What do you do with 50% against you?

[David B]

OK, you've just been elected president in the most controversial election ever. Almost 50% of the country didn't want you in office. The Senate is split almost straight down the middle. The House isn't much better.

What do you do?

How do you handle this position?

What happens when you can't pass the legislation you promised because there is no way Congress will go along with you (which will be true no matter which one wins -- too many moderates who could flip votes in many cases)? What happens when you can't give things to the groups you made promises to?

[jmullaney]

Well, it is a good thing G.W. has 5 1/2 years of dealing with this exact same problem in Texas. He has promised to get both sides of the aisle together to work for the good of the American people. Of course, if Gore by some sleight of hand maganges to become president, what is wrong with 4 years of gridlock? The president still will have sway over foriegn affairs in any case. And either man will have a good excuse as to why he won't be able to keep his promises in full until the American people figure out what the heck they want in 2002 and put a more unified congress together.

[David B]

He has promised to get both sides of the aisle together to work for the good of the American people.Both of them have promised a lot more than they can actually deliver. He may try, but that's no guarantee he'll succeed. In fact, I think things will get more partisan before they get less. There's blood in the water and the sharks are approaching.
Of course, if Gore by some sleight of hand maganges to become president, what is wrong with 4 years of gridlock?As far as I'm concerned, nothing. In fact, I'm all for it.
either man will have a good excuse as to why he won't be able to keep his promises in full until the American people figure out what the heck they want in 2002 and put a more unified congress together.Yeah, but excuses generally don't cut it with the electorate. They made promises, and a few people will actually remember it. Yes, they both made promises that they shouldn't have made, but, hey, that's their problem.

What I'm really looking for is how either should handle the situation, or how you would in such an instance.

[jmullaney]

Originally posted by David B
What I'm really looking for is how either should handle the situation, or how you would in such an instance.
Well, Clinton's approach of vetoing every bill he didn't like and blaming Congress for government shutdowns and the like worked rather well. And if I reluctantly had to pass something like "welfare reform" I'd take full credit for my brilliant idea. I'd play hard ball to see at least the 50% who wanted me elected might be please and the rest can see I at least am going to try things done, no matter how much that evil congress tries to stop me. The rod and staff approach has always worked for sucessful leaders. Speak softly, but carry a big stick.

[kanicbird]

IIRC Clinton got about 45% of the pop. vote, and see all the trouble he was able to caused.

(I think it was 45% but know that is was a smaller % then G.W.B.)

[John Doughboy]

If I were Gore, I'd avoid all that trouble by just conceding. That way, Shrub will have four years to make an ass out of himself, and thereby make me look like a pretty good alternative. Every time he makes a decision, there'll be a team of reporters asking me what I would've done, seeing as how I'm the guy who almost made it. And if Bush makes a mistake, people will remember it. And they'll remember that they could've had me for president. And they'll remember that things could've been different. Shrub would have plenty of chances to make himself look bad, and I'll have plenty of chances to stand by and look comparitively good (shouldn't be hard). And I can't screw up if I'm not in office. After a while, people will start to remember me differently. People will start to aggrandize me. And aggrandize the Democrats.

Fast forward four years, and I bet you'd find a Democratic majority in all three houses...

[John Doughboy]

Clinton got about 45% of the pop. vote, and see all the trouble he was able to caused.
Perhaps this is inviting a hijack, but exactly what trouble did he cause?

[jmullaney]

Oh sure, and then Gore can be Hillary's VP for four years. I'm sure he is looking forward to that.

Mel Carnahan for Prez in 2004!

[Measure for Measure]

You find the most centrist members of the opposing party (or the most cooperative) and let them dictate terms.

Well not quite, but as I contended in another post, there seems to be bipartisan support for prescription drug benefits, increasing surpluses (via continued "gridlock"??) and maybe even social security reform (via yet another blue ribbon panel). Estate tax reform, if not abolishment, also has some support.

Appointing a few members of the other party to certain cabinet positions wouldn't be a bad idea either.

The groups you made promises to will have to settle for leverage with regards to your executive orders and judicial nominations.

[Omar Little]

Originally posted by John Doughboy
Clinton got about 45% of the pop. vote, and see all the trouble he was able to caused.
Perhaps this is inviting a hijack, but exactly what trouble did he cause?

He let the first lady take the lead on a major policy issue (health care) which flamed out.

He brought most of his yeh-hoo buddies from Arkansas to serve in his cabinet, with most of being dismissed or being convicted of some felony or misdameanor.

He or his staff violated most campaign fundraising laws.

He let a white-house aid take the lead on him which flamed out.

He brain-washed his V.P. into becoming just like him.

That's enough trouble for two terms! :)

[Freyr]

It's said that politics is the art of compromise...

I'd be willing to bend on a few issuses if Dubya does the same. He gets his tax cut and I get ENDA (Employment Non-Discrimination Act) passed. Seems fair enough to me.

[PunditLisa]

David, as a non-Christian in a Christian majority country, you seem the perfect person to answer this.

See? You DO have something in common with W.

[beagledave]

The talking heads are suggesting that either Dubya or Gore will have to appoint a significant number of opposing party members to his cabinet...of course that is the "conventional wisdom", and I gave up on the CW about 8pm election night..

[hansel]

Originally posted by David B
What do you do?


Line the interns up at the door to the Oval Office and give them all a toothbrush.
Fuck with the secret service by grabbing my chest and shrieking "Ack! I've been shot!" Twice a day, at least.
Make prank phone calls from the Oval Office.
Send legislation to Congress demanding that, for the remainder of my term, I be referred to as "the boy-king".
Nail Tipper in every room of the White House, on every piece of furniture (note: this is my fantasy, not Gore's).
Give my mom loads and loads of White House stationary, towels, and bathrobes.
Redecorate, redecorate, redecorate!

[Captain Amazing]

You do a lot of non-controversial things to build up your support, hope for a foreign policy crisis you're able to handle well, and go around saying, "See! I'm not going to [sniff coke in the Oval Office OR sell the Lincoln Bedroom to the Chinese] and hope you can win reelection in 2004.

[headshok]

1) Don't gloat about the "victory", or blast the other side for trying to steal the election or subvert the will of the people.

2) Be as bipartisan as you possibly can without betraying the fundamental beliefs of your party. This could mean appointing moderates from both parties to cabinet posts or judgeships, letting some of them head a few congressional committees, etc.

3) Focus on legislation that has a realistic chance of passing Congress in the next couple of years. This means, IMO, that increased defense spending and a limited tax cut are in, school vouchers, strict gun control, and privatization of social security are out. You might want to appoint bipartisan panels/commissions to discuss some of the more controversial proposals before you try to fashion any legislation out of them.

4) Float some proposals that will never make it through Congress but have widespread popular support (campaign finance reform, amending the electoral system). Nothing too specific or extreme; remember, you're looking for a moral victory here, not a legislative one.

5a) Pray that the Middle East thing fixes itself somehow. Also, pray that Indians and Pakistanis don't nuke each other, the Chinese don't try to take Taiwan, and that North Korea doesn't cross the DMZ.
5b) Drop some bombs on Saddam when you get the chance.

6) Whatever you do, do not, under any circumstances, sell arms to Iran or have sex with an intern.

7) Take naps. Lots of naps. You'll need them.

[tracer]

headshok wrote:

6) Whatever you do, do not, under any circumstances, sell arms to Iran or have sex with an intern.

No?! Aw, c'mon. What's the point of being President of the whole darn United States if you can't have sex with an intern?

[ren]

Given a Republican majority in both the House and Senate, I'd gather that Dubya would be able to get by acting in a more partisan manner than Gore would.

I agree, too, that there are advantages for Gore in conceding and then nipping at Bush's heels every time he makes the slightest mistake, especially since Gore's own behavior during the interm would not receive equal scrutiny.

If, however, Dubya plays it cool, actually does try and be fairly bipartisan (which, given his personality, I doubt he can manage) and the economic situation is still pretty good in 4 years, he may actually get a mandate for re-election.

I also don't believe that, once Bush is in office, he'll act in a bipartisan manner because, given that this is the first time the White house and both houses of Congress are Republican-controlled in quite some time, I don't see how they're going to be able to resist going to town.

[Sam Stone]

Gore will have a much tougher time of it than Bush, given the Republican control of the House and possible control of the Senate.

But I think we're overestimating the effect of all of this. Clinton got fewer popular votes than either of these guys. You've had presidents that had to deal with a Senate and Congress controlled by the other party. Stuff managed to get done.

John Kennedy won the popular vote by only 100,000 votes, amidst many accusations of vote fixing. But he seemed to have a pretty strong mandate.

The way I see it, all presidents get some sort of honeymoon period. How they act during that period often determines how much support they'll get in the next four years. Clinton blew it by going after some extremely liberal issues (National Health Care, Gays in the Military, appointing a few radical people to cabinet positions) which burned up all his political capital.

[wring]

actually, I think with the expected make up of Congress, Bush would have a much easier time getting things passed. I don't think for a moment that the Republicans, given their first chance in years to control (virtually) the Presidency, and both houses, would pass up the opportunity to pass, and quickly, the cornerstones (or what they percieve) of their platform. I'd see light speed passing of bills re: abortion and estate taxes, welfare reform etc. I doubt that much would happen re: medicare or prescription drugs or SS. Certainly nothing would happen with raising the minimum wage or job assistance.

With Gore in office, I would expect 4 years of almost nothing passing without threat of veto.

I hope that whoever lands there will understand that a majority of the population DIDN'T want him there. But I fear that the power of living at that address will preclude that.

[VileOrb]

I would pick the issues with the most bipartisan support and concentrate on getting action there. I'm mostly in favor of gridlock for a while, I think were doing pretty well and I would like to let it ride for a while to see what happens. However, I don't see anything wrong with moving forward with issues that are supported by a great majority. Surely there are some. I think there's general support for something new in the education plan, for example. There is not any agreement on exactly what programs should be supported, but at least there is an agreement that people want to improve our educational system. That could be an issue where the two sides could possibly be brought together.

[capacitor]

Think the Democrats will roll over? Any bad bill that comes up, and they will filibuster, for two whole years if necessary.

[Punoqllads]

Originally posted by ren
Given a Republican majority in both the House and Senate, I'd gather that Dubya would be able to get by acting in a more partisan manner than Gore would.


If Bush does win, and plays the partisan game too much, you'll see the exact reverse of 1994 in Congress at the next election. And if the Republicans try to pass anything too bad, the Democrats in the Senate will probably filibuster 'til it dies. Not to say that Bush won't play full-contact partisan politics, just that he'd be stupid to do so. No cheap shot intended. Well, maybe a little.

If Gore wins, he'll try to be a clone of Clinton. Try to look moderate, berate the Repulicans for anything their far right wing does, and keep the Democrats' far left wing quiet, tossing them the occasional bone. If Bush did the mirror image, he might be able to retain the Republican majority in Congress in 2002.