Some perspective is in order.
| Popular and Electoral Votes - Presidential Elections | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1980 | Popular Vote | Electoral Vote | ||
| Reagan | 43,903,230 | 50.75% | 489 | 90.9% |
| Carter | 35,480,115 | 41.01% | 49 | 9.1% |
| 1984 | Popular Vote | Electoral Vote | ||
| Reagan | 54,455,472 | 58.77% | 525 | 97.6% |
| Mondale | 37,577,352 | 40.56% | 13 | 2.4% |
| 1988 | Popular Vote | Electoral Vote | ||
| GHWBush | 48,886,597 | 53.37% | 426 | 79.2% |
| Dukakis | 41,809,476 | 45.65% | 111 | 20.6% |
| 1992 | Popular Vote | Electoral Vote | ||
| Clinton | 44,909,806 | 43.01% | 370 | 68.8% |
| GHWBush | 39,104,550 | 37.45% | 168 | 31.2% |
| 1996 | Popular Vote | Electoral Vote | ||
| Clinton | 47,400,125 | 49.23% | 379 | 70.4% |
| Dole | 39,198,755 | 40.72% | 159 | 29.6% |
| 2000 | Popular Vote | Electoral Vote | ||
| GWBush | 50,460,110 | 47.87% | 271 | 50.4% |
| Gore | 51,003,926 | 48.38% | 266 | 49.4% |
| 2004 | Popular Vote | Electoral Vote | ||
| GWBush | 62,040,610 | 50.73% | 286 | 53.2% |
| Kerry | 59,028,439 | 48.27% | 251 | 46.7% |
| 2008* | Popular Vote | Electoral Vote | ||
| Obama | 65,070,495 | 53.24% | 364 | 69.2% |
| McCain | 57,154,820 | 46.76% | 162 | 30.8% |
* as of 12:02 pm Nov.7, 2008, with 99% reported.
FACT: McCain has the support of over 57 million 154 thousand Americans, almost 47% of the popular vote. That is hardly representative of a "mandate" or "landslide" for Obama, despite all those saying it is, including TIME Magazine, CBS News, ABC News, LA Times, exclamation-point-lovers like this giddy group and --Good Lord!--even FORBES Magazine. I could find dozens more if I wanted to waste my time.
McCain's supporters also number more than either those of George W. Bush or Gore in 2000, more than Clinton had in both 1992 and 1996 and more than Reagan had in both 1980 and 1984.
To put this in proper perspective, Reagan in both his terms, GHWBush, and maybe Clinton in his second term could claim legitimate mandates.
Clinton had 8.51% more popular votes than Dole. Obama had 6.48% more than McCain. Decisive, yes, but not a landslide or a mandate in the real historically accurate sense, especially given these observations posted here.
To paraphrase this pre-election article: "47% Ain't Nothing."
Just something for Obama, his new administration, the Democrats in Congress, and the others who voted for Obama, especially those not even born when Reagan had his landslides or who were in diapers when GHWB was in office, to mull over.
They got the White House by lying, by registering the dead to vote, by taking massive illegal campaign donations. They got the White House the way a toddler gets candy by pitching a fit in the checkout line.
All this will do is embolden them. They've learned what works. Cheating, lying, and breaking the law.
I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.
While I agree generally with what you're saying here, you might need to note that Pres. Bush claimed a mandate, too, even when he lost the popular vote. (The "Bush map" that Newsmax kept selling as a case in point.)
I'm afraid that the term "mandate" has come to mean "win," which is a terrible abuse of the terminology.
So, yes, Pres.-elect Obama is wrong to think that he has such a mandate. But he isn't blazing new territory in that respect.
Christina, your post is without any basis of fact. Instead of getting your knickers in a twist about Obama, perhaps you should take a look at your own affiliation and see why 63 million people thought that the country needs to move in a different direction.
Wickle, it's been long noted that Bush also abused the term mandate. Not saying so here does not mean I think Obama or the media is "blazing new territory". I don't need to re-point out what has been repeatedly rammed into the throats of every Democrat for the past 4 years at least. The media's done that, all too well. I'm here to point out what the media refuses to point out.
Guinness, read a bit on that 63 million. It was as much a "boot the bums out" movement of that 63 million as it was for Obama:
"The overwhelming reason Barack Obama won this election is because voters, in their pedestrian way, want him to restart the stalled, damaged economy, which for all the "Depression" talk is nowhere near the 20% unemployment rates and low living standards then. The election came his way the night of Sunday Sept. 14, when the financial crisis exploded. Before that, he and Sen. McCain were in a virtual tie..."
AND
"Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006 because voters no longer saw Republicans as the party of limited government. They have since rejected virtually every opportunity to recapture this identity. But their failure to do so must not be misconstrued as a rejection of principles of individual liberty by the American people. The evidence suggests we are still a nation of pocketbook conservatives most happy when government has enough respect to leave us alone and to mind its own business. The worrisome question is whether either political party understands this."
Guinness, one last reply to your attack that Christina's lying. That is really rich, considering it is Obama, and Biden too, who've been lying or botching the facts and you still don't know it:
We've been showing you for the past 2 months here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, AND
here...
how Obama has been lying to you, misleading you, me, everyone, everywhere, for MONTHS, and still is.
Is that enough "basis in fact" for you? No, I'm sure it isn't and never will be. Go read all the links provided in those posts. We don't make this stuff up. Never have, never will, never NEEDED to.
You are the duped ones without basis in fact.
Um actually, Obama won more than double the electorial college votes, which is what the election is really based on....so...it was a landslide.
John Baker, umm, actually, no, it wasn't a landslide: look. at. the. chart. 364 electorals doesn't measure up or come close to 525 or 489 or 426. This was the point of the post which you seem to refuse to "get." Obama didn't even get as many electorals as Clinton in his second term, for goodness sake. And thanks we don't need the politics lesson, as we already KNEW that the election is based on electorals. But why do we have re-read for you the chart? A landslide and a mandate mean that the overwhelming majority of the PEOPLE voting chose you, and in this case there was no overwhelming majority choosing Obama. You probably were one of the ones shouting "foul" when Bush wrongly claimed his mandate-when-there-was-none, but now you think it's ok for Obama to claim one-when-there-is-none? Puh-leeze. Nice double standard.
The ones who put Obama over the top chose the "un-Bush". Read my reply to Guiness, above, for that proof.