It would be nice to think that all our presidents had an electoral mandate. It makes perfect sense. The leader of the country would be elected by a majority of the population, and all the voters who voted for him should strongly support his policies and character. It is hard to exactly say whether or not a particular office holder has an electoral mandate because it’s all perception, but I will do my best to work through the question if Obama had (or has) an electoral mandate.
When looking at election results from 2008 on cnn.com (Election Center 2008), several things suggest that Obama had an electoral mandate. First, he won 53% of the popular vote. The majority of citizens voted for him, his character, and his policies. Secondly, Obama also won the Electoral College. He only needed 270 votes to win, yet gained 365. I find this important because he clearly exceeded the requirement to become elected. The Electoral College itself is important to his electoral mandate because a situation similar to the 2000 election didn’t occur. In that election, the popular vote winner did not receive the majority of the electoral votes, which I would argue, decreased the Electoral College winner’s (the President Elect’s) electoral mandate. Thirdly, I would imagine many voters were fed up with the Republican Party and their handling of the White House with George W. Bush. Obama’s appeal to many citizens was his slogan, “Change We Can Believe In”. He gave large numbers of American voters hope and belief for the future. He offered up change for Washington D.C. and placed a lot of emphasis on bipartisanship. In my opinion, this is what “sealed the deal” for voters to vote for Democratic Presidential Nominee, Barack Obama, giving him an electoral mandate.
I also believe President Barack Obama still enjoys this electoral mandate into his presidency. It is a little more difficult for me to interpret his mandate now because we are still in the Honeymoon Period of his presidency (the first 100 days). His approval rating will still be relatively high during this time frame because he has just taken office and is getting into the “swing of things”, and the media tends to be a bit more favorable as well during this time. Obama does seem to be delivering on some of his promises made during the campaign, such as bipartisanship and change to Washington D.C. as mentioned above. And, I think a lot of citizens see this in his calls to Congress for bipartisanship and the passing of important legislation to help fix our economy (and help the American people).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Nice take on the mandate issue. I had looked at mandate from a more historical perspective, but I think you make a pretty good argument, since Obama did indeed win by a heck of a lot more than George W. Bush ever did. Since in terms of margin of victory he was not at the top historically, I wonder if mandate is overused, or perhaps it is the case that a lot of Presidents have mandates? Mandates, or at least pretty convincing wins, do seem to come to those Presidents, Republican or Democrat, who seem able to connect on a dynamic but personal level, such as Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, or of course, Barack Obama. It is probably no coincidence that some of the biggest mandates come at times of extraordinary economic distress.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with both of these comments. The mandate of bipartisanship and change to Washington will progress during his presidency as our economy either improves or continues to take a turn for the worst. I also agree that Americans see the bipartisanship as an act of taking care of the public good versus undertaking a more greedy political role.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Hannah. Seeing that he had all this support in the election its clear that he has many Americans supporting his success. Especially on his campaign for change, I think many people were looking for change and are supporting that change. With his high approval ratings and the backing of the American people, Washington will have a hard time resisting his policy initiatives.
ReplyDeleteI, like the other commenters, agree with you. I particularly enjoyed your thoughts comparing the 2008 election to the 2000 election. In 2000, W really didn't have a lot of credibility when he entered office after narrowly winning the electoral college, losing the popular vote, and engaging in a prolonged court fight. 2008 was different. We know who won and why he won.
ReplyDeleteOne other point. U.S. politics is so divisive and people clearly identify with one of the two parties. As a result, I think it could be a long time before we see a MASSIVE electoral landslide (like LBJ's '64 election or the 3 elections in the 80s), resulting in a overwhelming mandate. Therefore Obama's 365 electoral votes certainly count for a mandate.
Then again I could be totally wrong and one of the two parties could skid completely off the tracks and become more regional than national.