Bush's Mandate

[J. J.]

Clinton recieve 379 Electoral Votes in1996 and beat his oppnent by 8 million votes.

Bush will maybe get, what 285 EV and beats Kerry by 3.5 million.  And even then I don't think Clinton acted as though he had a mandate.  I don't think Clinton acted nearly as radical as Bush will act in his second admiinstration.

Time wrote an article about it in 1996
Our Journey Is Not Done
The voters hand Clinton a historic victory but send a message, not a mandate: work with the Republicans

http://cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/time.special/term/

It shows you how well Bush has the media under his thumb. The media didn't treat Clinton like he had a mandate and Bush shouldn't act like he has one.

There are several reasons for this:

1.  A much lower percentage of the VAP voted in 1996 than 2004.

2.  A majority that did said, in effect, "We want somebody other than Clinton."

3.  The Party of Clinton was not relected in legislative races; in fact, the party of Clinton, which controlled a least one house of Congress for 40 years was swept from power largely as a reaction to Clinton.

There is a better argument for a GOP "mandate" in 2004 than there was for a Democratic one in 1996.

[J. J.]

Taking the oath of office is all the mandate any president needs.

How many votes he won by and what his total vote was don't alter his mandate, but they do impact his de facto political strength.

Bush is very strong now.

I hope he reaches out to Democrats, but if anything I would say that the stronger imperative is for Democrats to reach out to him.  He is in charge.

I agree with kelpie.  I think you can argue that Bush had a mandate in 2004, that Clinton had a "Mandate for Change," that Reagan had a "Mandate" in 1980 and that Carter had a "Mandate" in 1976.  Excepting Reagan in 1980, I would argue that, retrospectively, there was no "mandate."

[J. J.]

It's worth noting that the furloughs in Massachusetts were originally proposed by a Republican, and that a similar system existed in California when Reagan was Governor.

So it was not Dukakis's idea, and while one could blame him for not repealing it, one would have to apply the same standard to Reagan.

The problem was that it reinforced a perception of liberals as weak on crime, but it was an intellectually dishonest example to use.

Agreed, but the prime example, Willie Horton, was used by a PAC, not the campaign; it would be the equivalent of the 527's today.  The actual adds from the campaign dealt with the application and frequency of the furlough program (and yes, there were some problems there).

[J. J.]

Just for the record, the "mandate" isn't important, it is the perception of a mandate that is important.