A lot of liberals certainly saw it as such. All the strained comparisons of Obama to Franklin Roosevelt were a tipoff that many were talking themselves into the idea that the 2008 election created an opportunity for a substantial, leftward shift in policy. Yet the election of 2008 was not like the 1932 contest. It wasn't like 1952, 1956, 1964, 1972, 1980, 1984, or even 1988, either. Obama's election was narrower than all of these. FDR won 42 of 48 states. Eisenhower won 39, then 41. Johnson won 44 of 50. Nixon won 49. Reagan won 44, then 49. George H.W. Bush won 40. Obama won 28, three fewer than George W. Bush in his narrow 2004 reelection.You see, now all that matters is the number of states Obama won. Wyoming's opinion is just as important as California, despite the fact that California has 70 times more people.
Of course, When Dubya won after losing the popular vote, he had a clear mandate because America is a center-right country.
Ergo, Obama and the Democrats don't have a mandate.
Here endeth the lesson.
Posts
2 comments:
Cost also notes that many of those Democrats in the House and Senate DO represent traditionally conservative districts.
Democrats and liberals made it a point to remind us that in 2000, 2002, AND 2004, that Bushie never had a mandate, even though he enjoyed majorities in Congress, but now having a majority in Congress is indicative of a mandate?
No.
But having 60% of Congress to the other side's 40% sure does.
Post a Comment