If the next president wins with just 272 EV, do they have a mandate?

[Suburbia]

In 2000, GWB was seen as a president without a mandate. If the 2016 winner wins with just 272 EV or even less, can you see them having a hard time governing in 2017?

[Asian Nazi]

No, Bush was totally seen as having a mandate.  Aside from partisan Democrats, most of the country happily rallied behind Bush like they would any other president and his approval ratings were high after his inauguration.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Technically yes, but imo morally no.

[Blue3]

It doesn't matter, each president is going to do what they're going to do, regardless.

[Asian Nazi]

Bush's historical approval ratings, for the record.  Notice how it's at or near 60% right when he takes office.  He was the first president since Jimmy Carter to start out that high.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Bush's historical approval ratings, for the record.  Notice how it's at or near 60% right when he takes office.  He was the first president since Jimmy Carter to start out that high.

There was the whole 9/11 thing....

[Blue3]

Obama started pretty high too.

[Asian Nazi]

Bush's historical approval ratings, for the record.  Notice how it's at or near 60% right when he takes office.  He was the first president since Jimmy Carter to start out that high.

There was the whole 9/11 thing....

I'm not really sure how that's relevant to what I was saying

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Bush's historical approval ratings, for the record.  Notice how it's at or near 60% right when he takes office.  He was the first president since Jimmy Carter to start out that high.

There was the whole 9/11 thing....

I'm not really sure how that's relevant to what I was saying

I misread that I thought you were talking about something else, but the reasons could be attributed to people wanting change and Bush was a fresh face that wasn't plagued like the Clinton era was...then we realized how s***** his presidency was.

[Asian Nazi]

Bush's historical approval ratings, for the record.  Notice how it's at or near 60% right when he takes office.  He was the first president since Jimmy Carter to start out that high.

There was the whole 9/11 thing....

I'm not really sure how that's relevant to what I was saying

I misread that I thought you were talking about something else, but the reasons could be attributed to people wanting change and Bush was a fresh face that wasn't plagued like the Clinton era was...then we realized how s***** his presidency was.

Oh yeah, agreed on all accounts.  I've just seen/heard lots of "Bush was viewed as a failed President before 9/11" and "he would've gotten destroyed in his re-election attempt if it weren't for 9/11" being peddled around, especially among people who are too young to remember how well-liked Bush was in middle America before things like Iraq and Hurricane Katrina tanked his numbers.  Bush was largely viewed as a reasonable, compassionate conservative and as a legitimate President while Gore/Lieberman were seen as Sore/Loserman when Gore reversed his concession and tried (understandably, imo) to contest the election result.   

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

I think that a mandate would really depend on the popular vote if it was that close. I think that Bush winning the SCOTUS case in 2000 gave him something of a mandate that he might not have had if he had won without SCOTUS's help.

Bush was largely viewed as a reasonable, compassionate conservative and as a legitimate President while Gore/Lieberman were seen as Sore/Loserman when Gore reversed his concession and tried (understandably, imo) to contest the election result.    

Sore/Loserman? I'll have to remember that one.

[I support Sanders]

Ideally, mandates should be determined by who wins the popular vote. 272 EV is not a mandate to govern.

[Reaganfan]

I think that a mandate would really depend on the popular vote if it was that close. I think that Bush winning the SCOTUS case in 2000 gave him something of a mandate that he might not have had if he had won without SCOTUS's help.

Bush was largely viewed as a reasonable, compassionate conservative and as a legitimate President while Gore/Lieberman were seen as Sore/Loserman when Gore reversed his concession and tried (understandably, imo) to contest the election result.    

Sore/Loserman? I'll have to remember that one.

You don't remember Sore/Loserman?

[Figueira]

It depends on:
-whether they win the popular vote
-by how much they win the closest state
-whether there's a question of who won the closest state