How much does Obmaa have to win by for the cons to call it a mandate?

hahahahahahahahahah


there is such a thing as a mandate.

its wehen you win such a large percentage of the vote its obvious to all what the vast majority want.

What is that number?


Bush claimed it was like 3%.

did he lie?

To answer your question, let's go to the Constitution. At what point does the Constitution say that mob rule may usurp the rights of the minority?

Obama is still printing that part of the constitution up.
 
Last edited:
will you deny a mandate no matter how badly your candidate loses?

This is pretty simple; there is no mandate unless the Dems increase their lead in the Senate and also take back the House. While they could potentially increase their lead in the Senate, taking back the House would require a very big move in a lot of races. I just don't see that happening at this point.
 
already in the thread

Actually it's not. If you go back to that and search, it was the opinion of the left wing writer he said he had a "mandate." There was no quote he said that in the article.

This is what happens with your endless links. They link to opinion pieces of liberals, which you then treat as actual fact when they are fantasy.
 
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp2004/rp04-081.pdf

2004 US Presidential and Congressional election results


George W Bush, the 43rd President and Republican
incumbent, was re-elected with 51% of the popular
vote, defeating his Democrat rival, Senator John Kerry
(48%).

The Republicans retained control of the Senate and the
House of Representatives with increased majorities in
both chambers.


the Republicans did quite well in 2004, using their unprovoked and unfunded Iraqi war for partisan, political purposes. then rightfully so losing Congress and the Executive in the next 4 years.

Obama winning reelection, holding the majority in the Senate and adding members in the House would go a long way to match the Republicans success in 04 but a tall order to accomplish ...
 
Did Bush LIE about having a mandate?

Yep, indeed he did . Bush II was a lying criminal scumbag.

.

Laughing my ass off. See, all the non-liberals actually read the article Lies Matter posted and noted it didn't say that. The liberals just stuck your hands down your pants and wail away. There's no intellectual honesty in liberalism. Can't be, if there were, it would collapse as you recognized your own lies, half truths and distortions.
 
Media echoed conservative claim on Bush "mandate" | Research | Media Matters for America


and here


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."

Your point was that W lied about having a mandate. Other Republicans saying he had a mandate, even his veep, don't make HIM a liar.

Just for once have a shred of intellectual honesty and admit you made a mistake. I for one will positive rep you if you can do it just once.

Did Bush LIE about having a mandate?

So far, no, you did.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top