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.