Obama won the popular vote by only 2 percentage points. In the Congress, the Democrats have a majority in the Senate and the Republicans have the majority in the House. Percentage-wise, the majority for each party is the same.Let's look at these claims more closely and see if they are at all compelling.
1) The President won the popular vote by only 2 percentage points. First off, the tally is really 3.5 percentage points (50.9% vs. 47.4%) but that's only a minor quibble (though, does the Oklahoman ever fact-check letters before they run them?). The real question is what that number means. After all, it doesn't sound like much. But without some context, it's meaningless.
So what about context? Here are the last few elections:
2008: Obama by 7.3 (52.9% v. 45.6%)
2004: Bush by 2.4 (50.7% v. 48.3%)
2000: Gore by 0.5 (48.4% v. 47.9%)
1996: Clinton by 8.5* (49.2% v. 40.7% v. 8.4%) *Ross Perot's popularity skews this number considerably
1992: Clinton by 5.5* (43% v. 37.5% v. 18.9%) *Ross Perot's popularity skews this number
1988: Bush by 7.7 (53.4% v. 45.7%)
1984: Reagan by 18.3 (59.1% v. 40.8%)
1982: Reagan by 9.7* (50.7% v. 41% v. 6.6%) *Anderson's popularity skews this number
1976: Carter by 2.1 (50.1% v. 48.0%)
1972: Nixon by 23.2 (60.7% v. 37.5%)
1968: Nixon by 0.7* (43.4% v. 42.7% v. 13.5%) *Wallace's popularity skews this number
1964: Johnson by 22.6 (61.1% v. 38.5%)
1960: Kennedy by 0.2% (49.7% v. 49.5%)
1956: Eisenhower by 15.4 (57.4% v. 42%)
1952: Eisenhower by 10.9 (55.2% v. 44.3%)
1948: Truman by 4.5* (49.6% v. 45.1% v. 2.4%) *Thurmon's popularity skews this number
1944: Roosevelt by 7.5 (53.4% v. 45.9%)
1940: Roosevelt by 9.9 (54.7% v. 44.8%)
OK, we can stop here and have some idea of what's going on. We have wide range of victory margins here. Some are quite large (Reagan in '84, Nixon in '72, Johnson in '64), and some are quite small (Kennedy in '60, and Bush's non-victory in '00). There are also some skewed results where a third-party candidate was able to nab votes from the two main parties, making it unclear how big the winner's real margin would have been in a more conventional race.
It's also interesting how many times someone has won without a majority. Both of Clinton's elections were marked by a large anti-establishment sentiment, and there were others. (I had no idea Kennedy scraped by so closely!)
Obama's victory is somewhat small by historical standards (at least through "moden" history), but certainly not the smallest. And it is perhaps noteworthy that he won a majority-- something has has not been so common of late.
All of this is moot, though, since we haven't established what a mandate really is. Some searching on-line doesn't provide a clear picture. Left-leaning sites say that of course Obama does, while right-leaning sites claim he doesn't. And some sites don't know and ask people to vote on what they think!
If that's unclear, what about the rest of Mr. Dixon's argument? He notes that the Republicans control the House while Democrats control the Senate. Of course, since the GOP has gerrymandered numerous districts, the actual popular vote for House seats is in favor of the Democrats. It's also important to remember that the Senate gives each state two Senators regardless of population. So ultra-red states like Oklahoma are going to be giving the same number of Senators as is California or New York. Yet, the Democrats have a clear majority there (and even gained seats this election).
In all, it's hard to make a convincing case that the right's positions on the economy and social issues are ones that a majority of Americans want. Given that, Mr. Dixon goes out in left field and argues that since there are more Republican Governors than Democratic ones, the idea of a mandate belongs to the right. This is a particularly weak argument, unless he's willing to concede that places like Arkansas or Kentucky are really left-leaning.
The Oklahoman publishes letters that are factually inaccurate but that push an agenda all so they can keep their hands clean and stay out of the fray. It's pretty weak, but nevertheless par for the course.
No comments:
Post a Comment