Missing from this election discussion, “mandate”
Most people agree this election will be close, though those who rely on the polls, including some of the same polls that have been wrong in the past, believe this election is over. It would not matter to me which candidate was in the “lead” at this point, I’m one of those who believes the only real poll happens on election day. Though some even go as far as to have predicted that the outcome of a football game predicts who will win and even that was wrong. For those of you who believe that one? Washington Redskins play Detroit today at 1:00 p.m. and in theory if they win then McCain will win and if they lose, Obama will win. It’s the last home game before the election, which today is not. What is interesting though is that the discussion of either candidate getting “a mandate” from the voters has been largely absent in this campaign.
In 2000 it was largely agreed no matter the outcome neither Bush nor Gore had a mandate. In 2004 depending on what side you were on, you either felt that Bush got a mandate with his re-election or that he did not garner enough votes to get a mandate.
Their race is too close, their difference on issues too blurred, the voters too focused on personalities for the election to offer a ringing endorsement of any of their major policy proposals, experts and analysts in both parties agree. Instead of a mandate, the election results more likely will be a muddle.
Sounds a bit familiar…Though there are those out there like CNN senior political analyst David Gergen who have stated about Obama:
“It does seem to me his goal should be two things, to run up the score so he gets a convincing victory, not just a small victory, but a major convincing victory. And try to define what he needs to do as president so he can say the day after the election, I have a mandate,” Gergen said.
We have some in the media saying it’s not over and others hope it’s not while others look forward with anticipation with a few, ashamed in how we got here. It’s something many of us have tried to point out and have been scoffed at so perhaps coming from a man with 30 years in every part of journalism, from beat reporter to magazine editor it will be a bit less hard to scoff:
But nothing, nothing I’ve seen has matched the media bias on display in the current presidential campaign.
Republicans are justifiably foaming at the mouth over the sheer one-sidedness of the press coverage of the two candidates and their running mates. But in the last few days, even Democrats, who have been gloating over the pass — no, make that shameless support — they’ve gotten from the press, are starting to get uncomfortable as they realize that no one wins in the long run when we don’t have a free and fair press.
A party can pretend to have a mandate and as we saw in 2004, some of the media helped declare one that realistically did not exist, who will win and by how much and will there be more than a 51% mandate remains to be seen…at least until the end of the Redskins game…
I got a week ahead of myself in my wanting this to be over – the last game before the election that the Redskins play is Mon, Nov 03 Pittsburgh – now does Monday night football count? More controversy…
October 26th, 2008 at 12:56 pmLisa- I would say a candidate who wins over 50% of the vote AND over 300 electoral votes is hard to say he didn’t have a mandate. Particularly if his election led to a wholesale loss in the downticket races like in the Senate and House.
Obama is the first Democratic candidate expected to win since Carter.
If the results turn out as predicted in the polls, I doubt any serious person could question whether Obama has a mandate.
October 26th, 2008 at 7:58 pmPerhaps but there were those who questioned Bush claiming he had a mandate with 51%. We won’t find out until after election day, but I just thought it was interesting there has not been the discussion who might have a mandate and why a mandate was important this election as in prior ones.
October 26th, 2008 at 8:33 pmWe know what Obama’s mandate is – to redistribute the wealth. He has been preaching this doctrine since 2001.
See 2001 Obama radio interview: ‘Tragedy’ Redistribution of Wealth Not Pursued
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
October 27th, 2008 at 8:50 amWell, if Chris is correct – what he is predicting would give Obama a mandate:
On our latest Fix electoral map, we have Obama at 349 electoral votes — his highest total since we began picking the playing field earlier this fall — while McCain stands at 189 electoral votes.
And, it’s uniquely possible that Obama could crest 350 electoral votes before all is said and done next Tuesday. The hardest three states for us to pick — Missouri, Indiana and Nevada — were all carried by President George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. (In the case of Indiana, the Republican presidential nominee has carried the state in every election but one — 1964 — since 1936.)
While we have McCain to Indiana, it’s uniquely possible that the Hoosier State could flip from red to blue as Real Clear Politics shows Obama leading by a half percent in an average of polling conducted in the state.
Similarly, North Carolina, which we are giving to McCain, could go for Obama, according to aggregated polling.
If those two states were to flip, Obama’s electoral vote count would stand at a whopping 375. For comparison purposes, President Bill Clinton won 379 electoral votes in his 1996 re-election race against Kansas Sen. Bob Dole while then Vice President George H.W. Bush claimed 426 electoral votes in his win over Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis in 1988.
October 27th, 2008 at 9:35 am[...] Missing from this election discussion, “mandate” Instead of a mandate, the election results more likely will be a muddle. … It’s something many of us have tried to point out and have been [...]
October 29th, 2008 at 10:44 pm