Examing Bush's "mandate". Try excluding Texas.

[Mugsy]

How did we lose <"corrected"> this election? Please, somebody... anybody... tell me, how did we lose this election? And not in the courts like in 2000, but by 3.5 million in the "popular vote"?

After winning the 2004 election, President Bush and his supporters were calling his 3.5 million popular vote lead over Senator Kerry (59.4M vs 55.9M) a "mandate". A 3% lead in a country where 115 million people voted certainly is no mandate, but that is how it is being played. President Bush even went as far as to call it "political capital" that he intended to use to push his agenda. The implication is that Bush received, on average, 70,000 more votes than Kerry in each state.

But wait. Bush didn't win "all 50 states". He won 31. So in 19 states, he had no "mandate" at all. This got me thinking... where exactly does Bush's 3.5 million vote "mandate" come from?

The first, and most obvious place to look is his home state of Texas. Bush received 1,692,768 more votes than Kerry in Texas. So nearly HALF of President Bush's "mandate" comes from this one state alone.
http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr1race0.htm?x=362&y=13315&id=87

That leaves just 1.8 million more votes for the rest of the country. Since even a narrow victory in a populous state can amount to hundreds of thousands of votes, it made me wonder if any other populous Red States followed this trend?

Georgia: 548105 more votes.
http://www.sos.state.ga.us/elections/election_results/2004_1102/001.htm

Florida: 380978 more votes.
http://enight.dos.state.fl.us/

Tennessee: 348315 more votes.
http://www.state.tn.us/sos/election/index.htm

Ohio: 109483 more votes.
http://serform.sos.state.oh.us/sos/results/2004/gen/pres.htm

Three million of President Bush's so-called "mandate" comes from just five states. And don't forget that half of that is from Texas.

Exclude Texas, and President Bush's "mandate" is closer to 1.8 million votes, or barely 1% of all votes cast on election day.

[Maat]

1. How many times do we have to tell you ...

he said he had a man-date not a mandate.

Just kidding.

Very interesting analysis.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mugsy]

4. Reagan in 1980 and '84.

Ronald Reagan winning 48 or 50 states in both 1980 and 1984 is "a mandate". A 1% margin of victory in not only the electoral vote, but now arguably in the popular votes as well, is no "mandate".

[MrUnderhill]

6. Whatever the public will fall for.

Seriously.

[SoCalDem]

3. 110K x 31 states = 4.31 million

not all states could "deliver" 100K, but in safe states the difference was made up..

VaporVoting at its very best.. Who's gonna challenge 3xtra votes in a state he won easily??

[Richardo]

5. Please. I beg of you. It's 'lose', not 'loose'.

Your otherwise well-stated point gets obscured.

[MrUnderhill]

7. A pointless exercise...

Without New York (or California) Bush would have won even bigger.

But the election ISN'T held "sans Texas". So it doesn't matter.


Besides. This is really the right-wing argument. It's like the red/blue county map. Gore/Kerry really only won these tiny little areas.... but they won them BIG. Exclude the major cities (not even the small cities) and Bush won a landslide.

But the people in those cities deserve to be heard.

And so (gag gag, cough) does Texas.

[Mugsy]

9. Not the point.

> Without New York (or California) Bush would have won even bigger.

That's not the point. Yes, eliminating Kerry states would have the opposite effect, but when you go around claiming you have a "mandate", implying that support for his policies is shared by a greater number of people across the U.S., when nearly HALF of that "mandate" comes from just one state... your home state... then you have no business suggesting that because so many people in Texas supported him, that the other 49 states should fall in line.

[MrUnderhill]

13. Ok.... let's try this again.

You knew Kerry won IL by a solid 10%, right? It worked out to a 500,000 vote gap.

Did you know that over 800,000 of those 500,000 voted (I'm sure you notice the disparity) came from Chicago alone? That Bush won virtually every county in IL by a substantial margin, but why should the rest of the state "fall in line" behind Chicago when the "mandate? came from that single county??

Or what about Bush's EV victory in 2000? Can he claim that Gore picked up a million+ votes from a single city and without that city Bush actually won the popular vote?

It's an exercise in futility. And again... it is the right-wing argument. Why should the ENTIRE COUNTRY ever bow to the wishes of a handful of big cities that vote overwhelmingly Democratic?

The next Democrat who wins the White House IS going to win almost exclusively on the backs of a few small areas. Must we sacrifice our future "mandate" at this altar?


Here's the real "mandate" (Because there really is no such thing as it is currently argued): If Democrats "have" to vote for a Bush court nominee because they can tell they'll be "Dascled" if they "obstruct"... then he has a mandate. If he gets his SS restructuring because Democrats think voting against it will cost them the election... then it's a mandate. Clinton "had" to sign the welfare "reform" legislation because it was clear that the republicans had a mandate to do it. We'll let our elected officials stick their finger in the wind and decide whether a 3% victory requires them to bend over. This is what politicians do best. (the "finger" thing... not the "bend over" thing)

[quiet.american]

15. How do we know?

How do we know what the real numbers were?

Voter suppression, voter "spoilage," machines counting votes for Bush when "Kerry" was chosen, etc.

Bush's man- date is a lot more real to me than any mandate for Bush.

[MrUnderhill]

17. I'm not saying he HAS a mandate...

I'm saying that these games where we ignore a certain part of the vote are anti-Democratic.

How about if Republicans were to say Clinton never had a mandate because if you took out the black vote he never even won an election.

1) It's pointless.

2) It implies the group targeted is unworthy of having a say in our democracy. I won't even say that of Texans.

[quiet.american]

21. Actually,

...I think we may be having two different conversations. :)

I'm not saying ignore anyone's vote, my point is, how do we know what the actual numbers were coming out of any of the states, given all the shenanigans that occurred.

[Mugsy]

19. Maybe that should define "mandate" themselves?

Remember that Mondale won his home state too (plus DC) in 1984.

If Massachusetts just had 100 million more people in it, Kerry would have won with a "mandate" too. I love Bush's logic.

[kanecorp]

8. Up in every state

His % went up in every state, even all blue ones.

[Mugsy]

10. Huh?

What are you talking about?

I assume you mean he did better in 2004 than in 2000? Well duh, he lost in 2000.

By that logic, The Democratic nominee's percentage went up as well, as more people voted in this election than in 2000. Kerry received even more votes than Gore did. What's your point?

[Bridget Burke]

20. Yup. All it took was one phone call from Rove....

And a few busy hackers. So consistent.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mugsy]

12. Freepers miss the point. No surprise.

> Kerry Lost, get over it and move on.

Again, you miss the point. President Bush is suggesting that his agenda deserves unobstructed support as a result of this "mandate", when it is clear that his popular vote lead is so heavilly concentrated in just one state.

Should President Bush be strong-arming his agenda on the rest of the country because so many people in his home state voted for it?

[MrUnderhill]

14. IF you're a Democrat.... please allow me to suggest that...

..."Kerry Lost, get over it and move on" does not really belong in your third post.

[mrdmk]

16. Guess what buddy, It is not over, period.

Plus, this group is not going to take this non-sense.

[MrUnderhill]

18. Well...

It IS...

but it's rude to say "get over it and move on"

Maybe I don't WANT to "move on". Maybe I want to wallow in it for a few weeks.

And this fantasy of votes just magically breaking my way appeals to me.

[mrdmk]

26. Dear MrUnderhill, Please read the following;

Voting is our one right that is not to be taking lightly. For the past thirty years voting has became a game of, "well let someone else take the time to vote because my vote does not count. Why should I brother?" When a get an effective get the vote out campaign such as the that taken place in 2004 and society has to deal with four to fourteen hour lines, inaccurate tally counts, lying by the media on the exit polls and more in favor of destructive and corrupt Bush Jr. Administration, this sir is a travesty on the general public in the first degree. Our voting rights is one of weapons to right the wrongs of the "powers that be". This is why this forum is so adamant about this issue.

You can fantasize to your hearts content about votes, but there is a movement by the few to control the many in a destructive, ill conceived and dangerous manner that is not to be taken lightly by anyone.

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. Kerry would have loved to had that mandate

[NewYorkerfromMass]

23. I think 136,000 more votes in Ohio would have done nicely

Fuck mandates. It's all just spin as this poster makes the case for so well.

[leftie96]

24. It doesn't stop there!

If we also exclude the votes from Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Tenessee, Utah and Florida, Kerry would have won a landslide!

[Mugsy]

25. And while....

...you are missing the point:

If Massacheusetts had 5 million more residents, Kerry would have won.

Listen up folks: THE POINT:

President Bush believes that the bulk of Americans support his agenda and therefore it should be pushed through Congress without obstruction when in fact his "mandate" comes from only a handful of states.

Think of it this way... if Bush won by just one state, but his popularity in a single state gives him a so-called mandate, does that mean the other 49 all agree with his agenda and that Congress should should just roll over and pass everything he wants unchallanged?

[Bridget Burke]

27. And parts of Texas used electronic voting....

I know my precinct in Houston did. (Sheila Jackson Lee's district; we're pretty Democratic.) This began in 2002--I remember Austin was also an electronic voting "pioneer". Even then, many were surprised when Cornyn became senator; his Democratic opponent was a moderate African-American who'd been successful as mayor of Dallas(!)

Texas would probably have remained "red" (overall) without electronic voting, but it would be a great place to pad the popular vote.