First, it is incredible that, in a 51%-48% election, where one state was the difference in the electoral college, that we are talking "mandates." Statistically, of course, there is no support for the proposition. Apparently, the Bush camp (although, to his credit, not Bush himself) claims a mandate because Bush garnered the most votes of any candidate in Presidential history. This is true enough--59.2 million is an all-time high. However, the fact that this represents only 51% of the pie should have cued a few people; perhaps the number is more representative of the increased voter participation rather than any "mandate." Some perspective: Kerry's 55.7 million votes is the second highest number of votes ever garnered by a candidate--even more than the previous presidential high, Reagan's 54.5 million in 1984 (which we all recall was a real mandate, at least for the president). Does this unprecedented level of opposition mean that Bush, far from having a mandate, is the "most opposed" president in history? Think this will get mentioned on Fox News anytime soon? Just some fun with numbers.
He's going to take that well deserved and fairly earned mandate out for a spin... see what he can do with it! Get a few things done! Ask Daschle about "mandates"; he could probably quote bible and verse on the subject. The guy that beat him might contribute a few words! IntheNet
Yes. And the liberal media which of course dominates discussion and oppresses all dissent from its party line will harp on this fact constantly. Or bring it up once. Maybe.
It's not just the number of votes but that in light of the turnout we saw. In addition the man has coattails. The party of the incumbent president loses seats in Congress at reelection, not this time. Picking up 4 Senate seats, and at least that in the House is what helps give him a mandate.
Before we get too carried away with the seats picked up in the House, let's not forget that four of those seats were attributable to the gerrymandering of Texas by Tom DeLay. I'm not complaining about the gerrymandering--it's realpolitik at its best, and both parties do it. Kudos to DeLay for using it so effectively. But it does work against any "mandate" argument.
Can we finally put this notion of a "liberal media" to rest please. Its this manifestation of paranoia that constantly drives right-wing politics, creating an aura that conservatives are "outsiders". You are more establishment that you will admit. Conservatives own most of the major news organizations, have a whole network devoted exclusively to spreading their gospel, and have columnists or pundits regularly on all of the "liberal networks". Any conservative that can't find their point of view expressed in today's media outlets is deaf or blind. Air America is the liberal media, and who the hell listens to that? What's the circulation of the Nation? Exactly.
The perceived "mandate" is just as you say, fun with numbers, sure he got more votes than any other president elect, however as pointed out, Kerry basically did as well. I don't see how ANY 51-48 split can be a mandate, i would think for Mandate to set it, you have to have 60%+.
1st Bush wants a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Then he finds out Cheney's daughter is gay Then he wants states to settle the gay marriage issue Now Bush gets a "Man-date"? In another few weeks he'll be getting a manicure and humming "I will love again.."
Still, those victories, however attained, make the President's life that much easier when he tries to get his agenda through Congress. And Tom DeLay wouldn't have been able to hammer redistricting through the Texas Legislature if the Democrats still controlled it like they did up to a few years ago. The bottom line is that in the last 20 years, the GOP has been able to change a solid Democratic majority in the Texas House to a solid GOP majority and to change a solid Democratic majority in the Texas Senate to a thin GOP majority.
Yeah, right. They LOST the popular vote last time and acted like they had a mandate. Remember - "we make our own reality."
If anybody watched Hannity and Colmes last night, you'll remember Sean Hannity holding up his placard of the United States indicating county by county votes for Bush. The entire country was red going by that measuring stick. If one didn't know, you'd think that Kerry only got about 2 votes, and not 55 million. Got to love the spin...on both sides.
Bush is trying [square] mandate through the round hole. It isn't a mandate, it won't ever be a mandate, no matter how hard he tries. Is anyone else scared of what Bush is gonna be like now that he has truly won an election. If he could justify and believe it before, God-knows what he's gonna do now.
Hey, if the liberals don't think he has a mandate then stop him. I always am puzzled by people proclaiming whether a president has a mandate. He won, he can try and pass any agenda he damn well pleases. Those who don't like it can try and stop him. There is a system of checks and balances in place.
It's 59 million voters possessed of an authentically American, authentically Christian retrograde vision versus 55 million Americans lacking an authentically American, authentically spiritual progessive vision. Talk of mandates and such is political fun; the opposition lacks a vision that any of the 59 million can join up with. That, combined with the fact that the other side owns and controls the airwaves, the pursestrings, the industry, the military, law interpretation and law enforcement means that anything other than Mario Savio-style (i.e. "There comes a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part, you can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies on the gears, and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus. And you've got to make it stop.") gettin' in the street and being the change we want to see in the world, all 55 million of us, anything other than a mass expression of a commitment to the idea that we are willing to lose what little we have, to put it on the line, in order to demand a different nation, or a civil war/secession...we will continue to lose. It used to just take a small slice of folks (suffrage, labor, civil rights, women's rights, disabled rights, veterans rights, gay/lesbian rights) to move the engine. But Nader's right, you can't GET ACCESS the way you could 30 years ago. Masses of people, in the streets. It's all we have left. I'd fly back for that, no doubt, but nothing short of that because it won't work.
After what happened with this election, I think it will finally wake democrats up and get a backbone again. I think we needed for this to happen to finally get a clear and concise message again and I believe we will. He hardly has a mandate when 55 million people voted against him. Its not like he all of a sudden won a bunch of blue states. As a matter of fact, the only changes from 2000 were he picked up New Mexico with a 50-49 win but Kerry made up for that by taking New Hampshire from him. As for the senate seats and house seats won by the republicans that night, they were almost all won in red states. Its not like they went up to New Jersey and won senate seats. The only reason he won this was because they had a better get out the vote plan in Ohio than the democrats did and that was the margin of victory. This is still a very divided country.
Yeah, ok, can all the neocons posting here come out and admit that any president talking about a political mandate when he only won 51% of the vote PLEASE drop this crap about him wanting to reach out to the other side? Talk of a mandate is rubbing this election in the other parties face. They better keep the moderate republicans or line or they are in for a serious pain because this is just going to galvanize the democrats.
That hasnt been declared last i looked because they had 50k absentee ballotts to look at. Actually in 2000, bush beat gore in Iowa until they did the absentee ballotts and then Gore won.
For the record, I did note in my initial post that Bush himself has not used the "m" word. For what it's worth...
No, he just said, "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it" The arrogant ********tard.
For a moment I thought this thread was going to be about Dubya and DeLay being caugh in flagrante delicto.
I don't consider it a mandate, I don't think any candidate has much of a chance at all of winning a considerable mandate. The country is very divided and personally I only see it getting more so, not less. And BTW it isn't because Bush divided everyone, that's just the way things are.