Bush's 2004 election mandate

[Proud liberal 80]

Bush's winning margin was way less in the electoral college and 2% less in the popular vote than Obama's margins, but somehow Repugs and the media called that a mandate. ButObama's win is not; his was a squeaker.

[AnnaLee]

1. I'm not so sure politics is supposed to make sense. nm.

[aaaaaa5a]

2. Obama has a good chance to be the first President winning at least 51% of the vote for 2 terms

since Dwight Eisenhower!


Not Reagan
Not Nixon
Not Bush
Not Clinton
Not Truman

LBj, Kennedy, Carter and Bush Sr. were one term Presidents.

Ike and Obama are the only 2 Presidents since WW2 to obtain this achievement.


It that's not a mandate for an agenda, I don't know what is.

In modern Presidential politics it literally is impossible to do any better. If this record doesn't give a President a mandate, then the only conclusion one could reach is that it is impossible for any President to have a mandate to govern based on election results.

[Filibuster Harry]

3. Of course to the Rs there is no mandate; he is a democrat and black -- enough said. Why

should anybody be surprised by the R comments? Who really believes that the R party is all about fairness?

[LiberalFighter]

4. Bush 2004 almost 3 million votes

Obama 2012 almost 5 million votes. Might be more when all votes are counted.

[NewJeffCT]

5. That's "playing politics"

Bush would have claimed a mandate if won by more than 1 vote.

And, Republicans would have denied Obama had a mandate even if Democrats won the House by 20 seats and Obama won by popular vote by 60%-40%