Bush's "Mandate"

[Nate Finch]

Bush keeps harping on the point that he's the first president to get more than 50% of the popular vote in 16 years, but what he fails to mention is that both of his election wins had the smallest margin of victory of all elections in the past 28 years (since Ford and Carter's 2% difference in 1976).

So umm.. yeah.. mandate what? All 51% means is that there wasn't a viable third candidate to suck away votes from both parties. The real number is the margin of victory, which as I stated above, is the smallest since before I was born.

-Nate

[Abednego]

And?

[TomCollins]

*plays world's smallest violin*

[SinCityGuy]

I think what Bush is referring to is the fact that he got over 50% of the vote and picked up seats in the house and the senate. He thinks that this gives hims a mandate to move forward with the issues that he campaigned on, and I agree with him.

As for the relative closeness of the election, you are correct. In historical terms, only three times since the Civil War has a president won by a narrower margin: Hayes won by 1 EV in 1876; Wilson won by 23 EV's in 1916 and Bush won by 5 EV's in 2000.

[Neil Stevens]

All the mandate Bush needs is in the Constitution.

Reagan in 84 had a mandate to govern with 59%.

Clinton in 92 had a mandate to govern with 43%.

Bush in 04 has a mandate to govern with 51%.

The mandate comes from an electoral college majority as dictated by the Constitution.

It's our form of government that gives the mandate, not statistical trivia.

[Nate Finch]

My point is that Bush and the republicans have been touting his > 50% popular vote as if it's something notable, when in fact it's just masking the fact that he was closer to not being elected than anyone else in the past 28 years.

My point is that Bush is getting all cocky and arrogant about the 50% total, and talking about he has "political capital" to spend. He's strutting around like he won 80% of the popular vote and can do no wrong, when that is extremely far from the truth.

That's my point.

-Nate

[Non_Comformist]

Do you think it's possible, just possible that you hate President Bush and would have interpreted anything he did as "strutting around" "getting all cocky and arrogant".

For the record pundits from all networks on all sides saw both of the Presidents statements and modest but with a purpose.

Try getting off the high horse once in a while. Your type of outlook is exactly why he should not waste time "reaching out." Your type hated him before he took office in 2000, continued to do so after he took office, and will continue to do regardless of what he does.

President Bush and the Republican majority have moved on.

[andyfox]

But politicians and political analysts generally use the word "mandate" to mean a decisive victory. With the disputed results in 2000, and with Bush received fewer popular votes than Gore, he didn't claim it was a mandate, or that he had political capital, when he won then.

[vulturesrow]

All this talk of a mandate is so much hooey. Any person elected to the Presidency has a mandate to try and bring about the changes he campaigned on. I am not saying he has to be 100% successful but he has to work at it. Bush was elected. Thats his mandate. And I would say the same if Kerry if he had been elected, much as I would have hated it

[Xargque]

Um, maybe it's just me, but I remember him losing the popular vote last time. How is this not a narrower margin.

Also, Bush claimed to have had a Mandate 4 years ago. Proof that the word is meaningless.

-X