Can you just hold up a while, there, hoss, while I run out and grab a quick law degree? Trump University got a law school yet? Then maybe I can get fries with it.
I know how important it is to you to have a fair argument, otherwise it might look as though you want the game to be played according to rules and values that give you every advantage.
“Hey, 'luc, how about a quick game of case law!?”
“Ah, no, Counselor, not very good at that…”
“Yeah, I know!”
(post shortened)
How’s that law degree coming? Start any grease fires, yet? 
But seriously, you don’t need a law degree in order to clarify your position. And that’s all you’ve been asked to do.
Expecting people to leave their degrees, and a lifetime of experience, at the door just so you can participate at a level where you “feel” comfortable is kinda silly. And I mean that in the nicest way possible.
You cannot reduce your arguments because you have none.
Slee
Ooh. Snap.
While it doesn’t make me happy to say so, arguing about whether Trump has a “mandate” is spin. Can’t be resolved factually. As rules-bound conservatives point out, it’s a concept with no legal weight, and rules-bound conservatives will dispute its ethical weight, since it’s not defined by the rules, “we’re a republic not a democracy,” etc. QE (to some people) D.
Sadly, our current political system doesn’t penalize elected officials who win with a minority - or, as in this case, a smaller plurality than another candidate. (A reason for small-d democrats to think about how to kill the Electoral College, and fight for some form of proportional representation in the legislature, IMO. Regardless of partisan identity.)
On the other hand, an elected official who wins in such a manner should, if they respect small-d democratic ideas like “one person, one vote” and “representatives of the people should represent the people,” keep the votes of the people in mind.
Trump almost certainly won’t - as GWB didn’t - and that’s his prerogative. Arguing about how he should respect his lack of popular mandate is likely futile in terms of affecting his behavior. (Though with an insecure narcissist, appeals to popular opinion might work? Naw, he’s got plenty of Twitter followers and rally crowds. Those critics probably voted illegally. Never mind.)
But I think it is both useful and ethically correct to use such arguments as partial evidence in explaining why Trump’s opponents are opposing him and his actions.
If you want a more small-d democratic government, then shout from the rooftops about how Trump was elected undemocratically! When Trump proposes something (or does something) you think is not just wrong but also unpopular, use his demonstrated unpopularity - the popular vote in 2016 - to bolster your argument! Don’t feel ashamed. You are correct. Not only did most Americans vote for someone else, more Americans voted for Clinton than for him.
But don’t expect to convince him, his backers, or the rules-bound conservatives who use “dem’s da rules, sorry!” as an argument to defend his right to fuck things up. They don’t care about “mandates.”
There’s no spin at all, moreover it can be resolved definitely and empirically.
There will be an official declaration of the US election result soon. There’ll be a tally of votes to support that declaration and that’s the guy who has the mandate. For whatever it’s worth.
Can you advise any current political system (or past for that matter) which restricts the the power & trappings of the office to a duly elected official because they didn’t poll a majority?
“I’m sorry Sir, but because you didn’t win 50% of the popular vote we can’t give you the keys to the executive washroom, nor the nuclear codes for that matter. You are allowed to potter around the rose garden with VIPs, though. So sorry, better luck in four years time, eh?”
I’m obviously a befuddled old geezer but I thought I had the prerogative to protest against government actions whenever I think they are wrong, even if they are actually correct, regardless of whether the popularity.
His right to fuck things up is independent on having either a mandate or winning a majority. Any reading of a polisci textbook will give you examples of leaders elected with thumping majorities, who in implementing key and popular elements of their policy platforms found doing so fucked things up, and spectacularly so.
Re: the thread title, I think the popular vote does matter a bit to Trump or else he wouldn’t be claiming that he actually won it.
Re: mandates. Trump certainly should not say he has a mandate. Words are used to communicate. If everyone who wins the presidency has a mandate then there is no need to say he has a mandate. On the other hand, if not everyone who wins the presidency has a mandate, then I can’t think of a better reason to not have a mandate than not winning a plurality of the popular vote.
(underline added)
The Democrats claimed Hillary won the not-required-to-be-President popular vote, while Team Trump was busy trying to staff his cabinet. Trump undermined the Democrats claim by suggesting that it’s the illegal alien vote which gave Hillary a higher popular vote count. Then the Democrats, and the LSM, collective heads exploded.
Meanwhile, Team Trump continues to staff his cabinet in relative peace.
Good communication requires the use of words. It’s not based on requests NOT to use words. It doesn’t matter if anyone claims they have a mandate. What’s important is that Hillary does NOT have a mandate. Or a chance to select a Supreme Court Justice.
Four years from now, most Americans are going to judge Trump’s presidency by how they feel about their own lives-- are the safer, are the better off economical, etc. The only people who are going to care about whether he had a mandate to do anything are the folks who would never vote for him anyway.
Your wording suggest that you think that is what is going to happen, that Trump’s presidency is going to be so gosh-darn wonderful that “…The only people who are going to care about whether he had a mandate to do anything are the folks who would never vote for him anyway.”
Is that really what you wanted to say? Rather thought you were one of “those people”. Have you had your “come to Donald” moment and repented your sinful ways?
If Joe Trump Supporter feels like he got the raw of the deal 4 years from now, do you think he’s going to say: He shouldn’t have done all that shit without a mandate!
Y’ain’t wrong:
“The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.” - Donald Trump, 2012
“The Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play. Campaigning is much different!” - Donald Trump, 2016
Should Trump be worried? I think not. The popular vote is skewed because of highly populous states. Clinton had a 4,269,978 vote lead in California over Trump, according to Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. There have been mentions of California to secede from the state, by doing so, it would harm democrats in the union even more because if we subtract California, then Trump would have won the Popular vote.