I believe it is safe to conclude that most people interpreted the 2008 election as a fairly definitive mandate for Obama. It seems to me that any other alternative explanation would be invalid. Of course, there were certain conservative pundits who desperately attempted to spin the results in a different way, and there were those who accepted this spin as fact. However, there was simply no rational way to deny the sheer force and decisiveness of the numbers.
Obama's victory was impressive on several fronts. Needing 270 electoral votes to win the election, Obama collected 365 to McCain's 173. By anyone's definition, this margin would have to be regarded as an electoral mandate. In regard to the popular vote, the spread was a convincing 53% to 46% in favor of Obama. These numbers clearly indicate a strong desire for change and a new direction on the part of the voting public, and in this particular election it was Obama who manifested this change most effectively. Obviously, he benefited from a failing economy and the ineptitude of the previous administration, however, because of his youth and enthusiasm, Obama seemed to instill a genuine sense of hope in people.
If we accept the premise of an electoral mandate for Obama, then we also need to determine what this means for his administration. I feel that this mandate was given on the contingency that Obama would act quickly and decisively on the myriad of issues currently at play, foreign and domestic. While there is a honeymoon period, there is also a sense of urgency because of the immediacy of our problems and the current dire nature of the economy. Personally, I feel that the mandate still exists and the administration has performed sufficiently enough to justify continued support and confidence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that he clearly possessed a mandate to go in a different direction from the Bush administration, but don't you think he has to watch about going too far to the left since this is a center right country.
ReplyDeleteObama is a gifted politician and enough of a pragmatist to realize that the right must be appeased to an extent in order to accomplish anything. The irony is that some on the left feel he has fled to the middle on some issues. Whatever the case, for good or ill, the next year or two will be defined by the success or failure of his stimulus package.
ReplyDeleteYou make a good argument in favor of the mandate: the electoral vote disparity. I commented on the same in my blog. However, is it too early in Obama's term to definitively determine if he still has a mandate? In all fairness concerning issues, Obama's budget plans don't seem all that different from the previous administration. Obama made the point of cracking down on excessive earmarks, yet the new budget has over 8 billion worth. He has been part of some controversial "changes" regarding AIG and the auto makers, but these too seem like PR ploys to improve poll percentages. I think in order to truly know if he still has the mandate indicated by the overwhelming electoral vote margin of victory, we will need more time.
ReplyDeleteIf Obama has a mandate, then is it fair to say that George W. Bush did after his 2004 reelection as well, even though he won by only three million votes (compared to Obama's eight million spread)?
ReplyDeleteI personally tend to reject the term "mandate." And basing its relativity on the electoral college can be deceiving. As we have seen, the college can lead to inflated victory results (simply looking at the 2004 map would make one think Bush won by ten million).
I think its more important to take into consideration other political factors, and in doing so, could formulate a better argument (ie: Bush's 2004 victory, when looking at gains in both the House and Senate).