mandateHmm... Although, by definition in any election, a victory by one single vote can be technically construed as a 'mandate'. Yet culturally, we seem to view mandates as something heavily favored.
A command or an expression of a desire, especially by a group of voters for a political program. Politicians elected in landslide victories often claim that their policies have received a mandate from the voters.
The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. 2002.
I am not surprised that President Bush sleeps better under the delusional impression a margin of 2.19% somehow indicates that he was the CLEARLY preferred candidate. I mean, who in their right mind wants to acknowledge they're just the MARGINALLY preferred candidate?
Consider the notion that even as the incumbent, his campaign was uphill all the way and yet he just narrowly won by only that 2.19% margin (keeping in mind that over 1 million people felt strongly enough to throw away their vote to express that neither mainstream candidate was good enough). I guess I would expect him to be somewhat more humble about his second term that he seems to be since the election. I guess that's asking too much.
Yes, approximately 2.5 million more people voted for him this time around [out of a voting constituency of 115,427,728 (which doesn't include those who didn't/couldn't, a number which would quite possibly have exceeded his margin of victory)]. But I believe anyone would be hard pressed to sell that margin as a 'mandate' in the largely-appreciated sense of the term that his speech writing team is clearly inferring that it is.
I imagine one thing's for certain. Christmas at the Bush ranch is going to suck from now on, with Laura constantly reminding G.W. that it isn't nice to rub father's one-term nose in HIS two-term Presidency.
Oh, wait. Isn't humility a virtue? Ah, perhaps that explains things...
