HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » MSM: 286 EC Votes = Mand...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 01:37 PM

MSM: 286 EC Votes = Mandate for Bush .......332 EC Votes Not A Mandate for Obama

When Is a Mandate Not a Mandate?

Different standards for different elections--and parties

When it comes to explaining election results, there's no precise way to determine whether voters gave the winner a "mandate"--defined by Oxford as "the authority to carry out a policy, regarded as given by the electorate to a party or candidate that wins an election." That makes it interesting to see how media use the expression--and which presidents they think earned one.

286 electoral votes = a mandate.

In 2004, George W. Bush won 50.7 percent of the popular vote over Democrat John Kerry, and had a 286-251 edge in electoral votes.

As FAIR noted (Media Advisory, 11/5/04), many outlets proclaimed that to be a "mandate." "Clear Mandate Will Boost Bush's Authority, Reach," read a USA Today headline (11/4/04); NPR's Renee Montaigne said (11/3/04), "By any definition, I think you could call this a mandate."

snip

303 to 332 electoral votes = not a mandate.

On CBS Evening News (11/7/12), Bob Schieffer declared, "In the hard world of American politics, the president did not get a mandate yesterday."

On the NPR website (11/7/12), a headline was "For Obama, Vindication, But Not a Mandate." The Washington Post's Dan Balz (11/7/12) called it "an uncertain mandate, although Obama will attempt to claim one."

While USA Today declared Bush's 2004 victory a mandate, the front-page of the paper the day after the election bore the headline "A Nation Moving Further Apart."

CNN pundit Gloria Borger (11/7/12) put it this way: "So what kind of a mandate does he have? His mandate is to fix things. And I think that's about as far as it really goes."

And Time magazine's Joe Klein (11/7/12) declared that "the election was a mandate for moderation," adding:

As Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker (11/7/12) put it, "If this election provided any mandate at all, it is that we set aside our special interests and work together before it's too late."


snip

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4648

21 replies, 1673 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 21 replies Author Time Post
Reply MSM: 286 EC Votes = Mandate for Bush .......332 EC Votes Not A Mandate for Obama (Original post)
amborin Nov 2012 OP
Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #1
amborin Nov 2012 #10
LineReply .
Go Vols Nov 2012 #2
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #5
amborin Nov 2012 #11
RomneyLies Nov 2012 #3
msongs Nov 2012 #4
amborin Nov 2012 #12
pa28 Nov 2012 #6
BlueCaliDem Nov 2012 #7
amborin Nov 2012 #13
madrchsod Nov 2012 #8
amborin Nov 2012 #14
vaberella Nov 2012 #9
amborin Nov 2012 #16
bongbong Nov 2012 #17
democrattotheend Nov 2012 #15
Ruby the Liberal Nov 2012 #18
Major Hogwash Nov 2012 #19
krkaufman Nov 2012 #20
Flying Squirrel Nov 2012 #21

Response to amborin (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 01:43 PM

1. MSM works for them, is owned by them, and their front-people are well paid.

 

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egalitarian Thug (Reply #1)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 02:53 PM

10. that's a great quote eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 01:46 PM

2. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Go Vols (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 01:47 PM

5. ROFL! GMTA!

 

Look at the post under this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Go Vols (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 02:54 PM

11. exactly!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 01:46 PM

3. Same bastards saying no mandate for Obama were declaring more than 300 EVs a LANDSLIDE

 

when they were predicting that for Romney:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 01:46 PM

4. the winner has to CLAIM the mandate and act like it. not a media thing at all nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 02:55 PM

12. totally agree;

progressives also have to get organized and pressure Obama

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 01:55 PM

6. I remember Bush and Rove saying any victory was a mandate and the media agreed!

The clear double standard and bias toward conservative viewpoints is the reason I just avoid corporate news now. Too aggravating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 02:03 PM

7. The Texas Con, Peter Morrison, the "maggots" are in corporate media

and rightwing pundits disguised as journalists who are now out in force attempting to claim that President Obama doesn't have a mandate (in order to weaken him) when each and every Rightwing pundit claimed a mandate for Romney should he win above and beyond 300 EC votes.

I guess it *is* true, that a black person has to work three times as hard for the same recognition because this fallacy permeates each and every corporate media bobble-heads' idiotic declarations hoping to convince the unwashed masses.

Sorry, corporate bobble-heads, but what's good for the White Republican is equally good for the Black Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 02:56 PM

13. totally agree;

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 02:16 PM

8. these fossils still think they posses some mythical knowledge no one else has

the majority of people in the usa could care less about what they have to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madrchsod (Reply #8)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 02:57 PM

14. yes,

although it seems as if an awful lot of people imbibe and parrot everything faux, rush, etc. say.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 02:17 PM

9. NPR used to supposed to be progressive and independent. To me they're an extension of the joke.

Last edited Sun Nov 11, 2012, 04:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Everyone else listed is to be expected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vaberella (Reply #9)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 02:57 PM

16. yes, they drank the koolaid long ago....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vaberella (Reply #9)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 03:53 PM

17. Cock Brothers

 

You don't think all those corporate donations to NPR come without strings, do you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 02:57 PM

15. A mandate is determined by the popular vote, not the Electoral College

Because the whole point of evaluating whether an election is a mandate is to determine whether the election served as validation of a candidate's principles by garnering popular support. Even if non-swing state voters don't get to determine the outcome of the election, our votes certainly count in determining whether a president won a mandate.

I think Obama won a mandate but not a sweeping mandate like he did in 2008. What is sad is that Bush cannot possibly be said to have won a mandate in 2000, yet he governed like he won in a landslide. Obama actually did win in a landslide in 2008 but governed as if someone had let him in by accident during his first couple years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 04:35 PM

18. Bush held the house in 2004.

I would call that an iron clad mandate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 05:26 PM

19. Make no mistake about it, President Obama does have a mandate.

No matter what some old crusty white guy like Bob Schieffer says about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 07:24 PM

20. alternative graphic

Here's an alternative graphic I threw together, highlighting the much larger electoral victories by Obama in BOTH his elections, versus the 2000/2004 results...



The media EITHER has to declare that they mischaracterized the Bush elections (putting aside... you know) or that Obama's 2008 mandate has been reinforced and reaffirmed by the voters. Well, they WOULD have to declare such, if there was a trace of integrity remaining....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amborin (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 08:49 PM

21. 206 to 332

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread