President Obama’s mandate
Shortly after his reelection, President Obama told America that he had just received a mandate from voters to implement his policies. But, here is some information that you will never hear from the main stream media. In reality, the President’s mandate is about 330,000 votes.
Our Constitution specifies that our President is elected by the Electoral College, not a popular vote. Basically, each state has a set number of Electoral College votes based upon that state’s population. And, all votes from that state in the Electoral College go the the winner of the popular vote in that state. In the case of Florida, for example,
… its 29 electoral votes were finally declared for Mr. Obama this week, with a narrow popular vote lead of about 73,000 out of 8.47 million cast…[emphasis supplied]
President Obama won the 18 electoral votes in Ohio by 103,500 votes, the 13 electoral votes in Virginia by 115,900 votes, and the 4 electoral votes in New Hampshire by 40,700 votes.
So if Mitt Romney had won the popular vote in each of those states by even 1 vote, he would be the President-elect.
I do not mean to minimize President Obama’s victory by bringing you these facts, nor am I deamonizing the Electoral College.
But only to say that if Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R. Oh.) or Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R. Ky.), or any other Republican in Congress for that matter, succumb to the President’s “mandate” theory, Republicans should fire those who succumb at their earliest opportunity.
330,000 votes does not make a mandate.
7 Comments
The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.
You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.
The site is not broken.
According to http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php? , Pres. Obama received 62.62 million votes and Mr. Romney received 59.09 million votes. The difference is 3.53 million votes not 330,000 votes.
Of course, you have to subtract the fraudulent votes, so the margin is smaller….? 🙂
Sammy – please re-read the article.??
” its 29 electoral votes were finally declared for Mr. Obama this week, with a narrow popular vote lead of about 73,000 out of 8.47 million cast?[emphasis supplied]
President Obama won the 18 electoral votes in?Ohio by 103,500 votes, the 13 electoral votes in Virginia by 115,900 votes, and the 4 electoral votes in New Hampshire by 40,700 votes.
So if Mitt Romney had won the popular vote in each of those states by even 1 vote, he would be the President-elect.”
Too many Americans read too quickly – and these Americans – I think – voted for Obama based upon what they think he said…? We critical thinkers didn’t.? It’s hard to convince people that they were lied to or given words which were misleading.?
Linda, I read it “carefully” that’s why I made the comment. SOS wanted to spin something and proceeded in the first paragraph and in the last sentence to drive her agenda. Using this type of reasoning one could say that Pres. Bush won his first term by on vote: in the SCOTUS. We can all agree that things went otherwise. Critical thinking is not the exclusive priviledge of the Conservatives.
There is no spin here. SOS explained the Electoral College and its role in the election process.
It is possible to win the popular vote and lose the presidency. That didn’t happen in this case, but SOS is showing how just a small percentage of votes, in winner take all states, dictates the winner in the office of President. There is no mandate here. Fewer voters voted in this election, which means fewer cared. How sad.
Obama won the popular vote 51% to 48% , I would not call that a landslide nor a mandate. Shoot if this was a poll the difference would be in the margin of error.
?
hmmm Guess you could say he won on errors 😎
It would be quite easy for O’Bama to run for a third term.? He needs one more appointment to the Supreme Court to have a liberal court.? The liberal court would then find a basis and justification for him to run for a third term by siting foreign law and not the Constitution.? The liberal justices have already said that they find justification for some of their ruling by siting and consulting foreign law.