With a mandate like that and two bucks, you can ride the subway.
Bush won the presidency by getting 3% more of the popular vote than John Kerry. This is a whole 3.5% better than he did in 2000, when he registered on the boards with a wopping .5% less of the popular vote than Al Gore. Bush's stellar performance in 2000 only beats Rutherford B. Hayes, who wins the prize of “Worst Mandate EVER” by scoring 3% less of the vote than his opponent, Samuel J. Tilden.
So Bush's 3% is suppose to issue him a mandate?
Really?
3% percent?
Come on, you’re shitting me, right?
If you’re like me, you’re thinking 3% doesn’t seem that much. Maybe we don’t know what we're talking about. That’s possible, it’s been the case before. Perhaps drinking vodka tonics out of pint glasses and chasing them with Tequila shooters has addled our collective brains. Or just mine.
Let’s take a look at some history, shall we?
At the bottom of this post you’ll find a list of winners from two-way Presidential races and the percent by which they won the popular vote. (Note: there are a couple of three-ways mixed in, ‘cause, well, everyone loves a three-way and (to a lesser extent) the third party candidate didn’t get much more than a percentage point of the overall vote.)
So, scroll down and take a look. Back? Great, lets continue.
Wow, look at Mr. Harding, he's the big fucking dog with 26%, and Mr. Grant, no slouch himself, kicked some confederate ass and then pulled 25% more of the vote than poor Horatio Seymour. Lots of Presidents with double digits, yes? You’re going to have to look pretty far down on the list to get to the single digit winners. Look, right there, number 13 to be exact, good old FDR with 9.95% percent. (Now he really was a fucking “war time president.” No flight suit for him. No walking either for that matter).
Had another look? Good. Now can someone please tell me how GWB2004, at number 15 out 20, has a goddamn MANDATE! Really, I’m dying to know.
Do we all agree that his -.5% in 2000 is nowhere near a mandate? Yes? Come on, even you Republicans in the back can easily see that. So, if -.5% is pretty much the opposite of a mandate, doing 3.5% better can't possibly be a mandate. Actually, it is a pretty thin fuckin’ margin. If you ask me, Bush should be blowing Carl Rove in gratitude that he is president at all.
So can we drop the W’s got a mandate shit? Because its been three days and I’m already tired of it.
(note: just like Bush needs to be reminded over and over he doesn't have a mandate, we need to remember not to discount all the blue hidden in the red sections of the electoral map! http://eparch.blogspot.com/2004/11/blue-state-red-state-misleading.html)
Past Presidential winners and the percent difference by which they won the popular vote.
| Warren G. Harding | 26.22% | 1920 |
| Ulysses S. Grant | 25.46% | 1868 |
| Franklin D. Roosevelt | 24.26% | 1936 |
| Richard M. Nixon | 23.16% | 1972 |
| Lyndon B. Johnson | 22.58% | 1964 |
| Ronald Reagan | 18.21% | 1984 |
| Herbert C. Hoover | 17.46% | 1928 |
| Franklin D. Roosevelt | 17.28% | 1932 |
| Dwight D. Eisenhower | 15.43% | 1956 |
| Ulysses S. Grant | 11.80% | 1872 |
| Dwight D. Eisenhower | 10.75% | 1952 |
| Abraham Lincoln | 10.06% | 1864 |
| Franklin D. Roosevelt | 9.95% | 1940 |
| George H. W. Bush | 7.72% | 1988 |
| Franklin D. Roosevelt | 7.50% | 1944 |
| George W. Bush | 3.00% | 2004 |
| James E. Carter Jr. | 2.06% | 1976 |
| John F. Kennedy | 0.17% | 1960 |
| George W. Bush | -0.51% | 2000 |
| Rutherford B. Hayes | -3.01% | 1876 |
(Election data from http://www.ohiokids.org/oe/bbb/21.html)
posted by Eparch @ 7:11 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Hey Cavanaghjam,
I've been avoiding mass media news for the last couple of days, just a little to hard to watch 'he who shall not be named' swaggering and grinning.
Quick question if you don't mind. Have the media been saying, "mandate" or have they been asking the question, "Does this vote mean Bush has a mandate?"
It’s is the first, well, that's the dirt on top of the last nail in the coffin of the SCLM.
But if it is the last, maybe we can take away a little hope. If the media is hesitant it might give us an opening to swing the discussion our way, (as long as our leadership is forceful enough).
Now where is that damn leadership?
I know it's here somewhere?
Eparch, Just curious . .. were you and the people you run with going on and on about Clinton's lack of a mandate back in '92, when he had only 43% of the popular vote?
Hey Anonymous,
Nice nickname, very catchy, I bet all the little kiddies will be copying you soon.
1. 1992 was a 3-way race, so it is a little hard to compare the data. But lets look at 2 things.
A. Compare what Clinton got in'92 to the incumbent, GHWB. Clinton got 6% more of the popular vote. Whenever an incumbent loses it's a pretty good indicator of where the country wants to go.
B. In '96, another 3-way with Ross Perot (eewwwwww), Ross's percentage of the popular vote dropped by 10 points. Clinton's increased by 6%, from 43% to 49%, and he beat Bobby Dole by 9%. A pretty good indicator of the country's happiness with where Bill was taking us.
2. Clinton governed as a centrist you bozo. He actually took the Republican pov into mind. Not that it was enough for Newt and his bunch of "Contract With America" thugs (yes, I'm talking to you Frist).
Wow! Do your minions really believe your Fahrenheit 11/2 statistics? Start by getting the facts right – and all of them.
First, I love the hidden disclaimer about the list of winners from “two-way races” . . . except you added a few three-ways where you thought they wouldn’t hurt your case.
You failed to point out, however, that Clinton, your beloved President, NEVER GOT 50% OF THE VOTE – EVER! He got only 43% in 1992 when the dems were ecstatic to unseat the incumbent – and not quite 48% when the dems were thrilled to be re-elected in 1996. Fanny pats were exchanged all around and the “mandate” was embraced like the Kama Sutra. BTW, Kennedy in 1960 didn’t have a majority, either.
Bush got almost 15 million more votes than Clinton received in 1992 and just short of 12 million more votes than Clinton in 1996 – and, for good measure, almost 9 million more than Gore in 2000. It’s the largest number of individual votes EVER RECEIVED by any President.
When you sort by victory margin instead of chronologically, your analysis skews the significance of the years since 1960. During the period 1960 – 2000, only Lyndon Johnson in ’64 and Richard Nixon in ’72 achieved significant majorities of over 60%. Reagan had almost 59% in ’84 but barely a majority when he first won in ’80. Since 1988, only 2 Presidents have won a majority of the popular vote – George H.W. Bush in 1988 and George W. Bush in 2004.
A mandate is simply an authorization to act – and the 59 million people who voted for Bush certainly expect no less!
OK:
1. That wasn't a hidden disclaimer, it was pretty much up front (and funny if I do say so myself).
2. Three-way races were included only when the third party candidate got no more than 1-2% of the vote, thus making the races essentially 2-way.
3. I didn't talk about Clinton in the original post because his were 3-way races where the third party did get a high percentage of votes, making them bad for comparison. But if you want my thoughts on Clinton, scroll up to the fourth comment on this post.
4. Bush also got the most votes against.
Post a Comment
<< Home