Bush's Mandate

[khirkhib]

So right wing talk radio is talking about Bush's mandate and that he can go at his agenda full sale.  Now Bush during his speech yesterday aid that he wanted to reach accross to the democrats but we ar somewhat skeptical.  Bush clearly did not have a mandate in 2000 and despite promises of bipartisanship he did not work that way.  I guess the second part of the question would be, is Bush really going to try to work across the aisle.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

My arguement against Bush winning the mandate it simple:
This is the largest number of people who have ever voted AGAINST a president

1% more than 50% is not a mandate but a bare, thin, majority.

At 80% approval after 9-11 and guaranteed a landslide election by prognosticators 2 years ago, only half the country supports him

A president who leads a divided country owes it to all Americans to lead fairly or have his party face the consequences begining in 2006. No one else is here to blame

Assuming Bush gets New Mexico and Iowa, he will have gotten the lowest percentage of electoral votes (54%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Wilson. If those two states should swing Kerry's way (NM might), it'll be even lower.

He will have won with the lowest percentage of the popular vote (51%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Truman (well, technically since Clinton, but he also ran against Perot, who was a more significant 3rd-party candidate than Thurmond and Wallace were in '48)

He will have won by the lowest margin of the popular vote (3.5M) of any incumbent running for reelection since Truman (2.1M, and back then only 50M voted).

He will have won the three states that put him over 270 (OH, NM and IA--assuming the last two go his way) by only 161,989 (not counting the provisional ballots, absentee, etc.).

[ATFFL]

I'll say it again, the Republican gains in the Senate and House equate a mandate for the party.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I think Bush did get a mandate of sorts...he popular vote victory was rather impressive.  But Bush already enacted his agenda when he didn't have a mandate in 2000, and when he didn't even run on an extreme conservative platform, so I would hope he would tread carefully this time around.

Also, to say he got a mandate because the GOP picked up seats in the House is silly...the only reason the Dems didn't gain seats was the Texas redistricting.

[ATFFL]

I think Bush did get a mandate of sorts...he popular vote victory was rather impressive.  But Bush already enacted his agenda when he didn't have a mandate in 2000, and when he didn't even run on an extreme conservative platform, so I would hope he would tread carefully this time around.

Also, to say he got a mandate because the GOP picked up seats in the House is silly...the only reason the Dems didn't gain seats was the Texas redistricting.

Without the House redistricting the House would be even at best for the Dems.  More likely the Reps would have picked up one or two seats at most.

[A18]

I'm sure all heavily Democratic and Republican states are (and should be, IMHO) "gerrymandered." This was one instance where the Republicans did it. If you're going to toss out the results because of it, you have to toss out the results entirely.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I think Bush did get a mandate of sorts...he popular vote victory was rather impressive.  But Bush already enacted his agenda when he didn't have a mandate in 2000, and when he didn't even run on an extreme conservative platform, so I would hope he would tread carefully this time around.

Also, to say he got a mandate because the GOP picked up seats in the House is silly...the only reason the Dems didn't gain seats was the Texas redistricting.

Without the House redistricting the House would be even at best for the Dems.  More likely the Reps would have picked up one or two seats at most.

How so?  The total Republican gain was three or four seats nationwide, but their total gain in Texas was five.  And that's not counting Ralph Hall, who switched parties as a result of redistricting.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

To get more specific, outside of Texas, only six seats changed hands.

Two gains for the Republicans:
KY-04
IN-09 (and this was only about 1,000 votes, may not be final yet)

Four gains for the Democrats:
NY-27
IL-08
CO-03
GA-12

[ATFFL]

I think Bush did get a mandate of sorts...he popular vote victory was rather impressive.  But Bush already enacted his agenda when he didn't have a mandate in 2000, and when he didn't even run on an extreme conservative platform, so I would hope he would tread carefully this time around.

Also, to say he got a mandate because the GOP picked up seats in the House is silly...the only reason the Dems didn't gain seats was the Texas redistricting.

Without the House redistricting the House would be even at best for the Dems.  More likely the Reps would have picked up one or two seats at most.

How so?  The total Republican gain was three or four seats nationwide, but their total gain in Texas was five.  And that's not counting Ralph Hall, who switched parties as a result of redistricting.

Their total gain in Texas was four, one of which likely would have happened without the redistricting.

They may yet take LA-7 as well.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I think Bush did get a mandate of sorts...he popular vote victory was rather impressive.  But Bush already enacted his agenda when he didn't have a mandate in 2000, and when he didn't even run on an extreme conservative platform, so I would hope he would tread carefully this time around.

Also, to say he got a mandate because the GOP picked up seats in the House is silly...the only reason the Dems didn't gain seats was the Texas redistricting.

Without the House redistricting the House would be even at best for the Dems.  More likely the Reps would have picked up one or two seats at most.

How so?  The total Republican gain was three or four seats nationwide, but their total gain in Texas was five.  And that's not counting Ralph Hall, who switched parties as a result of redistricting.

Their total gain in Texas was four, one of which likely would have happened without the redistricting.

They may yet take LA-7 as well.

The GOP gained 5  in redistricting in Texas (6 including Hall)...they defeated 4 Dem incumbents in the general, but also Jim Turner (formerly TX-02) retired rather than run against Max Sandlin in a primary.  The Republicans drew a new TX-24 as an open seat which was won easily by a Republican, Kenny Marchant.

[MODU]

I don't care about "mandates."  I just want all the elected officials to do thier jobs for the betterment of the country, and not their own status.

[bergie72]

"Technically" speaking, he did get a mandate.

Merriam-Webster website, "Mandate: 2 (noun) an authorization to act given to a representative"

But I think most people have put a lot more emotion into this word then the text-book description.  Under the 'loaded' verison, no.

Bush received a simple majority of the votes, PV and EV.  This was not a 'mandate of the masses'.

[khirkhib]

Clinton recieve 379 Electoral Votes in1996 and beat his oppnent by 8 million votes.

Bush will maybe get, what 285 EV and beats Kerry by 3.5 million.  And even then I don't think Clinton acted as though he had a mandate.  I don't think Clinton acted nearly as radical as Bush will act in his second admiinstration.

Time wrote an article about it in 1996
Our Journey Is Not Done
The voters hand Clinton a historic victory but send a message, not a mandate: work with the Republicans

http://cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/time.special/term/

It shows you how well Bush has the media under his thumb. The media didn't treat Clinton like he had a mandate and Bush shouldn't act like he has one.

[J. J.]

Clinton recieve 379 Electoral Votes in1996 and beat his oppnent by 8 million votes.

Bush will maybe get, what 285 EV and beats Kerry by 3.5 million.  And even then I don't think Clinton acted as though he had a mandate.  I don't think Clinton acted nearly as radical as Bush will act in his second admiinstration.

Time wrote an article about it in 1996
Our Journey Is Not Done
The voters hand Clinton a historic victory but send a message, not a mandate: work with the Republicans

http://cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/time.special/term/

It shows you how well Bush has the media under his thumb. The media didn't treat Clinton like he had a mandate and Bush shouldn't act like he has one.

There are several reasons for this:

1.  A much lower percentage of the VAP voted in 1996 than 2004.

2.  A majority that did said, in effect, "We want somebody other than Clinton."

3.  The Party of Clinton was not relected in legislative races; in fact, the party of Clinton, which controlled a least one house of Congress for 40 years was swept from power largely as a reaction to Clinton.

There is a better argument for a GOP "mandate" in 2004 than there was for a Democratic one in 1996.

[Sam Spade]

I might also argue that there is just as good of a mandate for the GOP right now as there was in 1984 because of the coattails factor as well. 

Bush, during his first four years in office, has gained 10 House seats and 6 Senate seats along with winning the Presidency by more than 50% for the first time since 1988.

That's a mandate to me.

[kelpie]

Taking the oath of office is all the mandate any president needs.

How many votes he won by and what his total vote was don't alter his mandate, but they do impact his de facto political strength.

Bush is very strong now.

I hope he reaches out to Democrats, but if anything I would say that the stronger imperative is for Democrats to reach out to him.  He is in charge.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I hope he reaches out to Democrats, but if anything I would say that the stronger imperative is for Democrats to reach out to him.  He is in charge.

NO, NO, NO

America is a DEMOCRACY not a DICTATORSHIP. In a Democracy people should be able to THINK FREELY.

Sure Bush has a Mandate to Govern. But he does NOT have a mandate to act like a tin pot dictator (not that he will).

[MODU]

Actually, we're a Republic, but I know what you are trying to say. 

[NHPolitico]

Bush won convincingly, and gained seats in the House and Senate. That's all that's necessary for a mandate to be declared.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Bush won convincingly, and gained seats in the House and Senate. That's all that's necessary for a mandate to be declared.

1. Define "convincingly". Yes Bush won, no one (sane) is disputing that. But he didn't exactly walk it.
2. Bush did not gain seats in the House and Senate. The Republican Party gained seats in the Senate and (notionally*) lost seats in the House. I've not seen the popular vote figures for the House... could be interesting reading.
3. What sort of mandate? He has a mandate to Govern the U.S. He has a mandate to be hawkish. He does not have a mandate to radically transform the U.S
Everything is relative

*Counting all defections (2 D to R) Special Elections (2 R to D) as being held by orignal party, treating the Texan Five et al as Notionally Republican (which I *think* they all were)

[J. J.]

Taking the oath of office is all the mandate any president needs.

How many votes he won by and what his total vote was don't alter his mandate, but they do impact his de facto political strength.

Bush is very strong now.

I hope he reaches out to Democrats, but if anything I would say that the stronger imperative is for Democrats to reach out to him.  He is in charge.

I agree with kelpie.  I think you can argue that Bush had a mandate in 2004, that Clinton had a "Mandate for Change," that Reagan had a "Mandate" in 1980 and that Carter had a "Mandate" in 1976.  Excepting Reagan in 1980, I would argue that, retrospectively, there was no "mandate."

[DaleC76]

Perception is everything.  51-48 is a very close election,  but when it follows the 2000 campaign, it looks a lot bigger than it actually is.  The success of the Republican Congressional elections have a lot to do with it too.

[angus]

I hope he reaches out to Democrats, but if anything I would say that the stronger imperative is for Democrats to reach out to him.  He is in charge.

NO, NO, NO

America is a DEMOCRACY not a DICTATORSHIP. In a Democracy people should be able to THINK FREELY.

Sure Bush has a Mandate to Govern. But he does NOT have a mandate to act like a tin pot dictator (not that he will).

this is all true.  but fyi, way back in my freshman polisci courses in college, I was taught (and I think this was regularly taught in the mid to late 80s) that a "mandate for an agenda" was thought to have been awarded if the PV for a candidate, in any race, was at least 55%.  This applied to any office seeker to any office.  Thus, according to tradition, as taught to us in our universities, Bush does not have a "mandate to carry out a legislative agenda."

Just FYI, in case you weren't aware that we are actually being taught a specific definition of "mandate" in our universities. 

Having said that, in an electorate this polarized, we may need to revisit our terms.  Though I certainly agree that in a democratic system of legislation, the legislators are not bound by any tradition of abandoning their respective constituencies.  Nevertheless, in a 55-44-1 senate and a similarly controlled house, you'd have a hard time arguing that the Bush agenda will not come to fruition, if the GOP is of one mind.  (of course, it is not, so it'll be interesting to watch the internal feuds.)

[dazzleman]

Practically speaking, a president has a mandate to do whatever he can get through Congress.

If an idea is popular enough, Congress will pass it, because they won't want to face the wrath of voters who wanted it passed.

So I think it's pointless to argue about whether a president has a mandate or not.  If he doesn't, he'll find out soon enough.

Some examples:
George H.W. Bush - based his 1988 campaign on the Pledge of Allegiance and swipes at harebrained liberal ideas like unsupervised furloughs for murderers, and proposed almost nothing specific.  Then he wasn't able to get anything through Congress.

Jimmy Carter - ran on a platform of honesty.  Proposed a whole bunch of general ideas, but little specific.  Got almost nothing passed despite having a Democratic Congress in both houses for the full four years.

Ronald Reagan - ran on a specific platform of tax cuts and defense spending increases.  Pushed both through Congress.  In his second term, he ran on "morning in America" but as an exception to the rule, he did pass major tax reform in his second term.

This time, Bush made non-specific proposals regarding social security reform and tax reform, and of course promised to keep up the pressure on terrorism and win in Iraq.  That is his mandate as far as it goes.  I am generally aware of what he wants to propose re social security, and would support it if the details make sense.  I have no idea what how he wants to reform taxes.

[angus]

Al,
another point of syntax.  what you might refer to as 'notionally republican' is usually referred to in our media as 'ideologically conservative'  Not that I like that notation any better, but it is in the vernacular.  Thus, the US congress has long had an ideological majority one way or another, even during times of absolute partisan contol changeover, so your point is well taken.

what you may overlook, however, is a subtler point of rules, regulations, assignments, etc.  The Texas 5 et al may have been part of an ideological majority, either way, but for majority/minority leaders/whips, rules, etc. all Dems (excepting Traficant) and all Reps (excepting sometimes Jeffords) voted with their respective parties.  So a change from a "conservative democrat" to a republican is a real change.  believe it.

[Light Touch]

I'll say it again, the Republican gains in the Senate and House equate a mandate for the party.

What he said.

Plus the marriage amendments.  I wasn't surprised in MS, but OR?  MI?  Hard to argue with 11-0.