A narrow Obama win: Would he be able to govern as we want?

[Seeking Serenity]

All right, here's the premise: Obama's going to win. That's it. He's going to win. However, it doesn't appear at all possible that he'll win with a Nixon/Reagan-esque landslide (both of them winning 49 out of 50 states, albeit in their RE-election bids. I know, Nixon's and Reagan's first election wins were more narrow -- bear with me). It's much more likely that the Obama win will be more narrow.

Now, we will increase our majorities in the House and Senate (but probably not a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate).

Now, with all that said, how much political capital will President Obama have with a narrow victory as compared to a landslide? How big of a victory does it have to be? Will a narrow victory allow him to be able to govern as we want him to? What would a narrow Obama victory mean in terms of the policies he would pursue in his first term?

His recent comments regarding maybe holding off on repealing the Bush tax cuts until the economy improves got me to thinking about this.

Just fodder for discussion. Play nicely.

[Kittycat]

1. It all comes down to senate & congressional seats.

[NightWatcher]

2. yep, as soon as we get our 60 Senate seats, we can bully the repiggies around

and force things down their throat

[Sebastian Doyle]

24. Well... that's assuming all 60 of them will actually vote as Democrats.

Some of the ones in there right now seem to have a chronic problem with that, unfortunately.

[melody]

3. If we take the House and Senate, he's home free

But I think it'll be a rout. Obama will have plenty of political capital.

[Seeking Serenity]

7. Political capital! That's the phrase I couldn't think of.

I'm going to amend the OP to include that, since that it what I was trying to convey.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. I highly doubt he would govern as a socialist, which is what I would want

[jakem]

5. You mean, because fucking W has been so moderate?

[Phredicles]

11. Yeah, with that precedent, and if we pick up seats in congress

he should proceed as if he'd carried all 50 states.

[napi21]

6. He will have the one big advantage he needs...A Dem controlled Congress!

From all indications, the Dems will increase their majority in both houses of Congress, and THAT will give Obama a BIG ADVANTAGE!

[Bluebear]

8. How do "we want" him to govern? There are many variations here. I will be glad just to stop McCain.

Anything we achieve as progressives beyond that is just gravy :)

[onenote]

9. exactly. He could win all 50 states, and he still wouldn't govern the way some here probably want

[Seeking Serenity]

12. I was thinking in terms of universal health care, repealing Bush's tax cuts,

tightly reining in the corporations, repealing the Patriot Act (and all of the sordid things that go with that), bringing the troops home now, that sort of thing.

[stillcool]

10. He doesn't need to win big..

but the Democratic Party as a whole does.

[Pyrzqxgl]

13. Winning big would help, so would adding lots of Senators, Congressmen, etc.

However there is nobody I'm going to agree with 100% of the time but My God! Consider the Alternative!

[SteppingRazor]

14. Fuck that. Drag'em kicking and screaming.

Dubya declared a mandate after he won with just over 50 percent of the vote in 2004, saying, he had "political capital" and he "intended to spend it." And spend he did. If Obama wins in a squeaker in 2008, and then acquiesces to the right-wing on several fronts in an attempt to heal wounds or whatever, it will be a matter of Dubya taking two steps backward and Obama taking one forward. Our political system is a two-party, winner-take-all system. A president need not handle matters as delicately as in multi-party systems in which a ruling coalition must be maintained. If Obama wins, he needs to start moving this country in the right direction without taking a single look back. With Congress and the people on his side, the right will have little to do but cry from the sidelines. Let'em.

[mwooldri]

15. Who cares? * didn't exactly have a huge landslide now

and he managed to screw us over anyway.

[Seeking Serenity]

16. I guess I was remembering Bill Clinton's first election

and how, after that election and with a Democratic majority in both houses, he tried to do the health-care reform bill (and we all know what happened next).

Will President Obama be able to do big, grand things with a narrow victory, or will be feel more constrained to do small things? Do that even matter?

[Dukkha]

17. He will just simply remind them

YOU LOST! GET OVER IT!

[wryter2000]

18. Other

"Political capital" and "mandate" are buzz words * made up. He'd have a win and a majority in both houses. Even a landslide wouldn't get him a filibuster-proof Senate.

[dysfunctional press]

19. bush LOST and claimed a far-right mandate.

the LEFT has been held down FAR TOO LONG.

[crimsonblue]

20. If Bush can claim a mandate after "winning" in 2000

with less votes and the SCOTUS deciding the election, then surely so can Obama. Now, will the media let him claim a mandate with anything less than 55% of the vote? Probably not.

[Me.]

21. * Didn't Win In @000 At All

And he still did whatever he damned well pleased, so yes, he can govern.

[bunkerbuster1]

22. Every single progressive initiative will have to be fought for tooth and nail

I imagine that the battle over even modest healthcare programs will be ferocious.

Absent a 60-vote majority--which would include Bush Dog Dems who would cave rather than upset their precious Red State constituents--certainly there will be more compromise ahead than we want to admit.

It takes awhile to take a big ol' ship like ours around.

[Beregond2]

23. "Political capital" is a meaningless concept.

All that matters is having majorities in both houses. Without those, no one can do anything.

[Seeking Serenity]

25. I don't think so. It's only meaningless for politicians who don't care

whether or not they get re-elected (or those, like DK, who are in very safe seats). Political capital is basically the ability to get what you want based on whether The People are behind you on a given issue.

President Obama will definitely being eyeing a re-election run in 2012. And he'll be looking toward the congressional elections in 2010.

[Beregond2]

26. I meant that it is useless in terms of getting things passed.

Obama could win by a landslide, but that isn't going to mean a thing to Republican Congressmen, who will do anything in their power to stop his efforts, no matter what the will of the country is. If they cared what the majority wants, they wouldn't be Republicans.