http://www.dailykos.com/
Bush's true "mandate"
by kos
Thu Nov 4th, 2004 at 11:15:10 PST
A good diary over at MyDD:
# This is the largest number of people who have ever voted AGAINST a
president
# 1% more than 50% is not a mandate but a bare, thin, majority.
# At 80% approval after 9-11 and guaranteed a landslide election by
prognosticators 2 years ago, only half the country supports him
# A president who leads a divided country owes it to all Americans to lead
fairly or have his party face the consequences begining in 2006. No one
else is here to blame
And over at Another Liberal Blog, a look at the weakest incumbent
reelection since, well, a long time.
# Assuming Bush gets New Mexico and Iowa, he will have gotten the lowest
percentage of electoral votes (54%) of any incumbent running for reelection
since Wilson. If those two states should swing Kerry's way (NM might),
it'll be even lower.
# He will have won with the lowest percentage of the popular vote (51%) of
any incumbent running for reelection since Truman (well, technically since
Clinton, but he also ran against Perot, who was a more significant
3rd-party candidate than Thurmond and Wallace were in '48)
# He will have won by the lowest margin of the popular vote (3.5M) of any
incumbent running for reelection since Truman (2.1M, and back then only 50M
voted).
# He will have won the three states that put him over 270 (OH, NM and
IA--assuming the last two go his way) by only 161,989 (not counting the
provisional ballots, absentee, etc.).
Don't let them get away with calling this narrow victory any sort of
mandate for their agenda.
[Site Meter] Daily Kos homepage
© 2004. Steal what you want. Powered by Scoop.
**************************************************************************
.
|
