Divided or Mandate?

[nclib]

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.

There may not have been a pro-Clinton mandate in 1992, but there certainly was an anti-Bush mandate since 63% of voters voted against Bush.

[J. J.]

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.

There may not have been a pro-Clinton mandate in 1992, but there certainly was an anti-Bush mandate since 63% of voters voted against Bush.

That was a rejection of GHW Bush.  It is hard to claim a Clinton mandate, because his party lost control of pretty much everything it had, and still hasn't gotten it back.

[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.

There may not have been a pro-Clinton mandate in 1992, but there certainly was an anti-Bush mandate since 63% of voters voted against Bush.

That was a rejection of GHW Bush.  It is hard to claim a Clinton mandate, because his party lost control of pretty much everything it had, and still hasn't gotten it back.

Democratic mandate, yes. Clinton, no.

[J. J.]

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.

There may not have been a pro-Clinton mandate in 1992, but there certainly was an anti-Bush mandate since 63% of voters voted against Bush.

That was a rejection of GHW Bush.  It is hard to claim a Clinton mandate, because his party lost control of pretty much everything it had, and still hasn't gotten it back.

Democratic mandate, yes. Clinton, no.

In the 1992 election, the GOP gained 9 House seats, and were slightly higher than at any point during the GHW Bush years.  That is hardly a Democratic mandate. 

[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.

There may not have been a pro-Clinton mandate in 1992, but there certainly was an anti-Bush mandate since 63% of voters voted against Bush.

That was a rejection of GHW Bush.  It is hard to claim a Clinton mandate, because his party lost control of pretty much everything it had, and still hasn't gotten it back.

Democratic mandate, yes. Clinton, no.

In the 1992 election, the GOP gained 9 House seats, and were slightly higher than at any point during the GHW Bush years.  That is hardly a Democratic mandate. 

Err...Clinton mandate, yes. Democratic mandate, no.

Sorry, stupid typo on my part.

[J. J.]

I wouldn' even class that as a Clinton mandate.  A solid victory, yes, but factoring out Perot, not a mandate.

I wouldn't class 1988 as being a "mandate either."

[Sibboleth]

He has a mandate for a hawkish foreign policy. He has a mandate for moderately conservative social positions. He doesn't have a mandate on any economic issue at all.

[J. J.]

He has a mandate for a hawkish foreign policy. He has a mandate for moderately conservative social positions. He doesn't have a mandate on any economic issue at all.

GHW Bush didn't have a mandate overall, but a good solid victory in 1988.

GW Bush, likewise, had a solid win, but not a huge one.  No mandate.

[A18]

What are we defining as a mandate? He won, so he certainly has the mandate to be president for four more years and carry out every solitary item of his agenda.

[J. J.]

What are we defining as a mandate? He won, so he certainly has the mandate to be president for four more years and carry out every solitary item of his agenda.

I would not call this a broad base of support.  I'd say the same thing for exery election since 1980.

[zorkpolitics]

According to that unbiased source, the NY Times, Republican margins of 8, 10 or even 18 pts are not real mandates:
In 1980, when Ronald Reagan bested incumbent President Jimmy Carter by 10 percentage points, the NY Times editors observed that his “mandate,” a word they themselves put in suspicion-arousing quotation marks, had “little policy content,” a position they reiterated four years later when Reagan won reelection over Walter Mondale by a whopping 18 percentage points (a “lonely landslide” and “a personal victory with little precise policy mandate”). Nor could the 8-point victory by Bush’s father over Michael Dukakis “fairly be called a mandate,” asserted the paper in 1988.

Whenever a Democrat has won, by contrast, the Times has perceived things differently. After Bill Clinton’s first victory (by 6 percentage points) in 1992, the editors commented: “The test now will be how quickly President-elect Clinton can convert his mandate into momentum.” When he won reelection (by 8 points) in 1996, it repeated the thought—“There can be no question about his mandate”—and added a little civics lesson: “The American people express their clearest opinion about what they want government to do through their choice of chief executive.”

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/A11901023.htm

[A18]

LOL! Bush got a larger percentage of the vote than Clinton. Only two Democrats since the civil war got a larger percentage of the vote than this president - Lyndon Johnson and FDR.

[J. J.]

You have to look at a number of things for a mandate.

1.  Did the candidate get a majority of the votes case?

2.  Did the candidate win by a wide margin?

3.  Did the candidate's party make gains in the legislature, especially in the House?

I would argue that 1980 met all criteria, and was the last election to do so.  Reagan had a majority and a large margin over Carter.  The GOP gained 38 House seats an 13 Senate seats.  Prior to that, 1964 and 1952 would qualify.

Does 1988?  No, the GOP had some substantial losses in the House and the Senate.  Neither does 1992, where the GOP numbers were higher than during the GHW Bush administration.

Now, let look at two prior elections, 1972 and 1976.  In 1972 the GOP lost two Senate seats.  There was a gain of 12 House seats, but there was a 12 seat loss in the previous election.  Nixon did have a majority and a sizable win, but it was a perrsonal victory, not one that suggested his policies should be carried through the legislature.

In 1976, the Democrats had a one seat loss in the Senate and a one seat gain in the House.  Carter barely had a majority.  Likewise, this was a bare victory for the Democrats.

2004 most resembles 1976, though Bush won a stronger victory, the gains in the House, and especially in the Senate, were better.  A good performance, but not a policy mandate.

[Angel of Death]

I find this discussion about when or whether someone has a "mandate" a bit ackward. Theoretically, the plan is that people vote for the person who is the "best" candidate in whatever criteria they deem important and when someone wins, hopefully, that person would act as expected by them.
This just shows another disadvantage of a presidential system.

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

A mandate for George W?  Absolutely!

Kerry would have claimed a mandate had he won by the margin by which Bush won.

 A majority is a majority is a majority.

[J.R. Brown]

120,000 more votes in Ohio and Kerry would be our president. Not a Mandate

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

120,000 more votes in Ohio and Kerry would be our president. Not a Mandate

Yeah? And 100k votes in Illinois would have made Nixon our president in 1960. Obviously Kennedy didn't have a mandate either.

[opebo]

120,000 more votes in Ohio and Kerry would be our president. Not a Mandate

Yeah? And 100k votes in Illinois would have made Nixon our president in 1960. Obviously Kennedy didn't have a mandate either.

Nobody said he did.

The key reason that Bush's win was not a mandate has to do with more than its extreme narrowness.  It is also important that it was extremely regional.  The country remains polarized - South/Rural/religious against the Coasts/urban/secular.  Each about 50/50, and each with a very firm base.

[agcatter]

Mandate?  I can't really say.  Depends on one's definition of the term.  I do know this.  Kerry won't be turning over American foreign policy to the French, appointing lefties to the courts, or repealing tax cuts. 

That's plenty good enough for me.

[Joe Republic]

Bush didn't have a mandate in his first term because he didn't win the popular vote.  Plus, he had his re-election options to worry about, so he couldn't pursue a radical agenda with such a bitterly divided electorate.

But this election changed that.  Bush won a majority, strengthened his support in Congress, and now doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected.  He's virtually free to do what he wants.  I'd call it a mandate.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Bush is a republican, so yes, mandate.

[Vasall des Midas]

You'd be getting your face punched in after "Twilight" for bumping this trash thread, except it includes this beauty quote

"No one ever went broke betting that people would not think."

so you're officially forgiven.

[Bo]

The country was divided almost evenly in 2004 (unlike in 1932, 1936, 1964, 1972, and 1984) and Bush did not receive a mandate by any means. However, he acted like he received a mandate even back in 2000 when he only won by 537 votes.

[nclib]

The country was divided almost evenly in 2004 (unlike in 1932, 1936, 1964, 1972, and 1984) and Bush did not receive a mandate by any means. However, he acted like he received a mandate even back in 2000 when he only won by 537 votes.

Exactly. In 2000, he acted like his miniscule margin of victory was irrelevant for him having a mandate, but in 2004 claimed that his increased (but still small) victory was relevant for a mandate.

[Derek]

Yea even heading into that election I didn't think he'd have a mandate or much political capital. The thing is, his popularity was on a downward spiral from xmas 2001 until he left office. I also knew he'd get reelected just in time.