a wide margin of victory, winning the Electoral College 365-173, where only 270 Electoral votes are needed? Part of this key to victory revolved around the Latino population in several key “swing states.” Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and Florida (one of the most coveted states to win by either side) were all won by Barack Obama with the help of Latino voters that went to the polls, and voted for the Senator (now President) by a margin of 2-1, roughly 66%-31%, according to exit polling reported by various news agencies. For the sake of conciseness, we will only examine Colorado and Florida for this example.

The state of Colorado, the host of the 2008 Democratic Convention, was decided for Barack Obama, and its 9 Electoral votes were awarded to the Democratic candidate. By an overall margin of 54%-45%, it was roughly the same margin as seen in Nevada. However, this state has a much larger population, and voters cast their votes which resulted in 1,216,793 for Obama and 1,020,135 for McCain. This was an overall margin of victory equal to approximately (just under) 197,000 votes. How did the Latino population come into play in a state like Colorado? According to NBC news exit polling, Latinos made up about 13% of the overall voters in the state, or roughly 291,000 Latino voters. Of the Latinos who voted, the broke 61%-38% for Barack Obama. This translates into 177,000 Latino votes cast for Barack Obama in a state that was decided by approximately 197,000. In other words, had all the Latinos who voted for Barack Obama stayed home on election day, and only those who voted for John McCain cast their ballot, the state would have been decided by only 20,000. 

Again seeing the trend of a deepening victory on behalf of the Democratic candidate due to the Latino population shows how viable their vote is in such elections. In a state such as Colorado, which voted for George W. Bush in both 2000 and 2004, we see a new trend developing that is beginning to reshape electoal politics and presidential campaigning as we know it. Colorado, which is one of the Western states that had been targeted by both Democrats and Republicans, is one of the key indicators that both issues politics and identity politics have catalyzed the electorate, and such issues as comprehensive immigration reform have a major impact on for whom the voters will pull the lever.

The state of Florida has been one of the most contended states in presidential politics in the last decade, and with 27 Electoral votes, it holds the key to victory in any presidential election. Having been contended in 2000 (going to George W. Bush) and being the cause of the “hanging chad” debacle, this time around it was decided in favor of the Democratic candidate Barack Obama by a margin of 51%-48%. A small margin than most states, but carrying a much heavier population and overall turnout. For Obama, 4,143,957 votes and for McCain, 3,939,380, resulting in about a 205,000 vote victory. How did the Latino vote come into play in a state like Florida? According to NBC News exit polling, 14% of the electorate in Florida were Latinos (approximately just over 1 million of the roughly 8 million votes cast in the state.) This, however, yielded a smaller margin amongst Latinos, where Barack Obama won their support by a margin of 57%-42%. This translates into a little over 600,000 votes for Obama and around 400,000 for McCain. In other words, the 200,000 vote overall margin of victory was decided by the Latino population. Had every Latino remained home on election day and opted not to vote, the state would have been virtually tied, resulting in yet another Florida recount as seen in 2000. 

This is a fascinating fact, and should be greatly appreciated. One of the most populous states in our country, carrying one of the biggest prizes in electoral politics can be declared “a victory thanks to the Latino population.” Other states that had been reviewed had major influence by the Latino population and should not be overlooked. However, in the realm of presidential elections, this is a major feat. Both in 2000 and 2004, the election would have “gone the other way” (the loser actually winning) had only Florida been decided differently. Florida has a unique population, and even though it is in the Southern region of the United States, it is in no way a true “Southern” state. It consists of a transient population, where many retirees reside coming from all across the nation, an influx of younger people seeking the benefits of the cities of Miami and Orlando, and most of all, a heavy Latino population due to Cuban immigrants. When looking at what counties were carried heavily, most likely due to Cubans, we see Miami-Dade County being carried by Obama 58%42%, Broward County going to Obama 67%-32% and Palm Beach County going the same way by a margin of 62%-38%. These numbers are key to the victory on behalf of the Obama campaign, and it is obvious that the Latino population turned the state in his favor.

Obama faces internal party division

After grand support from fellow Democrats for the stimulus package, President Barack Obama now faces an uphill climb when looking down the road at his future legislative wish list.

While the stimulus package was passed with grand support from his own party, internal divisions are now poised to put a kink in the plans for health care reform, educational assistance, and a new energy policy. But how could such divisions be present after such a show of political strength less than one month ago? It is quite easy to see that many in Congress do not see these programs as being "dire," and do not associate them with the same sense of urgency as saving the economy.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said "When your house is on fire, you don't stop to think about which room to put out first. You call the fire department to put out the whole house at one. Otherwise, by the time you are done saving the living room, the rest of your house is in ashes."

This statement shows the true political/governing philosophy of the Obama administration. There is no "one solution" to fix the economy, and Obama sees many of these programs as being linked to economic and social prosperity. Some of his critics state that he is over-reaching, and has too much on his plate at once. However, laying out ambitious policy goals has never stopped a president from trying.

This will be a true test of whether the administration has power over their own party. One such example of the simmering internal division: "One proposal would overhaul the federal student loan program to guarantee yearly increases in the Pell Grant program. That idea enjoys broad Democratic support. But to pay for the Pell Grant expansion, Obama would end federal support for private lending. And one of the major corporate providers of student loans is NelNet, a company based in Lincoln, Neb., the home state of Sen. Ben Nelson, a moderate Democrat who balked at the stimulus package and teamed up with three moderate Republicans to cut $100 billion from the final bill."

With pending troubles within his own party, and facing a tough uphill climb in respect to his legislative ambitions,

1. Can President Obama demand party support for these policies? Is such an action even possible (consider using the heavy hand of the presidency as leverage)?
2. Should Democratic leaders be ready to make concessions on these proposals and pass a bill that does half the job, or hold their ground until the first version garners enough support?
3. Is there anything that House or Senate leaders can do to protect their party from harsh internal divisions?
4. Will Democrats not in favor of supporting such action realize the bigger picture, or do the job of a delegate and protect their individual constituencies first?

Rove, Miers set to testify in prosecutor firings

After many attempts with little success, former aides to George W. Bush are finally set to testify before the House Judiciary Committee under closed deposition "under the penalty of perjury." The agreement to testify stems from a scandal during the former president's second term, in which allegations arose over whether or not Rove and Miers were influential in the firing of federal prosecutors.

The prosecutors were released by the Bush administration, but the prosecutors themselves claimed they were fired for not being politically loyal to the president. Some of these very prosecutors publicly testified before congress claiming that they were told they were not investigating Democratic activity (or allegations of Democrats committing fraud), and thus, were fired.

Much time has passed since the allegations first arose, and under the orders of George W. Bush, Rove and Miers refused to testify which led to the Judiciary Committee suing for their testimony. However, a deal has been reached, and they will testify behind closed doors before the committee with the possibility of having to testify publicly. "This is a victory for the separation of powers and congressional oversight," John Conyers (a Democrat from Michigan and the current Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee) said in a statement. "It is also a vindication of the search for truth. I am determined to have it known whether U.S. attorneys in the Department of Justice were fired for political reasons, and if so, by whom."

Now that they are set to testify (privately and possibly publicly):

1. What is to happen if they are found to have been involved in the firings, and the motivation was, indeed, political?
2. If found guilty, should they face serious consequences such as prison time, or simply a large censure?
3. If they are to have been involved, and there is no chance of jail/censure, does this all revert back to being a simple fact-finding mission?
4. Is this the first in a series of steps investigating actions of the former Bush administration? Should investigations also be held regarding other possible illegal/unethical actions?

The Questionable Role of the Minority Party in Congress

Focusing on the United States Congress, the role of the minority party in a democracy comes into question. As history has shown, a healthy democracy requires more than a single party, and must allow for an array of open debate to voice support or dissent for any given policy objective.
In recent years, we have witnessed a variety of roles played by the minority party in Congress, in both the United States Senate and the House of Representatives; the minority party has always taken the role of being the active voice of disagreement.

Explaining the seemingly unending calls for bipartisanship is not an easy feat, nor does anybody know for certain why there are calls for bipartisanship in a modern Congress when one (or both) chamber is dominated by a single party. Currently, the House of Representatives is overwhelmingly in control of the Democratic Party. Consider how the House is assembled; individual districts totaling 435 members of small constituencies, rather than the "at-large" representation in the United States Senate. When on such a micro level of representation, and with the results coming much in favor of one party, some may speculate that (without using the term "mandate") this results in the American people stating they prefer one party to another. In such a case, why the calls for bipartisanship? Simply stated: because it looks good politically.

Politicians, as we have come to know and love, live in a politically hostile environment, and have to survive the never-ending "permanent campaign." Some of those serving in Congress come from unstable districts where they are forced to make concessions and appease a given group of their constituents. It is not politically viable for most members, say in the House, to be ultra-partisan and run the gauntlet on the opposition. For as much as political junkies jump at the thought of partisan rancor, the general electorate is sickened by the thought of "partisan politics getting us nowhere." And of course, we cannot blame them for their sentiments.

So what is to come of the minority party currently in Congress? There is one simple answer: sit and wait. It was only a few years ago when Karl Rove and the Republican machine had vowed they had created a "permanent Republican majority," and were certain that their power in Washington was going to last for generations. Meanwhile, the Democrats were going through the same situation as the Republicans today. They were viewed as inferior when compared to the the majority party. But the Democrats played a brilliant (if it was actually planned this way) strategy: the "wait-and-see" tactic that eventually won them back Congress in 2006. The Democrats did not present a stronger or more popular message to the people (although, unlike the current minority, they did present alternatives). They did not get swept into office because they had a better platform, nor did the Republicans get voted out because the electorate viewed their opponents as being superior. The Democrats won because the political winds shifted in their favor, and sat by and watched as the Republicans imploded.

So why do Republican House members even show up to work every day without presenting any viable policy alternatives? Because they have no leadership. The minority party is in such disarray that their platform is lost, their leadership is absent, and months after the 2008 elections, have yet to voice any ideals that the electorate is willing to hear. The political atmosphere is not in their favor, and there is nothing they can do about it, until the majority party begins to slide.

In addition, the Democrats should call the Republicans' bluff in the United States Senate. Needing 60 votes to have passed the stimulus was not necessary. Having 60 is only needed to end debate. So, the Democrats should call their bluff, bring out the cots, and let the Republicans attempt to filibuster any legislation they oppose. The GOP has close to nothing to lose, and should have no problem with letting the American people witness their stalling attempts at blocking whatever legislation the Democrats propose.

We already witnessed that the GOP is not needed in the House. The stimulus passed without a single Republican supporting the measure, and the same will continue with legislation in the future. In the Senate, the Democrats have a majority, and should let the GOP attempt to filibuster. Why would they allow them to do this? Because it would be political suicide for the GOP to stall any measures that are aimed at economic recovery, and it would fare very well for the majority party.

The role of the minority party in any democracy should be to present viable policy alternatives, present enriched debate about the issues, and hold the majority party accountable for their (if any) misactions through whatever means necessary. Just as the Democrats did throughout their minority rule, they voiced dissent for the Iraq War, criticized the sitting President, and still presented real alternative solutions under the leadership of the DNC and its party leaders.

Overall, it is a rather unique situation as we see currently. Without strong leadership and a sound message to deliver, the minority party can easily be overlooked, and their requests ignored. It is time for the Democrats to turn up the heat, as the GOP did when they had the majority under Newt Gingrich and Dennis Hastert. In politics, what goes around comes back around.