Standing on your principles and doing the work of your constituents does not require a mandate. It doesn’t even require a majority. It only requires that you do what you think is the right thing. If I was the only person that got elected into congress under the premise defeating a specific law I would make that my living task, even if the odds against me were insurmountable. I would stand my ground for the sake of my constituents. I’d be called a fool. I’d be called a radical. I’d be called all sorts of things; but in the eyes of the people that elected me I’d be RIGHT! That’s all that matters. Cowered to the odds is nothing more than doing what this congress has been doing for decades; the status quo – what has gotten us into this mess in the first place.
And the senate and presidency were retained by the dems who passed Obamacare. We had the mandate argument before, and the people who represent more constituents are the dems. If there was a mandate they had it.
Besides, the teaparty tried and failed to repeal Obamacare again and again. They did nothing to further that cause by shutting down the government. Everyone already knew where they stood. This was a stunt plain and simple, one that was doomed to fail.
It's funny now that the stunt has failed some people are still trying to defend those who held out for nothing. You do realize that our "fiscally conservative" brethren just gave hundreds of thousands of government workers two weeks extra paid vacation. Yeah, that helped.
There is no point in being there if they aren’t going to fight for what their constituent demand of them. They aren’t there to pander to a majority they disagree with. I defend Cruz because 1) he stood his ground despite the odds and 2) because I think he was right.
On principle, did Cruz lose because of the odds or did he lose because he was wrong on the issue?