Divided or Mandate?

[dazzleman]

Yes it is a mandate, just take a look at the congress. 4 years ago with Bush running the R's lost about 5 seats each in the House and Senate. Now the R's have gained about 5 seats in each.

BTW here's a list of all-time vote getters
1. Bush       2004
2. Kerry      2004
3. Reagan  1984
4. Gore       2000
5. Bush       2000
6. Bush       1988
7. Clinton    1996
8. Nixon      1972
9. Clinton    1992
10. Reagan 1980

Wow, four of the top five in the past two elections

I think that's more of a testament to how well Reagan did in 1984 than to how well Bush did in 2004.

That's definitely true because Reagan got to that number with a smaller number of overall voters.

[J. J.]

Doesn't matter.  Bush governed as if he had a mandate for the last 4 years anyway.  He'll continue to do so, only more so.  This time he actually got the most votes AND he picked up support in both houses of Congress.  I suspect we'll be in for  more tax cuts, bigger budget deficits, a weak economy, and more war and deaths overseas, with a continual terror threat, along with little movement toward peace between the Israelis and Palestineans.  I only hope that Stevens and Ginsburg can remain on the court for 4 more years.  I'm sure Rhenquist and O'Connor will retire soon.

True. He'll have to satisfy a lot of moderate Republican Senators now though. McCain and whatshisname from IN on the foreign relations committee have been pretty pissed about Iraq.

Cheney did say mandate in his comments today.

Richard Lugar

[Beet]

I recall those who said President Clinton received a mandate in '96 despite not receiving a majority of popular votes. If Clinton had a mandate then I would have to say Bush received one yesterday.

Clinton's mandate was more in the weakness of the opposition than the strength of his own position. Bush had a bigger victory by 2 points, but Kerry got about 8 points more than Dole.

[A18]

This wasn't a mandate.

It was a 51-48 win. It was a win of 3 points. A solid win, but no mandate. If you congratulated Bush for getting the highest popular vote ever, you must consider George Washington's election a miserable failure.

Only two Democrats since the civil war have gotten a larger percentage of the vote than this President: Lyndon Johnson and FDR.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

This wasn't a mandate.

It was a 51-48 win. It was a win of 3 points. A solid win, but no mandate. If you congratulated Bush for getting the highest popular vote ever, you must consider George Washington's election a miserable failure.

Only two Democrats since the civil war have gotten a larger percentage of the vote than this President: Lyndon Johnson and FDR.

Well, OK, then the other Democrats haven't had mandates.

[skybridge]

Does it matter? The opposition couldn't prevent anything when the Republicans LOST the popular vote either.

[opebo]

America is evenly polarized.  Check out Bush's post-election approval numbers:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=5&u=/latimests/20041228/ts_latimes/reelectionhoneymoonwithvoterseludesbushpollssay

I guess people are coming to their senses too late.

[agcatter]

I don't worry about Bush's approval ratings like I did in the summer and fall.  There's nothing that can happen to Bush at this point and the nation is safe from John flip flop lib Kerry.  (Sigh of relief).

The NY Times editorial board (and front page), CNN, 
the next CBS 60 Minutes hit piece, George Soros's millions, Michael Moore's propaganda films, the whining Hollywood left, Jesse Jackson's rants about Ohio, Perky Katie unhappiness..... none of it can change the results of the election... ..and they know it.  The fact that they know it may be the most delicious part of it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He's already governed like he had a massive mandate, and he LOST the popular vote in 2000. If the popular vote didn't matter then, why does it matter now?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

America is evenly polarized.  Check out Bush's post-election approval numbers:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=5&u=/latimests/20041228/ts_latimes/reelectionhoneymoonwithvoterseludesbushpollssay

I guess people are coming to their senses too late.

This is not a typical re-election. It was by far the 2nd closest victory ever for anyone who was already President (only 1916 was closer). You can't get much of a bounce when you're the most divisive politician since the Civil War.

[nclib]

I don't think Bush has a mandate at all. Although he won a larger EV victory than in 2000 and a larger popular victory than Gore won, the election, by historical standards, was very close. No President since Carter in '76 won a smaller popular or electoral victory.

The results are very similar to 2000. Only two states that Gore carried (IA and NM) went for Bush in 2004--and Gore carried them by less than 1%. Of the 10 closest Gore states in 2000, all swung Democratic or swung less Republican than the national average.

The Republican party's performance is Congress is not a mandate, either. Although the GOP won 6 formerly Democratic senate seats, these were all in Bush states. Only 2 GOP Senators won in Kerry states and both were moderates (Specter, Gregg).

As far as the House goes, Republicans actually lost House seats outside of Texas. Regardless of what anyone thinks of the Texas redistricting, the Texas seats would have been gained simply based on the 2002 results with new boundaries. So there actually were more districts that voted GOP in 2002 and Democratic in 2004 than visa versa.

[skybridge]

He's already governed like he had a massive mandate, and he LOST the popular vote in 2000. If the popular vote didn't matter then, why does it matter now?

Reminds me of my post.

[skybridge]

America is evenly polarized.  Check out Bush's post-election approval numbers:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=5&u=/latimests/20041228/ts_latimes/reelectionhoneymoonwithvoterseludesbushpollssay

I guess people are coming to their senses too late.

This is not a typical re-election. It was by far the 2nd closest victory ever for anyone who was already President (only 1916 was closer). You can't get much of a bounce when you're the most divisive politician since the Civil War.

PV reelection margins since the Civil War:
1872 - 11.8%
1900 - 6.12%
1916 - 3.12%
1936 - 24.25%
1940 - 9.96%
1944 - 7.5%
1956 - 15.4%
1972 - 23.15%
1984 - 14.21%
1996 - 8.51%

2004 - 2.46% (projected)!

In fact, Bush won reelection by the smallest percent of any president since the Civil War.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

America is evenly polarized.  Check out Bush's post-election approval numbers:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=5&u=/latimests/20041228/ts_latimes/reelectionhoneymoonwithvoterseludesbushpollssay

I guess people are coming to their senses too late.

This is not a typical re-election. It was by far the 2nd closest victory ever for anyone who was already President (only 1916 was closer). You can't get much of a bounce when you're the most divisive politician since the Civil War.

PV reelection margins since the Civil War:
1872 - 11.8%
1900 - 6.12%
1916 - 3.12%
1936 - 24.25%
1940 - 9.96%
1944 - 7.5%
1956 - 15.4%
1972 - 23.15%
1984 - 14.21%
1996 - 8.51%

2004 - 2.46% (projected)!

In fact, Bush won reelection by the smallest percent of any president since the Civil War.

Yes, and by far closer than every year except 1916.
Wilson went to bed election night thinking that CA voted for Hughes and that he lost.

[Richard]

this is by no means a mandate.
the country is too polarized right now.

Bluh.  Clinton claimed to have a mandate in 1992 and had only like 42% of the vote.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

this is by no means a mandate.
the country is too polarized right now.

Bluh.  Clinton claimed to have a mandate in 1992 and had only like 42% of the vote.

Uh, but Perot was there...if you make the contest only Clinton vs. Bush, he would have won 53.5%-46.5%. Which is 7, and is quite a victory.

[A18]

Where do you get those numbers?

[??????????]

Where do you get those numbers?

Where all Dhimmicrats get their numbers. Out of thin air.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Where do you get those numbers?

By putting Bush's numbers against Clinton's in an Excel spreadsheet. I think you misunderstand what I was showing here: I was just removing third parties and showing what Clinton's margin of victory over Bush was.

Where do you get those numbers?

Where all Dhimmicrats get their numbers. Out of thin air.

That wasn't nice.

[A18]

The Perot voters wouldn't have all just stayed home.

[King]

Divided or Mandate doesn't matter...WE WON and winning is more important than margin.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

No, Philip, but their not voting for Bush or Clinton shows that they did not like them enough to vote for a candidate to contribute to him winning. Perot was not a viable candidate.

[ATFFL]

No, Philip, but their not voting for Bush or Clinton shows that they did not like them enough to vote for a candidate to contribute to him winning. Perot was not a viable candidate.

Please remember this when someone tries to add Nader votes to Gore/Kerry.

I seem to remember you trying to do that at times too.  Am I misremembering or are you converted?

[Grad Students are the Worst]

No, Philip, but their not voting for Bush or Clinton shows that they did not like them enough to vote for a candidate to contribute to him winning. Perot was not a viable candidate.

Please remember this when someone tries to add Nader votes to Gore/Kerry.

I seem to remember you trying to do that at times too.  Am I misremembering or are you converted?

If I did that, it was laziness on my part.

When I am trying to calculate candidate support, I do not add in third parties because anyone willing to vote third parties probably does not like the other candidates.

In cases where I am trying to find party support, I add 50% of Nader's vote to Gore and 25% to Bush (I think it was that, but I am not totally exact on the number) and the rest I assume would not have voted. Then again, this does not take into account Nader voters that voted Nader this year, too, but in truth that is a fairly small number and would have probably been much more likely to not vote or vote Bush than 2000's.

There's no completely mathematically sound way of doing this, I admit. But of them adding Nader votes to Gore is the least accurate.

[J. J.]

Neither.

The majority made it's cloice clear, but it was not an overwhelming majority.  There is clear majority support for one party, something that hasn't happend since 1976 or 1980.

It was stong win, but not a mandate.