Crossposted at Never In Our Names
Unrealiably sourced, admittedly, since it's from The White House....but we have verification of this independent of the House of Lies.
President Bush ran forthrightly on a clear agenda for this nation's future, and the nation responded by giving him a mandate. Now -- (Applause.) Now we move forward to serve and to guard the country we love.
Really, DICK?
That would be Mr. Cheney speaking on November 3, 2004. :-)
Mr. War Criminal Constitution Shredder Criminal Orwellian Nightmare puppetmaster cheney Selfish piece of shit who declared that dictatorship would be teh awesome as long as you had those powers....which you've had the past 4 years Bush, thanks for defining what type of margin of victory entails a mandate from the electorate to govern as the winner sees fit. You'll probably not be using that word much and you'll probably not answer a question about it but let's refresh our fuckin memories, shall we?
Compare the results of 2004, a mandate for Bush (mmkaaay), to the results in the senate nationwide this year.....after the fold.
It's not even close.
If that margin of victory gave you a fuckin mandate, then I'm the man in the moon. Regardless, thanks for defining what it takes to have "a mandate from the people to govern", Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush, along with your lapdog media. You really shouldn't have lol.
Media echoed conservative claim on Bush "mandate"
Following President George W. Bush's victory over Senator John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election, conservative media rushed to declare that the election was a decisive mandate for Bush's agenda, and mainstream media outlets have followed their lead.
Their pronouncements echo Vice President Dick Cheney's November 3 claim that "President Bush ran forthrightly on a clear agenda for this nation's future and the nation responded by giving him a mandate." But such pronouncements neglect important facts that suggest Bush's narrow victory is far from a decisive endorsement of his agenda:
That's from Media Matters ...read the rest of it if you'd like, Mister Bush. Your "liberal" media and you pushed the "mandate" of 3% margin of victory like there was no tomorrow and acted as if you'd just won in a landslide......which was about the most idiotic, but not THE most idiotic, shit you all were preaching.
Oh yeah...that mandate...haven't heard that word much lately.....
Kinda weird....cuz if 2004 was a mandate....the results this year are a goddamned DEMAND with millions of fists behind them!
Read it and weep, Mr. Bush
2004 gave you a 3% margin of victory and you, via Cheney, claimed that this was a mandate from the people for you to govern however you saw fit....and how you saw fit to govern was criminal.
Look at Tuesday, MISTER BUSH.
In fact, I'll let one of your fellow right wingers define it for you.
RealClearPolitics shows THE MANDATE OF THE AGES
Republicans Are Lucky They Did Not Lose More Seats
Posted by JAY COST
Drudge is displaying a phenomenal statistic.
Preliminary: Senate Ballots cast: 31,591,495 (D) 25,054,569 (R)...
If that is true, it means that the Democrats won the two-party vote by a whopping 12%: 56% to 44%.
If the House went anything like this, it means that the Republicans should count themselves very, very lucky. It could have been worse. A lot worse.
Over the weekend, I offered a projection of 19 seats based upon (a) Gallup's generic ballot prediction of 54-46, and (b) an OLS regression equation of votes to seats for 1996 to 2006.
If these 56/44 numbers are roughly the same for the House as they are for the Senate -- and my intuition is that they might actually be higher because uncontested Democratic seats outnumbered uncontested Republican seats by about 5:1 -- then the model would have predicted Republican losses of 25 or so seats, a figure statistically consistent with the final result of 29-ish (assuming that the Democrats hold CT 02 and GA 12). In fact, inserting the 56/44 popular vote and 29 seat swing into the post-1994 model greatly improves its predictive accuracy. Whereas it explained only 40% of the variation prior, it now explains 91% of the variation.
In the pre-1996 era, a 56-44 result would have produced a 73-seat gain for the Democrats in the House of Representatives. That would have been a 276 D to 159 R House.
56/44 would also mark a 7.4% decrease in the Republican share of the two-party vote. This would be the greatest drop in share of the two-party vote since, I believe, 1938. All in all, these vote numbers -- 73-seat loss and 7.4% vote loss -- most closely represent the 1946 election in which Harry Truman and the Democrats lost 54 seats and 6.4% of the vote. They went from a large majority to a tiny minority in the course of two years.
MISTER BUSH? WHAT WERE YOU SAYING ABOUT A FUCKING MANDATE?
Let me make it simple for your stupid ass. You claimed a mandate with a 3% win in 04....really stupid, i'm sure you realize by now.
We just donkey punched your party with a 12% margin of victory in the nationwide senate voting. So you might as well call that a SUPER DUPER EXTRA BIGGIE SIZE MANDATE.....BITCH.
Nancy Pelosi....Harry Reid.....pay attention. This was a fuckin landslide victory for our side. Realize what the United States has said via their constitutional votes. They have endorsed our party and our side as the ones who they agree with. PERIOD. When you vote for someone....that's what it fuckin means.
We have the mandate. Bush...go back and sit in your corner reading "The Little Engine That Could" or whatever you've worked yourself up to on your reading list this week. Just get the fuck out of the way and understand one thing.
The Adults Have Taken Over Again....AS MANDATED BY THE UNITED STATES IN HISTORIC NUMBERS
This was a goddamned LANDSLIDE. You sir, are irrelevant. Realize it now....we don't want to see you getting desperate again. Just go open the bottle of Jack and stfu.
We won by 12% nationwide in the Senate.....TWELVE PERCENT, SIR. You won by 3% and said, via Dick Cheney and your liberal media, that you'd been mandated to govern with that kind of win. Mr. Bush...welcome to the mandates of all mandates.
By your definition of a mandate, and we're not talkin Jeff Gannon here, you have been fuckin OWNED and we will govern by mandate as the people have ....um...exactly....MANDATED.
MANDATE was defined by you and the liberal media. Thank you for that, douchebags. I'm not sure what the next level above "mandate" is....but go about 15 stories up above that floor and you've arrived at where the American people have given us our mandate.
Mr. Bush, Senator Reid, Rep. Pelosi, and the rest of the elected representatives.... the people have spoken and they have given the Democratic Party a HUGE mandate, by Bush's own terms, to govern. Make it so.
Peace.