Mandated stupidity

Believe it or not, many states are still counting votes from the election. This has the result of President Obama’s margin of victory slowly increasing when new states certify the totals. What are those totals?

Popular Vote (as of Dec. 3):

Obama   65,285,547 (50.93%)
Romney  60,674,072 (47.33%)

Electoral Votes

Obama   332
Romney  206

As always after Presidential elections, candidates want to claim a “mandate” for their policies going forward. George W. Bush made such a claim in 2004. Let’s look at his election results.

Popular Vote:

Bush    62,040,610 (50.73%)
Kerry   59,028,439 (48.27%)

Electoral Votes

Bush    286
Kerry   251

So, W. had a smaller margin than President Obama both electorally and in the popular vote. He also had fewer absolute votes. It certainly follows then that if he had a “mandate” then President Obama does, right?

In 2004, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, conservatism’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, congratulated President Bush for “what by any measure is a decisive mandate for a second term” and exulted, “Mr. Bush has been given the kind of mandate that few politicians are ever fortunate enough to receive.” This year, examining similar numbers with different labels, the Journal came up with a sterner interpretation. “President Obama won one of the narrower re-elections in modern times,” its editorial announced. Also:

Mr. Obama will now have to govern the America he so relentlessly sought to divide—and without a mandate beyond the powers of the Presidency. Democrats will hold the Senate, perhaps with an additional seat or two. But Republicans held the House comfortably, so their agenda was hardly repudiated. . . . Speaker John Boehner can negotiate knowing he has as much of a mandate as the President.

Yeah, that seems totally right. Boehner has a mandate. I guess the Wall Street Journal is also “Fair and Balanced”.