Looking at the exit polls for a random assortment of swing states that went for Obama--Indiana, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and Nevada--is interesting and has implications, I think, for how Obama should govern.

First, it seems pretty clear that whatever this election was, it does not look like a mandate for an aggressive liberal agenda. In Indiana, for instance, voters identified themselves as follows: 44% Moderate, 36% Conservative, 20% Liberal. Virginia was 46% Moderate, 33% Conservative, and 21% Liberal. Florida was 47%M, 35%C, and 19%L. Ohio was 45M-35C-20L. Pennsylvania was 50M-27C-23L. Nevada was 44M-34C-22L. Obama won basically because he won the moderates (he even collected a few conservatives here and there).

That's funny, I do not remember anyone arguing that Bush did not have a mandate for conservatism because of the large number of moderates in the electorate. All of this is silly of course. I am a centrist moderate. Why? Because I say I am. that's what people answering an exit poll do. Hell, that is what Obama did. But I do not get to vote for the "moderate" candidate. I get to vote for the Democratic or the Republican candidate and the ideas they espouse. Voters vote for candidates who lay out their plans. They vote for the plans. And by the way, that means Congressional candidates too. Republicans in Congress have every right, I dare say a duty to fight for the principles they ran on. If they have the political power to shape the agenda. then they should. If they don't, then they don't. that's why we have elections.

Personally, I agreed that Bush won a mandate in 2004 (2000 is another matter). He lost it in 2006 (that Dems were cowards is another matter.) And Obama won a mandate, as well as the Democratic Congress. That's what happens in elections. No one voted to give David Broder a veto over what the government should do.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only