A well-researched letter in today’s Boston Globe (12/21/2004) states that Bush Jr was the US President elected to his second term by the smallest percentage ever.
So much for his claiming an overwhelming victory, the people have spoken, etc.
Here’s a link to the letter:
Letter
As we all know, newspaper articles tend to get removed very quickly, so that same letter is also available on this site:
Alternate Site
Every president always claims a mandate. They can win by one vote, and they’ll say, “The people have spoken and chosen me to lead this country forward.” or something like that. It’s just rhetoric.
Its very simple. GeeDubya won the last election by minus 500,000 votes. To win this election by a positive number, however slim, is, comparatively speaking, a crushing landslide avalanche of a mandate. Besides, they would have gloated anyway, even if he had been installed by military coup, and the Usual Suspects would be here, telling us with a straight face that, really, there was no other reasonable course of action.
How can it be seriously considered a mandate when less that 200,000 votes in a country this large would have changed the election?
If Bush thinks he has full approval, he might want to consider support for the war among the American public and support for Rumsfeld within his own party.
Still, in looking at the strict definition of mandate, he is seemingly authorized to do a lot of things – including stubbornly dragging this country into quicksand.
Leaving aside whether there was mandate or not, that statement is incorrect. On the one hand, you pick one state where 200k votes would make a difference (Ohio) and then you compare that amount to the total number of voters in the entire country. You can’t have it both ways. Those 200k votes (or whatever the amount actually was) had to be concentrated in a particular state. Had they been evenly distributed throught the country, the election would still have been won by Bush.
Democrat-ish liberal checking in here.
The man won. That means he is in charge. If he says or thinks that gives him a mandate - fine.
Let’s not waste anymore time debating “mandates” or vote counts or whatever else we wasted time on after the 2000 elections.
Think about how to win the next one, how to gain back some seats in Congress in two years, how to get people you support into office in your local area.
Thank you. That is all. 
In a democracy, you agree on the rules for choosing your leaders. Then, if the rules are followed (which, on the whole, they were in November 2004), the guy who wins under the rules is elected. That means they have a mandate, in the sense of the right to do whatever their position allows them to do. So Dubya has a “mandate” to do whatever the Constition says the POTUS can do.
(Of course, I didn’t vote for him, and if I’d had a vote, I’d have voted for someone else. But rules are rules, and they give winners mandates.)
What John Mace said.
I have to ask you though, do you think John F. Kennedy had a mandate? Similar vote shifting in 1960 (and with far fewer votes) would have given the race to Nixon.
Yeah, but JFK didn’t get us started in a protracted land war in Asia.
Oh wait, he did…
Still doesn’t make either action right, but those who would demonize the Republicans **and **laud the Democrats should remember their history.
Winner takes all and can do what he wants. Best to stop griping and look ahead to victories in 2006 and 2008.
By the way, got a cite for where Bush has used the word “mandate” (not amorphous language about how the people have spoken)?
“The presidency is ours. Let us enjoy it.”
There are his references to all the “political capital” he has amassed, and a recent nugget o’ crap to the effect that the “American people” have endorsed his foreign policy, i.e., Iraq. Good enough?
(10,000 posts. Alas, the time squandered. Might have translated Finnegan’s Wake into Coptic. Might have advanced the cause of a moral reawakening, or flung myself headlong into Good Works. Or gone bowling…)
Cheney used the word when introducing Bush prior to his victory statement.
Sounds all right to my ear. I think he has a mandate, just as Kennedy had one in 1960.
Well, don’t forget that in addition to his own re-election, he has managed to increase his party’s margin in both houses of Congress twice. And the Republican candidates for those office campaigned to a large degree on supporting the President.
“Mandate” would seem to be a loaded word, but there’s certainly no denying that the voters at large seem to have spoken out very clearly - not overwhelmingly, but certainly clearly - for a Republican-run government and the policies that those imply.
Why is that nugget of crap? Are you going to tell us that by re-electing Bush, the American people gave a vote of no confidence for his foreign policy?
Why is that nugget of crap? Are you going to tell us that by re-electing Bush, the American people gave a vote of no confidence for his foreign policy?
I suppose its all in how you interpret the word “mandate”. The way I’ve always looked at it, it simply means “I won so get to be President and do whatever I want (within the confines of the office or whatever I can get away with)”. So, every president has a ‘mandate’…and they all claim they do even if they don’t use the word. And rightly so…after all, they ARE the president, no?
I’d like a cite though that GW’s win was the “smallest percentage ever”. What exactly does that mean? Smallest percentage for the entire US? In certain states? In the EC? If memory serves Kennedy’s '60 win was pretty thin, and Clintons first term win over GW’s daddy was also pretty damn thin. Its rather hard to believe that GW won by ‘the smallest percentage ever’, unless they are looking at only very narrow data sets…or looking through only one eye while standing on their head and spinning quarters.
-XT
p.s. I agree with Giles…the man won. Time to get over it and figure out how to win in '06 and '08 instead of constantly brooding about GW’s win and gripping about how narrow it was blah blah blah. IMO the Dems better get cracking in figuring out how to start winning some or they are going to be further marginalized (unless they are simply counting on GW doing such a poor job and driving the US so far down that folks HAVE to flock to the Dems to save the country).
I think the actual issue is that it was a small percentage win for a RE-ELECTION*, so comparing this to a first time election isn’t correct. But you can always look for some statistic that will prove your point, so the OP is still reaching.
Mandate, shmandate. The guy won, so he’s going to do what he wants. If that bothers some people, then they’ll just have to learn to f*cking live with it. I didn’t vote for the guy, but obcioiusly most voters did. BFD. Your guy doesn’t always win, and if you’re going to be a cry baby every time you lose, don’t be surprised if people don’t bother listennign to you anymore.
*in recent history. not sure how far back it’s valid for.
Under other circumstances, you might have a point, Johnny. But for one crucial distinction: this is not a President who is somewhat less than the optimum, this fool is a rolling disaster, a moveable famine. Worse, I think he believes his own bullshit. I think when he stood there and couldn’t recall a mistake he has made, he was entirely sincere. He honest-to-God thinks he is a Leader of Men, picked by destiny to be “transformative”, Elmer Fudd thinks he’s Churchill.
I think that the PIPA survey people got it right on target: Americans formed a bond with Bush as a result of 9/11, the “rally round” principle disastrously misplaced in a delusional doofus. They are loathe to break that emotional connection, even as the evidence mounts. Even so, his disapproval rate is awesome, standing at about 49%. Given that he has the bully pulpit, and every opportunity to wrap himself in Old Glory and cast himself as The Leader, this is a staggeringly large percentage. Who else in history has been so mind-bendingly stupid as to push forward huge tax cuts while starting an extravagantly expensive war? Might as well pull all your money from under the mattress, take it out into the middle of the street and set fire to it!
Our only hope lies in that most craven and cringing band of suck-ups: our Congress. They are already thinking about the next election. If it becomes increasingly apparent that aligning themselves with GeeDubya is a losing proposition, his agenda will not go forward, damage control can begin. This is scant hope, but its all we got! Admittedly, I propose handing out buckets to the passengers of the Titanic and screaming “Bail!”. But the alternative is to end up bobbing corpsesicles in the water.
You may think I am exaggerating. I hope you are right. But I am a pessimist, and, as such, am seldom wrong.
Gosh, and here I thought the President was supposed to look after the interests of all citizens, not just the 51% who voted for him.