Source So Barack Obama trailed only the re-election of Reagan in '84 for % share of the total vote, and had the highest total for a non-incumbent. That's pretty impressive and I'd say there's an Obama mandate.
It looks like they're cherry-picking their figures by going with total percentage of the population but it was still an impressive win. Obama even managed to grab an electoral vote from uber-conservative Nebraska.
It ain't a mandate (mandate= landslide) in my book unless you have 55% of the popular vote and/or 400 electoral votes. You won. Get over it already.
A mandate implies a set of policies were voted on by the public, and the 'mandate' is that those policies be adopted. Most people think the mandate was simply 'not Bush.' But others - mostly on the left - claim it's a mandate for a substantially more liberal agenda. The future will tell. It's a question of "legitimacy".
I don't think that there is ever a mandate unless you are getting into super-majority numbers. I hope that Obama can change the partisan politics that have plagued the White House for the last two presidents at the least. "Reaching across the aisle" isn't about cherry picking concessions to give to other guy, but to really consider the other guy's ideas and see how they can strengthen your own and then move forward with a stronger policy than the two parts separate.
Obamatons are like a self conscious wife or something. No, Xerafin, that dress doesn't make your ass look fat.
If you're hoping the Obama "mandate" means you're going to see a lot of liberal policies, his cabinet and advisory picks so far should have you in stitches. Anti-war activists, or libs that were looking forward to soaking the rich with new taxes (or early expiration of the "Bush" tax cuts) are ranting on left-wing blogs, the wacko over at Daily Kos is apparently in apoplexy, while the editors of the WSJ editorial pages may be throwing parties. It's still too soon to tell, but based on his picks so far, and his repudiation of almost every stupid leftie-pleasing thing he's said so far to get elected (whether it was 'meet Iran without preconditions', or 'soldiers will return from Iraq rapidly,' or 'will raise taxes on those earning more than $250k'), the garamets, tfkats ehries and liets of the world may get some "change" after all (I know I'm hitting the lowest of the low, but still). Hopefully things like implementation of his energy plan that will "bankrupt the coal industry" and his protectionist pandering against free trade will meet the same fate.
Meh. So Richard Nixon had a mandate in 1972....was he president of the "whole country"? how did that work out for him and the GOP? I heartily invite Obama to exercise his mandate - seriously. As Reagan said i favor bold colors not pale pastels....that goes both ways. Either he's right and we're wrong in which case the country benifits, or we're right and he's wrong in which case the country has a clear understanding of what's at stake in 4 years. I'm for that either way.
That's basically the opposite of "gridlock." I've equivocated about which I prefer over the years. I like your idea in principle, it's really appealing. But because I've come to have such very low expectations from Congress in practice, I think I come out on the side favoring gridlock. Mainly because how extensive and long-term the damage could be on the downside with inferior policies when implemented (see e.g. new deal/great society).
On the basis of the presidential office being a popularity achievement, like being crowned at the prom. And now that we have someone in the Oval Office who doesn't stutter and has perfect teeth, everything's going to be swell.
Obama doesn't have a mandate. He won by 5-6%, which isn't a particularly high number considering that there were no other candidates running except the two major parties. The Democrats have a mandate however, as they won the Presidency and gained in both houses of congress. Let's see what they do with it.
Ronald McDonald never frowns! Barr and Nader, who combined got less than 1% of the vote, can frown all the want. Ronald McDonald has more influence than they do.
In the event that Ronald McDonald won the election, would the McDonalds Corporation claim the presidency, or would the actors who play him?
Obama's party won significant majorities in both chambers of Congress. That's all the mandate a President needs. After that what matters is whether the President is actually empirically successful in what he manages to do.
Wrong. He won by 7% and they are still counting votes (not that that is going to change the % total significantly now).
Fine, 7%. Clinton won by 6% in an election were a 3rd party gained 19% of the vote. Reagan won by 9% the first time, and by 18% the second time. LBJ by 22%. Frigging Nixon won by 23% in 1972. We won't even talk about the Founders. There is one reason this is an unprecedented election. A black man was elected president. That's a significant achievement for this country. But that's the only reason in terms of electoral or popular vote. It was a solid victory, but as already stated, control of both houses of congress is considerably more important in terms of a mandate. Your little chart is sheer spin.
