Divided or Mandate?

[Alcon]

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.

[Alcon]

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.

Looking at the PV, I wouldn't call it a mandate. But the EV, yes. However, without Perot, it would have been much closer. It wasn't a mandate by any means in my book.

[Alcon]

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.

[Alcon]

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.

[Alcon]

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.

[Alcon]

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.

[Alcon]

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.

[Alcon]

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.

[Alcon]

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.