Mandate

MANDATE…. Political observers can debate whether Barack Obama’s victory this week constitutes a “landslide.” Political scientists can debate whether his win marks the beginning of a “realignment.”

But whether Obama earned a “mandate” need not be controversial.

And yet, there’s Bob Novak, using a line we may soon hear from other conservatives.

Despite resounding progressive victories last night, conservative pundits continue to repeat the myth of a conservative country. Right-wing pundit Robert Novak climbed aboard the bandwagon, writing today that neither the large Democratic gains nor Obama’s sweeping popular and electoral vote margins were proof of a mandate:

“The first Democratic Electoral College landslide in decades did not result in a tight race for control of Congress…. [Obama] may have opened the door to enactment of the long-deferred liberal agenda, but he neither received a broad mandate from the public nor the needed large congressional majorities. “

In 2004, George W. Bush won less than 51% of the popular vote, 53% of the available electoral votes, and enjoyed a vote margin of 3 million. In 2008, Barack Obama won 52.3% of the popular vote, 65% of the available electoral votes (67% after North Carolina is called for him), and enjoyed a vote margin of about 7.4 million. Novak insisted that Bush’s totals “of course” constituted a “mandate,” while Obama’s do not.

Indeed, Media Matters had an item yesterday noting that after the 2004 race, when Bush won a second term with the smallest popular-vote margin since 1976 (excluding the 2000 election) and the lowest electoral vote count for an incumbent president’s re-election since 1916, major media figures still rushed to award Bush a “mandate.”

Obama not only cruised to a major victory, but his party saw major gains in the House, Senate, and state houses. If Obama doesn’t have a “mandate” for his policy agenda, the word has no meaning.

Support Nonprofit Journalism

If you enjoyed this article, consider making a donation to help us produce more like it. The Washington Monthly was founded in 1969 to tell the stories of how government really works—and how to make it work better. Fifty years later, the need for incisive analysis and new, progressive policy ideas is clearer than ever. As a nonprofit, we rely on support from readers like you.

Yes, I’ll make a donation