Otherwise he will run a more progressive agenda, but only center-left, not true left, only after big wins in 2010 and 2012, will he can trot out the real liberal agendas

So I think things that rein in the rampant abuses of big business will be greeted with open arms, but moves that redistribute wealth from one private taxpayer to a private non-taxpayer still feel inherently un-American. I think that Americans welcome a strategic withdrawal from Iraq, and the current plan already maps that out. But I also believe that Americans would be concerned about a “let’s talk it out” response to another attack on American soil. So Obama and the large Dem Congressional majority do need to tread carefully if they want to remain in a majority past 2010.

I agree with George that it’s not an especially useful word. Especially when we’re talking about a context where only say 3% of the people changed their minds and 97% did NOT change their minds. The swing in opinion from 2004 to 2008 is roughly equivalent to having a room of 100 people where 51 like coke and 49 like pepsi, and then 3 people change their minds. This is not a mandate or a groundswell or a resounding cry or anything like that.

It’s a little shift. Obviously the people who benefitted from the little shift should act upon it. But their actions should be based on the knowledge that it’s a little shift.

If you must call it a mandate then it can only be called a mandate for a few little shifts. And that’s what I think we’re going to get. Social security and healthcare, if reformed, will be reformed on terms favorable to democrats. We’ll see the cap raised on SS taxes, but we won’t see 70% marginal rates come back. We’ll see something closer to single-payer with more federal involvement, but we won’;t become Canada or Great Britain.

This really isn’t that hard to understand, folks. Like others here have pointed out, if Obama and the democrats modify current policies and programs in ways that go far beyond what moderate voters want and expect, he’ll be 4 and out. It’s that simple.

Every election is a mandate. Obama should do what he believes is right, what he believes he was chosen for, and allow the proper checks and balances inherent to the system to hedge his agenda where necessary.

I would agree with the thought in general, but there are varying levels of “mandate.”

Basically, I think when Bush was elected in 2000 and 2004, it was MUCH different than when Reagan was elected in 1980 and 1984.

This year, Obama definitely has much more of a mandate than Bush ever did, but can he sell the sweeping ideological changes Reagan did? My guess is no.

He seems like a guy smart enough to know not to overstep what the people want. I don’t think we’ll see a replay of Clinton’s early-term inanity. Clinton survived but he killed his party.

“First, this is Novak in 2004, explaining how Bush’s margin was, you guessed it…” – JG

I only wish this blog went back to 2004, so I could compare what you were saying then about Bush’s “mandate” to the claims you are making for Obama’s “mandate” now. I suspect you dodged a bullet.