Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JBTFD who wrote (146084)	11/6/2008 7:35:24 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

That is undeniably true. I wouldn't go that far, unless you define any win as a mandate. If you do than Bush2 had a small mandate after beating Kerry and Obama has a larger mandate now. But if your not automatically defining any win as a mandate then its at best arguably true not undeniably true, since if Obama doesn't have a mandate than the fact that Bush2 was further from having one, doesn't mean Obama has more of one. You have to actually have "a X" to have "a larger X". So it all comes down to how you define mandate, and it isn't a very precisely defined term, at least not in terms of vote percentages. It seems like more of a mandate because recent elections have been fairly close. But see volokh.com for a comparison of the last 25 elections