Divided or Mandate?

[dazzleman]

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.

A mandate is a matter of degree.  A majority of the vote provides more of a mandate than a plurality, especially when everybody knows what you stand for, and voted accordingly.

You probably thought that Clinton's 43% of the vote in 1992 represented a mandate.  That's usually how these things work - the person you want always has a mandate, while the opponent never does.

[dazzleman]

It's not a mandate because he got the most votes ever. It's a mandate because he won.

In general I agree.  Winning provides a mandate, and the greater the victory, the bigger the mandate.  In that sense, the president has more of a mandate than in 2000, when his mandate was virtually non-existent.

[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

That's because of population growth and growth in the number of voters.  It's the percentage that really matters.

[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.