I haven't seen this posted here yet, as the results just appear to have ticked over recently.
A popular meme I've noticed making its way through conservative circles - aided, in no small part, by the "liberal" media - is that Obama didn't win a mandate on Tuesday like Bush did in 2004 because this was a very narrow election, that his 3% margin over Romney doesn't qualify him for a mandate to pursue the progressive policies he promised. I've even seen some - including conservative friends and relatives of mine on Facebook - arguing rather simply that because Obama had (at the time) apparently won fewer votes than Bush did in 2004, we should discount this election as a - at best - a pitch for the status quo, wherein Obama dumps his progressive promises and capitulates over and over again to Republican obstructionism.
Of course, the votes weren't fully tallied yet, and now that we have a fuller count it will be time to move the goalposts. Be on the watch, friends, because by yet another set of the ever-shifting conservative criteria, Obama has earned his mandate.
By the current count on Google, Obama has now won more raw votes than Bush did in 2004!
2004
Bush: 62,040,610 (50.7%)
Kerry: 59,028,444 (48.3%)
2012
Obama: 62,151,820 (50.6%)
Romney: 58,799,365 (47.9%)
Sorry for the short diary, but I wanted to get this out there.
