Posted on 11/12/2004 5:14:08 AM PST by goldstategop
SO, WHAT IS A MANDATE?
According to the dictionary, a mandate is “a command or an authorization given by the political electorate to its representatives.” Unfortunately, the dictionary doesn’t specify whether a mandate begins at 20%, 10%, or 3%.
In the popular vote, Bush has a margin of 3 percent. This is lower than the margin held by any president since 1916, with the exceptions of Kennedy in 1960, Nixon in 1968, and Ford in 1976--and of course, W himself's negative margin in 2000 (remember, he lost the popular vote that time).
Bush also has the smallest Electoral College margin, 6%, of any president since 1916, with the exception of his own 1% margin in 2000. Even Ford had a larger “mandate” than Bush, having earned 11% of the electoral college.
A mandate is a rare event, a signal of overwhelming political support. Reagan had a mandate in 1984, with an 18% popular margin and a 95% electoral margin. Two decades earlier, Johnson had a mandate with a 23% popular margin and an 81% electoral margin. These presidents had the “will of the people at their back.”
However, it's clear that the people in this election were split. Bush has a margin of 3% in the popular vote -- 51%. That is not a mandate, it's a margin of error.
Also, we must all work diligently in the coming months to convince “progressives” that the Democratic Party has let them down. They must abandon the party. Their only recourse is to join and work for the Green Party moving forward. I may even register as a Green Party member to swell their voter registration rolls. Divide and conquer.
Begin with putting all known “progressives” in your sphere of influence on the Green Party mail list from their website. Great fun. Start inundating them with information now.
Ford didn't win in 1976. These people don't know what they are talking about. Case closed.
Ford in 1976?
You mean Carter was selected and not elected?
Thus, President Bush received the largest mandate in history.
If there is another civil war in America, it will begin in Kerry's and Pelosi's homes.
The MSM consistently called Clinton's 42% vote a "mandate." Lying hypocrite vermin that they are.
ROFL. I never thought I'd see libs hail someone other than Jimmuh Cartuh, America's Four Year Nightmare. This is a first!
Bush could get all 50 states and 100% of the vote and the Libs/Dems would still call him illegit.
They claim Bush, who won 51% of the popular vote, doesn't have a mandate.
I wonder what they say about Clinton, who never exceeded 50%, and only won an embarrassing 43% in his first Presidential election victory.
The people of the US were asked whether they support Pres. Bush and his policies or not. Bush received a majority of support. Seems like a mandate to me.
Get over it RATS.
Progressives would be happier in the Communist Party than in the Green Party.
Yeah, I guess Ford did really badly in his second term, losing the popular vote AND the electoral vote! LOL.
If 60,000 votes in OH had shifted, and Kerry were president-elect today, these dopes would surely be claiming he DID have a mandate despite losing the total national vote by 3 million.
Except for their finally getting around to acknowledging Ronald Reagan won in 1984. I guess in 20 years time, it'll be progress when they concede Bush was the legitimately elected President of these United States.
You can bet they'd treat Kerry by a very DIFFERENT standard from the one they're applying to Bush.
I'm tired of everyone saying that President Bush has a mandate based on the results of his numbers, that he got over 50% of the electorate to vote for him.
Worst of all is the incredibly stupid argument that he garnered more overall votes of any president in history. Duh! If I ran for president, I could likely end up saying that I brought in more votes than the first five Presidents of the United States, combined!
President Bush does have a mandate. His mandate comes from facts that don't sound as sexy, but nevertheless have more solid foundation in reality:
A mandate means, you lost now shut the f*** up!
None of the Democrat presidents' pluralities prevented them from acting as if they had a mandate, so why should a small majority prevent Bush from acting thus?
Does anybody know when "mandate" became a requirement to rule? I don't know of an amendment or anything else that mentions it.
Well if McGreevey can have a mandate (man date), then why not Bush?
If Ford had earned an 11% margin over Carter, he would have been President. Carter received 297 electoral vote, Ford received 240.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.