What I initially posted was after the election Obama claimed to have a specific mandate, not the "everyone now hates Republicans so now we have a mandate to undo everything they did" rhetoric.
We were talking popular, not electoral votes. And while the Republicans lost a goodly number in both houses and in governorships the margins were still not that signifigant (IMHO) for any politician to claim a mandate. (Notice I did not specify party)....
It's funny, for years after Bush won 2000, I was told repeatedly the popular vote didn't count, cause that's not how presidential politics works. The Electoral College was all that mattered. Of course they had to say that cause it must have been damn embarrassing to admit the Boy President LOST the popular vote.
And you're wrong about it not being a mandate.
But let's back up a bit: In 2006, for the first time in history, the Democratic Party didn't lose a single seat it held going into election day--not in the House, the Senate, or any Governor's mansion. A perfect retention rate.
Every single incumbent Congressperson who lost their seat in 2006 was a Republican! And that includes 6 incumbent U.S. Senators having lost their seats in 2006, all Republicans.
In 2008 The Republicans lost every region of the country by double digits except the South, which they won by less than double digits (9 points).
The historic election turned 9 red states blue, and failed to flip a single seat. That's historic. And yeah, that's a mandate.
In fact, those two elections go down in gigantic proportions in the history books: Both instances where a political party failed to take control of a single seat in the House or Senate. The Republicans literally have not won an election against a Democratic incumbent since 2004.
Take that and have a man-date with them apples.
Guess it's a matter of perspective.
What's with the last sentance? Some kind of partisan jab? Was it even necissary?