A mandate affords a moral authority to do as a candidate promised the electorate during the campaign. The minority President Trump will have no mandate since most of the electorate voted for Hillary Clinton.
You do have something of a point here. Trump will have to take comfort in the fact that moral authority isn't a legally binding concept as he ignores his lack of a majority mandate and does his thing. You know, kinda like the Democrats took comfort in the fact that over 60 percent of the people being opposed to a bill in the congress is legally meaningless as they ignored their lack of a majority mandate to pass the ACA.
ACA had difficulty passing because Democrats failed to define and defend it. I remember my congressman coming home to a townhall and actually laughing at the bill, my democratic congressman. So what happened was the GOP was allowed, as always to define ACA, first by calling it Obamacare and then ripping it apart. Another example of the cowards on the left and their lack of conviction and fight.
Sorry, but this response in this context is utterly meaningless. The reasons for the public's opinion are irrelevant, only the opinion defines the majority.
I could just as easily argue that Trump didn't win the majority because the MSM mischaracterized the vast majority of the shit they claim he said and assumed the absolute worst motives, even when those motives weren't the only or even the most obvious potential explanations.
You'd probably respond by telling me that I'm incorrect in my assessment, and that those motives -were- obvious, and that the MSM was totally accurate in their accounting of Trump's statements.
And I'd probably respond by reminding you that the vast majority of the MSM is left leaning (if I'm being charitable enough to characterize their political biases with such a soft term) and that, therefore, the democrats had the far greater platform from which to define the ACA, and that you're incorrect in your assessment that it was the republicans who dictated everyone's opinions.
Ultimately, I can't prove Trump's motivations and you can't prove who's responsible for the negative opinions of the ACA, and so these two arguments can't be relied upon to accurately frame the crux of our discussion.
More importantly, they are, as I've said, literally irrelevant to anything either of us has said up to this point. The only two points of relevance are, one, that neither the ACA nor Trump had/has the moral mandate granted by majority support, and, two, that such a moral mandate is legally meaningless, and the extent of its authority is ONLY the extent to which the House and Senate choose to give a shit.