Divided or Mandate?

[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.

[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.

[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.