The Mandate

[msduncan]

From the Wall Street journal:

Let us get our heads around the size and scope of what happened Tuesday. George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States, became the first incumbent president to increase his majority in both the Senate and the House and to increase his own vote (by over 3.5 million) since Franklin D. Roosevelt, political genius of the 20th century, in 1936. This is huge.

George W. Bush is the first president to win more than 50% of the popular vote since 1988. (Bill Clinton failed to twice; Mr. Bush failed to last time and fell short of a plurality by half a million.) The president received more than 59 million votes, breaking Ronald Reagan's old record of 54.5 million. Mr. Bush increased his personal percentages in almost every state in the union. He carried the Catholic vote and won 42% of the Hispanic vote and 24% of the Jewish vote (up from 19% in 2000.)

[Mr. Fed]

I think both sides are playing with numbers on this one.

Bush's large number of votes (as opposed to percentage of votes) is a factor of large turnout, right? Isn't it true that a greater number of people voted against him than have ever voted against the guy who winds up president? That's equally valid. And, discounting Clinton (who had a nutty but unusually strong third-party candidate) I've seen claims that Bush's popular vote margin (either as a percentage or sheer number) is smaller than any winning incumbent since Truman (that is, I suppose, smaller than Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, or Reagan).

There's no question that 51 vs. 48 is a win. Also, there's no question that the Senate seat pick-ups are a very major Republican win. But I think a lot of this mandate quibbling is about statistical games on both sides.

[dbt1949]

[Little Raven]

Wouldn't that be...um... cold?

[Defiant]

I think both sides are playing with numbers on this one.

Bush's large number of votes (as opposed to percentage of votes) is a factor of large turnout, right? Isn't it true that a greater number of people voted against him than have ever voted against the guy who winds up president? That's equally valid. And, discounting Clinton (who had a nutty but unusually strong third-party candidate) I've seen claims that Bush's popular vote margin (either as a percentage or sheer number) is smaller than any winning incumbent since Truman (that is, I suppose, smaller than Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, or Reagan).

There were two small but not insignificant third party candidates in 1948. Truman managed to capture 4.7% more votes then Dewey, and Clinton managed 8.5% more than Dole.

And, of course, electorally, it was a very close race.

But if the republicans want to see Bush's win as a "huge" mandate from the people to pursue their conservative policies, you go girl!. I'm sure that will keep the republicans in power with even more impressive "huge" mandates.

[Enough]

I think both sides are playing with numbers on this one.

Bush's large number of votes (as opposed to percentage of votes) is a factor of large turnout, right? Isn't it true that a greater number of people voted against him than have ever voted against the guy who winds up president? That's equally valid. And, discounting Clinton (who had a nutty but unusually strong third-party candidate) I've seen claims that Bush's popular vote margin (either as a percentage or sheer number) is smaller than any winning incumbent since Truman (that is, I suppose, smaller than Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, or Reagan).

There's no question that 51 vs. 48 is a win. Also, there's no question that the Senate seat pick-ups are a very major Republican win. But I think a lot of this mandate quibbling is about statistical games on both sides.

I agree, it's all about making the numbers dance for your side. As an example just witness this recent post on Daily Kos:

Bush's true "mandate"
by kos
Thu Nov 4th, 2004 at 11:15:10 PST

A good diary over at MyDD:
# This is the largest number of people who have ever voted AGAINST a president

# 1% more than 50% is not a mandate but a bare, thin, majority.

# At 80% approval after 9-11 and guaranteed a landslide election by prognosticators 2 years ago, only half the country supports him

# A president who leads a divided country owes it to all Americans to lead fairly or have his party face the consequences begining in 2006. No one else is here to blame

And over at Another Liberal Blog, a look at the weakest incumbent reelection since, well, a long time.
# Assuming Bush gets New Mexico and Iowa, he will have gotten the lowest percentage of electoral votes (54%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Wilson. If those two states should swing Kerry's way (NM might), it'll be even lower.

# He will have won with the lowest percentage of the popular vote (51%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Truman (well, technically since Clinton, but he also ran against Perot, who was a more significant 3rd-party candidate than Thurmond and Wallace were in '48)

# He will have won by the lowest margin of the popular vote (3.5M) of any incumbent running for reelection since Truman (2.1M, and back then only 50M voted).

# He will have won the three states that put him over 270 (OH, NM and IA--assuming the last two go his way) by only 161,989 (not counting the provisional ballots, absentee, etc.).
Don't let them get away with calling this narrow victory any sort of mandate for their agenda.

[Jason Donati]

I stared at that for at least a full minute before it finally clicked. Nice one, dbt.

[The Meal]

This map is very red and not very blue at all:



~Neal

[Little Raven]

I'm sure I'm going to contribute to future loses by the Democrats, but seriously...I don't see a mandate here.

I'm not buying these claims that "Democrats aren't connecting with the people." 56 million people connected with them just fine. Yes, in our system, 48% is as good as 0%, so this was a huge win for the Republicans, but on the ground things are still very, very close. It was all about turnout. The gay alarm worked for the Republicans this time, and they won the turnout battle. Good for them. But there are still a lot of people voting against an incumbant President in wartime. The Democrat message needs tweaking, not a complete overhaul.

[noxiousdog]

This map is very red and not very blue at all:



~Neal

BUT BUT BUT... we're divided!!!! and those southerners are a bunch of racist rednecks!!!!

[geezer]

This map is very red and not very blue at all:



~Neal

Actually it looks very purple to me. ???

[Defiant]

This map is very red and not very blue at all:



~Neal

Actually it looks very purple to me. ???

Why do you hate America? This is a red country for red people, we'll have no trouble here!

[Enough]

Here in red Colorado things went badly for the Republicans other than the POTUS race. We elected Salzar over Coors, turned over our legislature to the Dems for the first time since 1970, passed an alternative fuels initiative so liberal many centrist Dems objected to it and Denver approved light rail projects just to list a few. The state legislature ended up going Dem by and large due to the Republicans running far-right candidates who scared off many who would have happily voted for a more moderate Republican in a few districts. There is obviously some mandate for any candidate that successfully runs for president, but if I were a Republican I would be wary of pushing that angle too aggressively. The nation's still basically split.

[SuperHiro]

I've been fighting the "mandate" label. For one, it just doesn't feel "mandate-y". Second, I can't grasp my head around 51% as a mandate. Resounding victory given the times sure... but mandate?

I've always thought of a mandate as an overwhelming victory... so for Bush to have a "mandate" he would have needed to crush Kerry. Crush him good. IMO, Ohio could just have easily gone to Kerry (anyone know the final vote tallies?)... this race came down to one state, and that just doesn't feel like a "mandate"

I admit I also have a very selfish reason for argueing against the "mandate" label. A mandate gives Bush every reason to cram the agenda that 51% voted for down the throats of the other 49%. It gives people every reason to completely dismiss the other side. It wrecks any chance of a real bipartisan, decently moderate agenda. And worst of all, it just keeps both the left and the right raging pissed at each other, and that's just not cool. Moderate-leaning right is fine. But straight up hardcore right-wing action...

[The Meal]

Actually it looks very purple to me. ???

Are you not listening to the WSJ? It's been declared that there is a Republican MANDATE that this map is red. Get thee to an optometrist!

~Neal

[LordMortis]

A couple of the square states in the middle look kind of reddish. Maybe George can just become the king of square states or smoething.

[Kadoth Nodens]

But I don't wanna go on a Republican Man-date!!!

[Mr. Fed]

But I don't wanna go on a Republican Man-date!!!

Oh, God, this one made me cry I laughed so hard.

[SuperHiro]

But I don't wanna go on a Republican Man-date!!!

Hey! Do you want to be a sucess or don't you!?

Just be glad it's not a Japanese Salaryman-date

[Papageno]

Exactly, SuperHiro. "Mandate" and "political capital" are spin. If they try to seriously weaken Social Security they'll see how much of a mandate they have.

Plus, looking at that map, it's true that there's no almost pure blue area like the almost pure red of Utah, but look at the population of Utah (not a lot of people, and a great proportion of them Mormons). "Blue" people tend to live in more densely populated areas.

Basically that map indicates that most of the people live in states that are purple to one degree or another.

George Lakoff on NPR yesterday made a great point about how Democrats need to appeal to people's values as well, and not solely to self-interest-- values implied by the observation that "were all in this together."

[Dirt]

I resist 'Mandate' because it sounds religious to me. It sounds like God spoke and it was for Bush.

I resist having to live under an Emperor. Or a Pope.

[geezer]

Actually it looks very purple to me. ???

Are you not listening to the WSJ? It's been declared that there is a Republican MANDATE that this map is red. Get thee to an optometrist!

~Neal

THERE... ARE... *FIVE*... LIGHTS!!!!!!

[msduncan]

I've been fighting the "mandate" label. For one, it just doesn't feel "mandate-y". Second, I can't grasp my head around 51% as a mandate. Resounding victory given the times sure... but mandate?

I've always thought of a mandate as an overwhelming victory... so for Bush to have a "mandate" he would have needed to crush Kerry. Crush him good. IMO, Ohio could just have easily gone to Kerry (anyone know the final vote tallies?)... this race came down to one state, and that just doesn't feel like a "mandate"

I admit I also have a very selfish reason for argueing against the "mandate" label. A mandate gives Bush every reason to cram the agenda that 51% voted for down the throats of the other 49%. It gives people every reason to completely dismiss the other side. It wrecks any chance of a real bipartisan, decently moderate agenda. And worst of all, it just keeps both the left and the right raging pissed at each other, and that's just not cool. Moderate-leaning right is fine. But straight up hardcore right-wing action...

Clinton claimed a mandate in 1992 -- and he only got low 40's.

[Kraken]

Wait a minute...Bigfoot has a tail???

[Kraken]

I resist 'Mandate' because it sounds religious to me. It sounds like God spoke and it was for Bush.

Can you prove that He did not? Hmmm? God-kings were good enough for great-great-great-great-great-great-great-etc.-grandpa...maybe it's time we got back to fundamentals here.

[AttAdude]

numbers like that, and events like tuesday, make me question the sanity of our nation.

[Guy Incognito]

Clinton claimed a mandate in 1992 -- and he only got low 40's.

Please tell me we aren't filtering what is the "right thing to do" based on Clinton. Seems pretty lacking on the justification scale...

[SuperHiro]

I've been fighting the "mandate" label. For one, it just doesn't feel "mandate-y". Second, I can't grasp my head around 51% as a mandate. Resounding victory given the times sure... but mandate?

I've always thought of a mandate as an overwhelming victory... so for Bush to have a "mandate" he would have needed to crush Kerry. Crush him good. IMO, Ohio could just have easily gone to Kerry (anyone know the final vote tallies?)... this race came down to one state, and that just doesn't feel like a "mandate"

I admit I also have a very selfish reason for argueing against the "mandate" label. A mandate gives Bush every reason to cram the agenda that 51% voted for down the throats of the other 49%. It gives people every reason to completely dismiss the other side. It wrecks any chance of a real bipartisan, decently moderate agenda. And worst of all, it just keeps both the left and the right raging pissed at each other, and that's just not cool. Moderate-leaning right is fine. But straight up hardcore right-wing action...

Clinton claimed a mandate in 1992 -- and he only got low 40's.

I don't remember much, being only 12 my priorities were slightly different. But Clinton's victory in 1992 was no mandate. If he claimed it he was dead wrong.

[Spock's Brain]

And that's after significant shrinkage.

[RunningMn9]

this race came down to one state, and that just doesn't feel like a "mandate"

That's the media talking. This race came down to 50 states. Choosing any one of them as "the one" that pushed Bush over the top is ridiculous. Ohio was the last one to be called because the networks were absolutely paranoid about declaring a winner. Not because there was any danger of Kerry winning the state after about midnight.

The Bush camp knew at 10 pm that they were going to win Ohio. My guess is that the networks knew it too, but needed that "one state" to show how divided we are.

Right now, CNN has Bush at 274 electoral votes. Which means that as of right now, the following states qualify as the "one state": Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, or West Virginia.

This "it all came down to Ohio" nonsense is just that.

[Koz]

And it's complete nonsense to call something a mandate when had Kerry had a hundred thousand more votes in Ohio, you wouldn't even be talking about a mandate.

[Little Raven]

Right now, CNN has Bush at 274 electoral votes.

Ok, this is just silly. You're going to call 274 electoral votes a mandate? The electoral college exagerates results. 274 is just barely enough to win.

Even Nixon got over 300. Both times Clinton got well over 350. Bush trounced Dukakis with 426. Eisenhower smacked down Stevenson with 457. Johnson destroyed Goldwater with 486. And let's not forget your idol, who mangled Mondale with over 500.

You really expect us to be impressed with 274? That's not a mandate, that's a minimum.

[Biyobi]

Right now, CNN has Bush at 274 electoral votes.

Ok, this is just silly. You're going to call 274 electoral votes a mandate? The electoral college exagerates results. 274 is just barely enough to win.

Even Nixon got over 300. Both times Clinton got well over 350. Bush trounced Dukakis with 426. Eisenhower smacked down Stevenson with 457. Johnson destroyed Goldwater with 486. And let's not forget your idol, who mangled Mondale with over 500.

You really expect us to be impressed with 274? That's not a mandate, that's a minimum.

I think he was ridiculing the "it came down to one state" bullshit rather than agreeing Bush has a "mandate".

[Little Raven]

But it does come down to one state. That one state need not be Ohio, but subtract any one of the meaningful states from Bush's column and he no longer has enough to win. Which is telling as to what kind of 'mandate' he recieved.

We're 48% to 51%. The right is currently enjoying the bigger number. Good for them. But I look forward to them interpreting that as a mandate. They may find out how quickly those numbers can reverse.

[Dirt]

Let the Republicans see this as a Mandate. Let them get comfortable thinking that they have a lock on the majority, their fingers on the pulse of 'average' Americans. The numbers tell different, and if they aren't careful, 2008 will not be there's to take.

[YellowKing]

You guys are overlooking the fact that this is being seen as a Republican mandate because Republicans gained seats in the House, the Senate, and won the most governor spots. It's not just about Bush's margin of victory.

We can argue about how much of a mandate there is, but the fact remains that this election is going to cause the Democratic party to go back to the drawing board. To dismiss it as some fluke is to kid yourself.

Besides, is there anybody here who seriously thinks that if Kerry had won the Presidency and Democrats had taken control of both the House and Senate that they wouldn't be proclaiming a mandate?

[Little Raven]

You guys are overlooking the fact that this is being seen as a Republican mandate because Republicans gained seats in the House, the Senate, and won the most governor spots. It's not just about Bush's margin of victory.

I don't want to rain the Republicans parade too much because this was an important victory. But hardly a crushing mandate. The Republicans picked up 4 Senate seats. They were all the result of old-school Democrats retiring in the South and getting replaced by Republicans. Important, but not unexpected. They gained seats in the House, but given the brutal redistricting of Colorado and Texas that wasn't unexpected either. History shows that gerrymandering works.

The race for the White House was very, very close. Any race in which one side doesn't reach 300 votes is.

I'm not sure which governors races you're talking about. CNN shows the two sides even. Can you elaborate?

Ahd yes, of course whoever wins will announce a mandate. That's just politics. But acting like you have a mandate when you don't is risky politics indeed.

[SuperHiro]

You guys are overlooking the fact that this is being seen as a Republican mandate because Republicans gained seats in the House, the Senate, and won the most governor spots. It's not just about Bush's margin of victory.

We can argue about how much of a mandate there is, but the fact remains that this election is going to cause the Democratic party to go back to the drawing board. To dismiss it as some fluke is to kid yourself.

Besides, is there anybody here who seriously thinks that if Kerry had won the Presidency and Democrats had taken control of both the House and Senate that they wouldn't be proclaiming a mandate?

I'm just saying to be cautious about flinging the "mandate" label around. Because in most cases this is the translation.

We won with a clear mandate

Man, fuck the other party. Pussies.

From a political strategy standpoint, it's risky. Saying you have a mandate pretty much puts everything on you. Now yes, if something good happens you get all the credit. But if something bad happens, there no other place to point but your white pasty ass.

It's the equivilant as guaranteeing a victory for the big game. The other team is going to use that as motivation. Bush says he wants results, great everyone does. But the Dems still have a voice, though considerably weakened. If Bush could get everything he needed passed without any help from the Dems, then that is a mandate. But he can't.

But Hiro, many Dems from red states are going to vote with Bush!
In all liklihood that's true. But let's also remember that many conservatives aren't too happy about the current fiscal situation right now.

In other news, I'm absolutely shocked at how quiet and normal sounding we all are. Even the "gloating" thread is pretty decent.

[Mr. Sparkle]

Besides, is there anybody here who seriously thinks that if Kerry had won the Presidency and Democrats had taken control of both the House and Senate that they wouldn't be proclaiming a mandate?

It would have been a mandate. Just like Clinton in 1992 was in fact a mandate.

You are neglecting to consider that it would be a victory over the incumbent running for reelection. We a majority want a change(and it was a majority who wanted a change, they just couldn't decide whether they wanted the sex freak or the crazy guy), then that is a mandate, as incumbents are supposed to have an easy time getting reelected.

And yes, the Republican Senators who beat incumbents have a defintite mandate... more so because the Senate has such a ridiculous retention rate.

EDIT: And I have now typed mandate so many times in one post, that I never want to type it again. In future posts, I will substitute "gay sex" when referencing a "mandate".

[RunningMn9]

But hardly a crushing mandate.

Why are you adding your own adjectives to make the claim seem ridiculous.

Traditionally, a "mandate" simply requires that you get greater than 50% of the popular vote.

Bush got that, and his party increased their control of the House, the Senate, and the Governorships (they are +1 I believe).

Like it or not, that's a "mandate". You guys are acting like mandate=landslide. It does not.

This would be a lot easier if the side that lost would stop trying to pretend that they didn't actually lose.

Just a note that the eventual EC vote is likely to be 286 - 252. They haven't called New Mexico or Iowa, but Bush seems to have won both.

But then, "mandates" have nothing to do with the EC.