When Reagan beat carter in a landslide, he said he had a "mandate". He concluded that getting so many votes- winning so decisively-meant that the people liked his ideas. When Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, he had the nerve to call that debacle a mandate too, and he governed as though he had one. The dems in congress gave him everything he wanted.

In 2008 Obama beat McCain in a electoral landslide. Instead of calling it a mandate and getting things done, he opted for the strategy of apoligizing for the lopsided victory and tried to appoint a repugnant to his cabinet. When that failed, he tried to get a bi-partisan health care bill. when no Repugnants would play, he decided that the only way to appease the people he really wanted to like him-the people that voted against him-was to throw his supporters under the bus and give all the power of legislating to the most right-leaning of his party. So health care gets crafted by the likes of Lieberman and Nelson.

Now they wonder why Kennedy's seat was lost to Brownie. And they're already getting it wrong, thinking that the electorate is swinging right when really it was just a matter of the disenchanted left staying home in droves. When viewed through the prism of the "change" promise, I think the tipping point for many was extortion paid to Nelson all for the chance to have a health care bill the Repugnants could be proud of, more welfare for the wealthy. I heard that only 11% of Massachusetts voters identify themselves as Repugnants, opting for the independent label to avoid the embarrassment. So the White House will now worry more about appeasing "independents" who are really just repugnants in hiding.

Meanwhile the teabaggers, who align themselves with ring-wing ideology, see no problem with railing against the wall streeters at the same time they are voting with the party whose answer to everything is tax cuts for the rich.