Magic Mandate Number
If for no other reason, you have to admire Democrats for their dogged adherence to the party line.I have lost count of the number of times I have heard "not a mandate" in the last 12 hours. They clutch this tired rhetoric to their chest like a tattered battle flag, torn, dirty, dropped in the heat of a lost battle, but now recovered and serving as a symbol of their hoped-for relevance.
I find it fascinating that the party that so consistently celebrates diversity bemoans the fact that we don't all agree, but I digress.
It's time for Democrats to take a step back and evaluate what really happened.
On November 2nd, Americans:
- Confidently voted the president back into office by a greater margin than four years ago in virtually every state in the union.
- Exhibited enthusiastic support for the Compassionate Conservative agenda by sending more Senators and Representatives to Congress, leading to an astounding four-seat gain in the closely-divided Senate.
- Clearly sent a message to the Democrat party that they are too far left by banning same sex marriage in all eleven of the states where it appeared on the ballot.
Yet Democrats insist that Republicans in general and Bush in particular do not have a mandate from the American people. They say that the country is "deeply divided" -- more divided than ever.
This leads one to wonder just what is a "clear mandate"? How often has it been achieved? Just how united have we been in days past?
Since the popular vote started being recorded in 1824 there have been 46 elections (before that, only electoral votes were cast). Of those before the current election year, only 22 (roughly half) have been won with a larger margin than that of President Bush in 2004. The remaining 23 were won by even slimmer margins than the 51.4% achieved by the president yesterday.
Click graph for larger image
Clearly, the country has been divided throughout the history of this little federal republic experiment of ours. If you do better than half of the elections before you, you'd think that was a mandate. Perhaps Democrats don't, so just what is that magic number?
How about 55%? Would that be a "mandate"?
In our history there have been just 13 elections won by a margin of 55% or more, so less than a third of our elections fit into this category.
Can a country be effectively governed if the president can set the agenda only a third of the time? Maybe Democrats think so, but I certainly don't.
So the next time you are talking to some media-puppet who starts spouting Democrat talking points, explain to him or her just how divided this nation usually is. When they begin talking about how contentious todays politics are, invite them to do a little reading and educate themselves. And when they say Bush does not have a mandate, ask them who did. If you get anything other than gibberish or a blank stare please drop me a line. I'd really like to know.
Just for informational purposes, there have only been four elections in which the winner took 60% or more of the popular vote. All happened in the 20th Century spanning the years from Harding to Nixon.
Query: do you think Democrats thought Nixon had a mandate?
Data (including charts) in Excel 2003 format.
Data sources:
Update: Watcher of Weasels addresses this subject rather effectively with Mandate This!
Update: James Taranto notes that Bush received a higher percentage of the popular vote than any Democrat candidate for president has received in 40 years.
Blog post #4037 in category
Races of '04
posted 4 November 04
Truly superior bloggers that reference Magic Mandate Number:
» Around The Blogosphere In 80 Seconds
from Diggers Realm:
We have an extra long entry today with all of the election news and commentary around. So brew yourself some coffee, have a sit and cruise through these stories and commentary. I'll give you 160 seconds this time since it's... [Read More]
Tracked on November 4, 2004 5:00 AM
» Post-election Links
from Les Jones Blog:
Quick note: I haven't forgotten about the election predictions I'm tracking. Fox shows Iowa as undetermined, and CNN shows both Iowa and New Mexico undetermined. Once they're called I'll determine the winner, based on who was closest to the final elect... [Read More]
Tracked on November 4, 2004 8:15 AM
» Post-election Links
from Les Jones Blog:
Quick note: I haven't forgotten about the election predictions I'm tracking. Fox shows Iowa as undecided, and CNN shows both Iowa and New Mexico undecided. Once they're called I'll determine the winner, based on who was closest to the final electoral c... [Read More]
Tracked on November 4, 2004 8:56 AM
» Post-election Links
from Les Jones Blog:
Quick note: I haven't forgotten about the election predictions I'm tracking. Fox shows Iowa as undecided, and CNN shows both Iowa and New Mexico undecided. Once they're called I'll determine the winner, based on who was closest to the final electoral c... [Read More]
Tracked on November 4, 2004 9:37 AM
» Post-election Links
from Les Jones Blog:
Quick note: I haven't forgotten about the election predictions I'm tracking. Fox shows Iowa as undecided, and CNN shows both Iowa and New Mexico undecided. Once they're called I'll determine the winner, based on who was closest to the final electoral c... [Read More]
Tracked on November 4, 2004 9:44 AM
» Post-election Links
from Les Jones Blog:
Quick note: I haven't forgotten about the election predictions I'm tracking. Fox shows Iowa as undecided, and CNN shows both Iowa and New Mexico undecided. Once they're called I'll determine the winner, based on who was closest to the final electoral c... [Read More]
Tracked on November 4, 2004 6:14 PM
» 1000 Words
from TFS Magnum:
Clinton never won 50% of the vote, and I don't recall the Dems lamenting a "lack of mandate." [Read More]
Tracked on November 4, 2004 6:27 PM
» Mandate This!
from Watcher of Weasels:
Well, Kerry and Edwards conceded... but could someone please tell John Edwards to stop harping on this “making sure every vote counts” stuff, which only makes him sound unwilling to accept a defeat that he should by now know he... [Read More]
Tracked on November 5, 2004 11:57 PM
» Elections as Economics
from Synthstuff - music, photography and more...:
Very good point made over at Feces Flinging Monkey regarding the Democratic loss, not only of presidency but also seats in the Senate and the House: Have a look at this graph at AlphaPatriot; it shows margins of victory for... [Read More]
Tracked on November 6, 2004 11:34 PM
» Weekend
from Tempus Fugit | TxFx.net:
I was gone for the weekend. Went home to visit the family. Ate a wonderful dinner (lamb chops really do taste better when you make a "baaa!" noise as you "wolf" them down.) Saw the Bucs win in Tampa... quite a good game. Right now it's not even 1... [Read More]
Tracked on November 8, 2004 12:08 AM