Thursday, November 04, 2004No Mandate
The right has already started deluding themselves, believing that somehow their narrow victory constitutes a mandate.
I call bullshit.
The main evidence for this purported mandate is that "more people voted for Bush than voted for any prior incumbant president."
Of course, the other side of this coin is that more people also voted AGAINST Bush than have ever voted against any prior incumbant president.
In the comments below, my mother, a Bush supporter, claims, "Bush has as strong a mandate as any president has had since Reagan." Sorry, Mom, but the numbers just don't lie. Your 3% win over Kerry is nothing more than a tiny sliver of extra support; it's the saddest excuse for a mandate in living memory.
In 1980, Reagan had a 9% lead on Carter.
In 1984, He had an 18% lead on Mondale. (Note that one: that's what we're calling a mandate.)
In 1988, George H.W. Bush had an 8% lead on Dukakis.
In 1992, Clinton won by almost 6%.
In 1996, Clinton won by 9%
In 2000, George W. Bush "won" with roughly 1% less of the popular vote than Gore.
And in 2004, George W. Bush's "mandate" is made of a whopping 3% of the vote. That is to say, every single president since Reagan has had a bigger mandate than George W. Bush has now, by at least a factor of two. That's the lowest winning margin for any incumbant president, EVER.
Mandate my ass. |