I think it’s too early to call this one, but it looks like Biden has probably won.
Whoever wins, they will claim a mandate to do something or other.
What mandate do you think they have?
If Biden has won, I think the only real mandate he has is to not be Donald Trump.
If Trump has won, I think the lesson from his weak showing is to dial back his Trumpiness — which is something he probably can’t do.
Beyond that, I don’t think either candidate can claim any substantive mandate. This election was about Donald Trump and nothing else.
Trump already had a mandate to dial back on his Trumpiness and just couldn’t do it, though he did make a feeble effort to do so a couple of times. Biden will almost certainly win. Not being Trumpy is already in his nature. Beyond that, his initial tasks will be to be more effective in dealing with the pandemic and to get the economy going again. As far as I am concerned, just getting back to humdrum politics will be a breath of fresh air after smelling this horrible burnt toast.
Since there is no mandate, and the nation is clearly divided along red/blue lines, the obvious course of action now would be to peacefully split the US into two (or more) independent countries. This would reduce tensions and enable each country to live as they wish without interference from the other.
There is no geographical dividing line between the two Americas. Impossible to divide it. The pro-Trumpers will be shrill for some time, but that shrillness will fade away.
Robin is correct. The division is not geographically mappable.
Frankly, I wouldn’t wanna live in either one of those hypothetical countries. I have lived in both solidly red and solidly blue environments and found both horrible. In fact, I think that is very much what Hell Itself would look like: one side red and one side blue.
Exact geographic separation would not be necessary for my proposal to work: If a state that is 90% blue seceded, it would become a state where 90% of the people like the government they have. This would be a larger percentage than the roughly 50% agreement in our current monolithic nation. The remaining 10% who didn’t like it could probably emigrate to a red state nearby.
There are probably only two states that are 90% blue. Every other state has a significantly narrower margin between red and blue. I doubt California and Hawaii would make a really viable country.
The geographical divisions, such as they exist, are between the urban and less urban areas. I can’t see how a patchwork or county-by-county breakup of a country is at all viable.
Wow, some people are triggered. Lose a presidential election and you want to secede? You know, people don’t believe it when I say the modern Republican party is the old Democratic party…but here you go.
We’re supposed to split because??? All the states are split red / blue. some have even parity almost, and others are maybe 65% majority of one party or the other. Have people making these proposals even put two thoughts together?
California if it was its own country would be the 7th largest economy in the world. Where would you move USMC boot camp? My dad had it at Camp Pendleton in California. What would you do with the Long Beach ship yards? WTF would you do with the Pacific fleet? Where would imports from Asia be imported? How much fruits and vegetables eaten in the rest of the country are grown in California? Nevada and New Mexico went blue in the election. Are you prepared to cede control of the black bases in Nevada and NM? And to give up the nuclear weapons labs and test sites and storage? Have you even put two brain cells together thinking about this?
Should we talk about the east coast? How about New York, or specifically NYC? Where are your investments held and traded for your 401k? Wall Street? Remind me where Wall Street is? Where do imports from Europe come? NYC? Newark? Baltimore? Virginia went for Biden… So, what do you want to do with the naval shipyards in Virginia?
So for some of you, 2020 is the new 1860?
I don’t think there should be a split over our current divisions, and I don’t see how it would work.
However, it reminds me of a conversation I had a while ago about the idea of borderless nations. The idea would be that your political allegiance would not be tied to where you lived.
To some extent we have that in effect right now with diplomats. They live in a country, but aren’t entirely subject to the laws of that country.
It would be interesting to try to work on that concept and see how far it could be taken. There would have to be some things that are geographical. You can’t have Brits driving on the left hand side of the road when they’re in the states, for example. But it might be possible for some services and laws to only apply based on your chosen political allegiance.
So, if you need cops, you call ? A private security firm? Because that’s what it would be, right? You call the blue police or red police? Fire or paramedics…call the one your tax dollars are going to.
Bill Maher had a great monologue Friday…at least parts of it. He talked about Gwen Stefani and Blake Shelton…opposites politically. They are a couple. They don’t let that define them or define the other person. Are we more than who we vote for? What about Carville and Matalin? They’ve been together more than 20 years now. Maybe more, idk.
I don’t know how it all would work, and I’m certainly not advocating it, but I think there are existing models that can give us an idea how it might work.
For example, cops have to deal with the fact that someone driving in their state is licensed in another. I suppose there are even cases where different rules apply — e.g., whether you have to have a license plate on the front and back of the car.
There are different rules for people in different circumstances — e.g., when you’re fishing on the shore vs. fishing on a boat vs. fishing on a charter boat.
Anyway, I just think it would be a fun concept to pursue.
About those mixed couples, I find them very interesting as well. I don’t know how they do it. I could see it working if they disagree politically but aren’t really all that political. But I can’t imagine how Carville and Matalin do it. I’m very glad they’re able to, but … it seems so weird to me.
QUOTE: But I can’t imagine how Carville and Matalin do it. I’m very glad they’re able to, but … it seems so weird to me.
They and couples like them have something more fundamental that keeps them committed to the union, despite political differences. I liken it to the gender differences between men and women. Despite their differences, they find value in developing enduring relationships and building families that create the core of society. So, in this context, it’s a rather normative thing to find a partner and work through those differences so that a greater benefit can be obtained.
Once upon a time, I thought the “ideals” the US was founded on was the fundamental glue that held it together, despite differences. In fact, it seemed differences was an intentional characteristic desired by the founders…creating a system of government that facilitated differences in hopes of generating a synergistic effect that would propel the country towards those unifying founding ideals and create a more perfect union. Yet, it seems currently that tribalism is of greater value than achieving those unifying founding ideals. Instead of working through the differences, it’s now more desirable to view the opposing party as the enemy because they stand in the way of obtaining the “tribe’s” ideals instead of the “country’s” ideals.
This makes me wonder if, at some point, this sentiment will be a catalyst for giving serious consideration to splitting the country. After all, we are already seriously divided ideologically. Would the next step be working through the mechanics of doing some type of governmental and geographical split? Time will tell.
Question… Did you say this 4 years ago? Biden’s win is bigger than Trump’s 4 years ago. Did you think Trump didn’t have a mandate because of a narrow win? Or, was he your guy and “elections have consequences”? I can’t remember one conservative saying Trump didn’t have a mandate because of his narrow win and popular vote loss. But, now Biden loses, and he has no mandate? (And of course, 4 years ago Dems said Trump had no mandate.)
Of course, it’s America and people we’re allowed to be hypocritical. And, we’re allowed to want the policies enacted that we believe in and to want the defeat of those we disagree with.
The basic political fact is that if you don’t follow through or don’t try to follow through on your promises, then you stand a good chance of losing the support of those who elected you.
I honestly don’t remember what I said four years ago, but there are a few things to note.
1. Republicans won the House, Senate and White House in 2016. That says “mandate” more than what happened in 2020.
2. Trump’s victory was obvious the day of the election without recounts or questions. That’s not quite true in this case.
3. On the other hand, Biden got a record number of votes, but that was more a function of turnout than anything else. People were (apparently) very motivated — not to elect Biden, but to get rid of Trump.
Simply winning provides some level of mandate, I suppose. But with Republicans increasing their seats in the House, and probably holding on to the Senate, it’s a much more mixed message for Biden.
3a. Trump got the second-most votes ever, more than anyone who has ever won other than Biden. I’m not claiming any particular significance, it’s just sort of notable.
Of course, everyone (democrat or republican) thinks they have a mandate if they win the WH, even if the popular vote says otherwise. IMO, this red/blue acrimony is nothing new. For the last 20 years at least, there has been a bitter 50/50 red blue divide rearing its ugly head in every close presidential race (Bush-Gore 2000, Trump-Clinton 2016, Trump-Biden 2020). The red-blue acrimony did not manifest itself in the other, fairly lopsided, elections. For example, Obama easily defeated McCain and then Romney. Why? Obama is a good speaker, charismatic, and, though left-of-center, comparatively moderate, whereas McCain and Romney were blase non-entities that even many Republicans despised.
McCain is the only Republican I could not hold my nose and vote for. I voted for some 3rd party candidate that year.
I have a redneck cousin who characterizes Democrats as hippies. It all sort of goes back to “hippies vs. rednecks,” doesn’t it? I always found both of those tribes highly problematic. Lord, have mercy on us outliers!