Mandate?

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Does anyone know why the media has decided to parrot this claim for a mandate for Bush with such a narrow, fractuous victory in the polls?

Pretty scary really - more people voted for Kerry than any previous presidential candidate and the margin of victory so small that you figure that those in the media would hold off throwing it around as they are....

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

not really. He won the election with a majority of the popular vote. That's all that a mandate means. It's a political term and by definition, bush won a mandate.

[Displaced Flames fan]

First President since his Dad beat Dukakis to win with a majority of the vote. Sounds like a mandate to me.

[octothorp]

Personally, I really don't see what the big issue is. If Bush wants to date men so be it. There are all these hypocritical liberals who support gay marriage but want to prevent Bush from his mandates. As long as he keeps it out of the oval office, he should be free to explore his sexuality, as any world leader should.

[Claeren]

I like the fact he has a mandate now. It means in 4 more years when the 'War on Terror' is still a mess, America has completely lost the moral high ground on virtually every issue, the dollar is even lower, their deficits are even bigger, and the debt is pushing right past $10 Trillion the only person people can point the finger at is themselves....

Claeren.

[Daradon]

Lol good call Claeren.

I was totally anti-Bush too, but I must admit I have a morbid curiosity to see what four more years with this guy at the helm will do, and whether or not people will regret their decision (ala the PC party in Canada disappearing after the Mulroney years) Besides it's their country, they can elect whomever they want. Like I'v mentioned a few times here though I just want to see our leaders stand up for our trade issues bettter and not sign off on all their security wants (aka missile defense);.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by Claeren@Nov 8 2004, 05:20 PM
I like the fact he has a mandate now. It means in 4 more years when the 'War on Terror' is still a mess, America has completely lost the moral high ground on virtually every issue, the dollar is even lower, their deficits are even bigger, and the debt is pushing right past $10 Trillion the only person people can point the finger at is themselves....

Claeren.

Agreed and for the same reason I can't wait to see the whining about the eventual draft. Canada should close it's borders in that case, or only admit card carrying democrats if the dodgers come

[Mike F]

Originally posted by TheCommodoreAfro@Nov 8 2004, 03:28 PM
Does anyone know why the media has decided to parrot this claim for a mandate for Bush with such a narrow, fractuous victory in the polls?

To quote The Daily Show's Ed Helms: "This is a man who lost the popular vote last time and interpreted that as a mandate. This time he won straight up, 51-49%. To him, that's a shut-out!"

[Bingo]

In US terms it is a mandate.

Presidents for the last 45 years ...

2004 Bush 52%
2000 Bush 48%
1996 Clinton 49%
1992 Clinton 43%
1988 Bush 52%
1984 Reagan 59%
1980 Reagan 51%
1976 Carter 50%
1972 Nixon 61%
1968 Nixon 43%
1964 Johnson 61%

Bush has the highest margin of victory since his father in '88 and has considerably more than Clinton in his first term. He's actually ranked 4th on the list for the last 11 presidential terms with only one Democrat ranking ahead of him.

This isn't Canada where you see a Liberal party with 64% of the popular vote.

[Table 5]

interesting stats. I guess there have been " two americas " for a lot longer than previously though.

[Bingo]

Exactly ...

And since we haven't heard the discreditation of the word mandate much in the past I would assume that those that have tried to play it down are simply disappointed in the results.

Clearly these people haven't looked the numbers up.

[EddyBeers]

you should add the other candidates numbers to 92 and 96, because it is slightly different when there is a legitimate third party candidate

1992
Clinton 43%
Bush 37.4%
Perot 18.9%

1996
Clinton 49.2%
Dole 40.7%
Perot 8.4%

Almost any independent analysis of those two elections shows the Perot vote splitting disproportionately to Clinton as well, so I am quite sure a democratic supporter could say that Clinton had a mandate in both situations

Clearly the biggest mandate was in 1972, and there are a lot of similarities to that election and this one in terms of how the republicans operated.

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/302450.shtml

I know someone will dismiss it as Independent media and not fair and balanced like fox, but feel free to comment on it.

[Cowperson]

I agree the independents should be considered. Margins of victory below:

1968 - Nixon 43.4%, Humphrey 42.7%, independent 13.5%

1972 - Nixon 60.6%, McGovern 37.5%, no independent

1976 - Carter 50.6%, Ford 48%, independent 1.4%

1980 - Reagan 51%, Carter 41%, independent 8%

1984 - Reagan 59%, Mondale 41%, no independent

1988 - Bush Sr. 52%, Dukakis 48%, no independent

1992 - Clinton 43%, Bush Sr. 38%, independent 19%

1996 - Clinton 49%, Dole 41%, independent 10%

I don't think anyone was saying Carter didn't have a mandate for change in 1976. Nixon's win in 1968 also seemed a mandate to get prosecute the Vietnam war in a different manner. Both were slim margins.

The thing about the Bush win is that the Republican party in general strengthened its hold on all levels of government in the same election and the Democrats lost their House leader. In turn, it could be argued that neither party has had this kind of top to bottom hold on the mechanisms of power in decades. And that probably looks like a mandate.

Further, most analysts would agree any second term President becomes a lame duck about 18 months into his second term and many second terms are marked by scandal and controversy.

Cowperson

[Cube Inmate]

Originally posted by Bingo@Nov 9 2004, 10:04 AM
This isn't Canada where you see a Liberal party with 64% of the popular vote.

What are you talking about? Popular vote number from last 20 years' winners:

2004 - Liberal = 37%
2000 - Liberal = 41%
1997 - Liberal = 38%
1993 - Liberal = 41%
1988 - PC = 43%
1984 - PC = 50%
etc...

You've gotta go back 20 years to see a winning party get 50% of the popular vote (but in all but the latest election, a majority resulted).

[Bingo]

Man ... I guess I completely ignore the NDP

Point taken, similar story in Canada I guess.

I guess there is no such thing as a mandate in modern politics. Maybe politicians should just do nothing ... wait ... I think that's been tried in here!

[Claeren]

It is interesting, one of the few 'mandate's' in election history, but also one of the smallest margins of victory as well...

Claeren.

[Flame On]

So the question is, did any of those leaders of the minimal mandates, actually make statements about them to the effect of "I've won political capitol and I'm going to spend it"? My guess is that for the most part they would have played it with a little more humility. Perhaps that's what is scary.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Flame On@Nov 10 2004, 03:14 AM
So the question is, did any of those leaders of the minimal mandates, actually make statements about them to the effect of "I've won political capitol and I'm going to spend it"? My guess is that for the most part they would have played it with a little more humility. Perhaps that's what is scary.

Where's the statement you are referring to?

I've heard pundits make the statements, not the President himself.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Nov 10 2004, 04:17 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Nov 10 2004, 04:17 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame On@Nov 10 2004, 03:14 AM
So the question is, did any of those leaders of the minimal mandates, actually make statements about them to the effect of "I've won political capitol and I'm going to spend it"? My guess is that for the most part they would have played it with a little more humility. Perhaps that's what is scary.

Where's the statement you are referring to?

I've heard pundits make the statements, not the President himself. [/b][/quote]
"Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it," Bush said, asserting the power he holds after a decisive win.

In his victory speech.

Jimmy Carter's inauguration speech in 1976, coming out of the Vietnam era:

http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/document.../inaugadd.phtml

Ronald Reagan's inauguration speech 1980, coming out of the helplessness of the Carter era:

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres61.html

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Nov 9 2004, 10:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Nov 9 2004, 10:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame On@Nov 10 2004, 03:14 AM
So the question is, did any of those leaders of the minimal mandates, actually make statements about them to the effect of "I've won political capitol and I'm going to spend it"? My guess is that for the most part they would have played it with a little more humility. Perhaps that's what is scary.

Where's the statement you are referring to?

I've heard pundits make the statements, not the President himself. [/b][/quote]
"I earned capital in the campaign — political capital — and now I intend to spend it."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137556,00.html

Hey, it ain't my country, but it still bugs me. It's kind of a useless argument though. He won by 500 votes last time and the proceeded to do whatever he wanted. With an actual win he might, umm, I guess keep doing whatever he wants?

Right now I'm at the point where I think "yeah it sucks that he won and it will have an effect on the whole world, but the Yanks are the ones that really have to live with this bunch -- they made their bed...".