Obama's Mandate

In November President Obama won an electoral mandate. If we are to compare his election the previous 4 presidential elections, where the winning candidate either did not receive a majority of the popular votes or squeaked by with a razor thin majority in the electoral college. Also President Obama has significant majorities in Congress and approval ratings that are nearly Kennedyesqe. Therefore, less than 75 days into his Presidency, he maintains his mandate. Evidence of how much he has maintained could be interpreted through the upcoming (tomorrow I believe) special election in New York's 20th Congressional District. But first, let's begin with the past.

Based on recent history (the previous 4 elections), Obama was the first to receive an overwhelming majority in both the electoral college and with the popular vote. In 1992 and 1996, President Clinton won significant electoral college victories, but he did not win more than 49% of the popular vote in either election. In fact in 1992 nearly 57% of the country voted for someone other than Bill Clinton, yet he won 370 electoral votes. In each election, 3rd party candidate Ross Perot accounted for a high percentage of votes. Many believe his candidacy was responsible for siphoning off likely Republican voters. In both cases, Clinton likely would have been elected, but he may not have received the electoral college mandate that he won.

In 2000 George W. Bush was elected President by the slimmest of margins in the electoral college, while losing the popular vote. Hardly a mandate. In 2004, he was elected by a wider margin popularly and in the electoral college than in 2000, but if 120,000 or so voters in Ohio had voted for Senator John Kerry, Bush would have lost and we would be discussing how shocking it would have been for someone to win the electoral college despite losing the popular vote by 2-3%. As a result of these thin elections, President Bush rarely (at least around election time) governed from a strong, popular position. His Presidency was rocky at the beginning because of the contested election in 2000, while in 2004 he was saddled with an unpopular war. Shortly after being reelected, he wasted his political capital on privatizing social security (can you imagine if that had been passed?) and the questionable response to Hurricane Katrina. Had he had a mandate, perhaps he could have at least made significant progress on social security and/or immigration reform and navigated his way through the Katrina mess.

Granted his mandate is not Reaganesqe or similar to Lyndon Johnson's in 1964. But the parties were much more diverse and less polarizing in 1964 and 1980. Cross party voting was much more common. We learned about this prior to the midterm. A Southern Democrat was likely more conservative than a New England Republican. So when Southern Democrats became Reagan Republicans in the 1980s it demonstrated sweeping change and a large mandate. Today the parties are too polarized and too strong for anyone to receive nearly 500 electoral votes. So as a result, Obama's 365 electoral votes represent a significant electoral mandate.

Enough dwelling on the past. President Obama was elected by carrying states such as Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina--3 solidly Republican states. He nearly won Missouri and was competitive in Montana, while swiping an electoral vote from McCain in Nebraska. In addition Democrats made strong gains in Congressional and Senate races. As a result of the 2006 elections, Democrats gained 32 House seats and 6 Senate seats. In 2008, with Obama at the top of the ticket, they gained another 20 seats in the House, while picking up 7 (or 8) Senate seats. This was despite John McCain's 1-party rule rhetoric during the closing weeks of the campaign.

The first real test for his mandate will be in New York's 20th Congressional District. Democratic candidate Scott Murphy has been using the President in his advertising. This seat is traditionally a Republican seat. It was originally picked up by Kristin Gillibrand in 2006 (she was named to the Senate to replace Hillary Clinton earlier this year). Current polling is tight. If Democrats can manage to hang on to the seat, it could be a demonstration of Obama's continuing popularity and thus, mandate. If Murphy loses, it could be an indication of a dwindling mandate and popularity.

However, current public polling demonstrates that the President maintains his popularity and likely his mandate. According to Survey USA, the President's approval ratings are relatively steady in 14 different states. The last time this poll was conducted was 10 days after the inauguration. Other polling has his overall approval rating hovering around 60%.

One final factor that may contribute to his mandate is the state of the country. Given the current economic crisis and the two hot wars to contend with, the President is has been given a mandate by the American people (although you wouldn't know it, he is getting attacked by the likes of 60s radical Tom Hayden for being too hawkish and Karl Rove for being a tax-and-spend liberal). The nation wants him to succeed because if he does, that means the current economic recession will at least slow and we may even begin to recover. As a result, he won and maintains a significant electoral mandate.