Does Obama have a mandate?

[Revmitchell]

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of U.S. voters worry that Congress and President Obama will increase government spending too much in the next year or two, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.


More Here

 

[Alcott]

Does Obama have a mandate?

It wouldn't be shocking as information that he's dating a man on the side.

 

[LeBuick]

Want to see how reliable polling the American people are? 13% says spending will go down under Obama and he's already asked for the largest stimulus package in history. Then there is 15% who says it will stay the same. When you add the 9% that are not sure it means 37% of those polled don't have a clue what is going on...

Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters expect government spending to go up under the Obama administration, while just 13% think it will go down. Fifteen percent (15%) say government spending will stay about the same, and nine percent (9%) are not sure.

 

[windcatcher]

Want to see how reliable polling the American people are? 13% says spending will go down under Obama and he's already asked for the largest stimulus package in history. Then there is 15% who says it will stay the same. When you add the 9% that are not sure it means 37% of those polled don't have a clue what is going on...

Got that pretty much right!


Interesting how the polls etc, make it seem everyone is already trying to count their chickens before they hatch! I guess it keeps them distracted from reality.

 

[JustChristian]

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of U.S. voters worry that Congress and President Obama will increase government spending too much in the next year or two, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.


More Here

Well, here's the results of the last 3 presidential elections:

Year Candidate Popular Vote Electoral Vote

2000 GW Bush 50,456,002 271
Al Gore 50,999,897 266


2004 GW Bush 62,028,285 286
John Kerry 59,028,109 251

2006 B Obama 66,862,039 365
J McCain 58,319,442 173


It's pretty clear to me who had a mandate and who didn't.

 

[targus]

It's pretty clear to me who had a mandate and who didn't.

I guessing that you believe that Obama had a mandate.

To do what exactly?

His campaign was nothing more that jingoisms...

Change
Yes we can
Ect.

 

[TomVols]

Did Reagan have a mandate in 1984 when he won an electoral landslide? What about Bush in '88? Just because someone wins big doesn't mean a mandate is parallel. And just because someone eeks out a victory doesn't mean there isn't a mandate.

 

[JamieinNH]

2006 B Obama 66,862,039 365
J McCain 58,319,442 173


It's pretty clear to me who had a mandate and who didn't.

I don't think those numbers represent a mandate for Obama.

I think what is represent is the simple fact that the GOP and Bush lost the confidence of the people so the people turned to the next party.

(some of us turned to a third party candidate)

 

[LeBuick]

Did Reagan have a mandate in 1984 when he won an electoral landslide? What about Bush in '88? Just because someone wins big doesn't mean a mandate is parallel. And just because someone eeks out a victory doesn't mean there isn't a mandate.

Reagan had a mandate for less government however, he rose the deficit to some record highs... I guess we don't always get what we ask for.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Well, here's the results of the last 3 presidential elections:

Year Candidate Popular Vote Electoral Vote

2000 GW Bush 50,456,002 271
Al Gore 50,999,897 266


2004 GW Bush 62,028,285 286
John Kerry 59,028,109 251

2006 B Obama 66,862,039 365
J McCain 58,319,442 173


It's pretty clear to me who had a mandate and who didn't.

Bush showed the idea of a mandate is a myth. He lost the popular vote in 2000 and I remember there were editorials on how because he did not have a mandate he would have to move slowly. But from day one he was full steam ahead ... showing, as I said above, that the ideaof a mandate is a myth.

In 2004 Bush won with 51% of the vote and immediately the White House declared a mandate.

Winning 51 percent of the popular vote in Tuesday's election , Bush administration officials were quick to declare that the results constitute a "mandate" for Bush's second term. This interpretation of the election caught hold in the mainstream media-- a sign perhaps that White House spin was triumphing over the actual numbers recorded on Election Day.

The Boston Globe (11/4/04) reported that Bush's victory grants him "a clear mandate to advance a conservative agenda over the next four years." The Los Angeles Times (11/4/04) made the somewhat peculiar observation that "Bush can claim a solid mandate of 51 percent of the vote." USA Today (11/4/04) was more definitive, headlining one story "Clear Mandate Will Boost Bush's Authority, Reach," while reporting that Bush "will begin his second term with a clearer and more commanding mandate than he held for the first." The Washington Post (11/4/04) similarly pointed to Bush's "clearer mandate," implying that the election of 2000, in which Bush failed to get even a plurality of the popular vote, was a mandate of sorts, if an unclear one.
http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=...ates+"man+date"&d=TNqqMw-YSKqz&icp=1&.intl=us

So, if Bush was right in 2004 that 51% constituted a mandate, then Obama has a bigger mandate ... but as we know from 2000 the mandate is a myth.

 

[EdSutton]

A nice victory, yes.

Mandate? No.

In 9 out of 16 Presidential contests in my lifetime, the winner received a larger share of the Popular vote and a larger number of electoral votes, than did President Obama.

"Mandate", if there really is any such thing belongs, to the elections of 1936, 1964, 1972, and 1984, in the elections since 1900. Those were "mandates" of overwhelming proportions.

And the number of votes Senator McCain received in defeat, would have easily made him the biggest 'landslide' winner in history, for any election preceding 2004.

I suggest that those who "read the tea leaves' of most elections to find a "mandate" usually have an undue and undeserved confidence in their own psychic abilities.

Ed