Obama's Mandate

The Right Wing, people like Robert Novak, fear using "mandate" to describe what Obama has done. Novak writes:

"[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."

Steve Benen at The Washington Monthly, using facts, dismantles Novak's lame talking point:

"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."

Unlike Bush's faux mandate in 2004, Obama's mandate will actually have an effect and his policies will help change America.

Source: Steve Benen