More on the madate theme.
Pro and con on the same blog.
"Thanks to a dataset sent by reader Ken Harlan, I can report a warning: don't listen to the jabber about highest winner's vote count in history and so on.
We all know there are more US voters than any time in history, right? So to judge the Bush 2004 mandate we should look at the winner-loser margin as a percent of total voters, and check it out, this number doesn't play so great:
Sooner or later those on the other side will notice there were only four elections since 1920 with a lower "mandate" number than that generated by our just-finished election.
So take care, don't crow, be quiet, the presidential numbers don't support the hi-mandate landslide thesis. (We can leave Senate and House races for another discussion however.)"
econopundit.com
[The warning] is well taken [but] at the same time the Democrats can't push the "not a landslide" theme too far. How many Democratic presidential candidates in the last ONE HUNDRED YEARS have matched Bush's popular vote share? FDR, LBJ...(er, that's it). Simple majority? NOT Wilson, Truman, Kennedy or Clinton (only Carter, who had 50.08%). Few if any Democrats urged restraint on Carter or Clinton.
econopundit.com |
