Skip to main content

vote totals 2012

Dave Leip's Election Atlas (numbers are unofficial)

A funny thing about mandates. While the general conservative reaction to the Obama victory is either pushing a fellow conservative off a tall building, or explaining that now that Obama won, he should govern like a conservative for unity's sake, the numbers are pretty interesting.

Remember that this is all preliminary, and there are votes yet to count. But for now, using Dave Leip's excellent US Election Atlas:

• John Kerry (48.27%) got a bigger percentage of the popular vote than either Mitt Romney (47.85) or John McCain (45.6)

* Kerry's 251 electoral votes was greater than McCain's 173 and Romney's 206. (Losing didn't stop McCain from being on MTP every Sunday.)

• Barack Obama's electoral wins (332 and 365) dwarfs Bush's (286 and 271). Clinton got 379 and 370. You have to go back to 1988 for George HW Bush's 426 to find a  Republican win over 300.

• Obama's 61,939,115 is more than Bush in 2000 (50,460,110) and closing in on Bush in 2004 (62,040,610) — remember, there are still votes to count. [UPDATE on Google puts Obama at 62,088,847 surpassing Bush.]

Keep the above in mind when pundits declare there's no mandate here. These are the same pundits insisting the vote was tied.

They were wrong about that, too.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  I've always liked being red. (11+ / 0-)

      I'm a bloody socialist, for pete's sake! Give me the color I've always had!

      Is this just math that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?

      by ConfusedSkyes on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:07:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Come to think of it (6+ / 0-)

      Why are they switched?  The colors began as blue for the incumbent party and red for the challenger, then somehow swithched to the current red-blue, republican-democratic model.  There is no reason that Obama should be red.

      •  In Europe and Canada (7+ / 0-)

        the center-left party is shown as red and the center-right as blue.  In the UK, the Tories are ble, Labour is red, and the LibDems are yellow.  In Canada, the Conservatives are blue and the Liberals are red.

        "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

        by TLS66 on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:17:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Around 2004, I believe, one of the networks (3+ / 0-)

        switched and the others followed suit since that network was particularly influential that election. NBC, if I recall correctly.

        Is this just math that you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better?

        by ConfusedSkyes on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:18:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  A result of the 2000 recount (8+ / 0-)

        Before then the networks had switched back and forth every election.  Clinton and the Democrats were red in 1996, blue in 1992, Dukakis and the Dems red in 1988.  In 2000 the board stayed up for weeks so they have stuck with blue for Democrats red for Republicans ever since.

        "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

        by Navy Vet Terp on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:18:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Cable News Hype (9+ / 0-)
          In 2000 the board stayed up for weeks so they have stuck with blue for Democrats red for Republicans ever since.
          It also helps push the media's sensationalistic "blue state vs. red state" hype mentality to have the colors be consistent.

          “I believe all Southern liberals come from the same starting point--race. Once you figure out they are lying to you about race, you start to question everything.” ― Molly Ivins

          by RoIn on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:34:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bad news about red vs. blue colors (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nellgwen, Navy Vet Terp

            Scientific studies show that people have a more positive reaction, more 'energy' with red than with blue. Sports teams wearing red win more often, for example.

            "Blue bloods" used to be considered effete vs. say, red meat.

            I can't stand the whole red and blue thing.
            America is red, white, and blue........

            •  True Blue (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Colors have speed.
              Red is the fastest color, blue is the slowest. Green is in between.
                Take this test. Close your eyes for a few seconds. Then open them.
                You will notice that your eyes will immediately see the tiniest red thing in the room before it sees anything else. No matter how big the blue thing is.
                Red is the color of rage, passion, furious, Hell, etc.
                Blue is the color of calmness, serenity, fidelity, spirituality, Heaven, etc.
                If you're doing a painting or drawing if you want to put something forward in the picture plane use red, if you want to set it back in the picture plane use blue.
                Red has more chroma than any color, except maybe some blacks. like purple blacks. My favorite of all the blacks.
                Red goes from red to white or black with more steps than blue. Blue gets to both ends pretty quickly.
                Also when you are talking about pigment red, blue and yellow are the primary colors. When you are talking about light red, blue, and green are the primary colors. Yellow is made at the cross section of green and red. I've seen it happen.
                 Blue is easier on the eyes than red, even the violet blues. Looking at red tires out your eyes. Looking at some reds for a long time can start to burn your eyes. The cherrier red the red is the harder it is to look at it. The yellower or orangier the red the easiest it is to look at.
                 See college can be fun especially when you take a color class.


              "Is that your vegetarian leather jacket?" George Harrison

              by nellgwen on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 08:29:38 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Blue signs win more, however (0+ / 0-)
            •  Blue is the color of strength and calm. (0+ / 0-)

              Pay attention to banking, financial, legal and often medical logos.  They almost always include blue, and are often dominated by it.

              Two men walk into your office wearing identical navy blue suits, white shirts. They're going to be responsible for managing all your money from here on out. And you cant interview or speak to them first. One is wearing a bright red tie. The other, a blue tie.

              Whom do you trust more?

              © grover

              So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

              by grover on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 11:28:59 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Dave Leip has been doing this since the mid-1990s (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheCrank, Greg Dworkin

      His site is outstanding, and you just have to accept the fact that he has always shown Dems as red and Reps as blue.  

      Federalists are purple (more like lavender, really) and Whigs are green, as are major third parties whenever they pop up.  Smaller fourth and fifth parties are shown in yellow.

      It's an absolutely indispensable site for election history junkies.

  •  well, let's face it. The "news" is for sale. (9+ / 0-)

    And with multiple media options you get to choose the news you wanna hear.

    ecstatically baffled

    by el vasco on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:06:38 AM PST

    •  Funny moments on Joe Scab this morning as he (12+ / 0-)

      issued forth on the awful "conservative entertainment complex" and how it had LIED to voters--completely and very ironically believing that he and his morning panel of GOPers are not a thriving part of it.  

      Really funny what an unexamined life that guy leads.

      If the plutocrats begin the program, we will end it. -- Eugene Debs.

      by livjack on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:48:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  he has always been Romneyesque in his ability to (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bontemps2012, LNK, nellgwen

        dance away from his positions and mistakes.   A gigantic ego maniac, who like most egomaniacs, is unaware that he is.

        And shame on Mika for playing wet nurse to that idiot for all these years.

        ecstatically baffled

        by el vasco on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:57:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Morning Joe covered the "mandate" thing recently (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ahumbleopinion, el vasco, ems97206

        which is really a "message" thing, after all.  Or, rather David Frum covered the Republican "message" thing - for 2012.

        That's right, that David Frum, the former Bush speechwriter and the author of the phrase, "axis of evil."

        He's talking like Rachel Maddow on politics as he flogs his new eBook, Why Romney Lost.  Check it out:

        Mitt Romney's message is:

        I am going to take away Medicare from everybody under 55, I'm going to cut Medicaid for everybody but about a third, and I'm going to do that to finance a giant tax cut for me and my friends, and the reason I'm doing that is because half the country contribute nothing to the national endeavor.

        Hilarious.  And then David Frum starts to sound like Paul Krugman on economics:
        I mean, we have not yet emerged from the greatest national catastrophe, the greatest economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. And what are we talking about? The deficit and the debt.  And these are important problems, but they're a lot easier to worry about if you are wealthier than you were in 2008, which most of the people on television now are again, if you are securely employed, which most of the people on television now are. But that's not true for 80% of America.
        So - here's the snarky part:  What is or was Barack Obama's message?  [Note:  this is me, not David Frum, speaking]
        I am going to work with Republicans in the coming weeks and months to reach across the aisle and come up with "a balanced deficit reduction plan" that:  (a) raises the Medicare retirement age to 67; (b) ratifies cuts to Medicaid for millions of uninsured Americans who would otherwise receive health care coverage under the ACA; (c) raises payroll taxes on working families; (d) eliminates supplemental unemployment insurance despite widespread joblessness; (e) does nothing about our lack of infrastructure spending; but instead (f) provides $2.50 dollars in domestic discretionary spending cuts for only $1.00 in increased revenue, including a small increase in the top marginal tax rate from 35% back to the previous 39% level.
        Is that what we voted for when we re-elected President Obama?  Was that his "mandate?"

        What, then, will the President do?

        I will then sit back and watch the economy stagnate, and my own party's butt get kicked again in the 2014 midterm elections in two years' time.
        And what will the Republican message be in 2014?

        Republican message, 2014

        1.  Where are the jobs?

        2.  Obama wants to cut Medicare.

        Oh, wait.  That was the Republican campaign message back in 2010.  Two years ago.  They won big that year, too.  But - heck - why not again in 2014?

        You go with a winner.

      •  Beware (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        el vasco

        of the "conservative entertainment complex."

        "Is that your vegetarian leather jacket?" George Harrison

        by nellgwen on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 08:33:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Still millions of Obama votes uncounted (31+ / 0-)

    It will take weeks to get a final count, Obama will get several million more votes as will Romney. Lets just hope Romney drops below 47.5% so he officially ends up with 47%.

  •  lovely, I just did a delicious FB take down (8+ / 0-)

    of a FB friend who claims he's not a republican (yeah right) on t his very subject.

    It did not end well for him.

    HAHA. I posted much the same that you posted here.

    Then diversions began about the "lesser of two evils" and "big corporate money" and all the other loser talk they love so much now.


    For the record, I am not a member of Courtesy Kos. Just so you know. Don't be stupid. It's election season. My patience is short.

    by mdmslle on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:08:47 AM PST

  •  I think we all can agree Obama has a mandate (17+ / 0-)

    but will he govern like he has one?

    Specifically, what will he give away on entitlements as part of the deficit/fiscal cliff negotiations?  If he takes a hard line, then we'll know he's with us.  But if, as Krugman worries, he appoints Bowles to replace Geithner and gives away the store in the budget negotiations, then he'll fritter away an awful lot of the popular enthusiasm in his reelection.

    Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
    ¡Boycott Arizona!

    by litho on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:08:48 AM PST

    •  I don't think Obama has made any secret about (6+ / 0-)

      his willingness to slash "entitlements" or his continued desire for a "grand bargain."

      Certainly it will be much better having Obama in the process than the Mittster, but I not holding out much hope that he will draw (much less hold) a line on social security and medicare/medicaid.

      "Let's see what fresh fuckwittery these dolts can contrive to torment themselves with this time." -- Iain Banks, The Hydrogen Sonata

      by Rikon Snow on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:13:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No reason to get our hopes up. (0+ / 0-)

      Obama won with a larger mandate last time and he didn't act like it.  Why would this time be different?

      That's the trouble, Obama is a great candidate but actually a pretty lousy politician.  He can't govern or negotiate worth a damn.

      He's great to have as your standard bearer during the election, and then it sucks afterwards.

      I really worry about our prospects for 2014 and 2016 if the first term Obama shows up.  Despite what his starstruck supporters believe, Obama's actions badly shot the Democratic party in the foot in 2010.  Let's just hope he hasn't reloaded.

      •  Heck of a point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        huge mandate built around a change argument....and he took that to mean bipartisanship...we got Lieberman Rahm and Rick Warren in return.

        I hope we are not about to experience déjà vu.

        "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - Melissa Harris Perry

        by justmy2 on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 07:31:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  That's the point. Bush said he had a mandate (0+ / 0-)

      He didn't wait for an anointing by the media. That is why we should be pushing back on this and the 'status quo' memes. We should wake up and understand that a defeated GOP is still trying to spin the Obama victory as impotent.

      "I feel like I'm still waiting to meet my true self. I'm assuming it's gonna be in a dark alley and there's gonna be a fight." ---Rachel Maddow

      by never forget 2000 on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 03:26:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Mandates are for Republicans, silly rabbit! (10+ / 0-)

    At least that's the way the GOP sees it.

    Obama and the Democrats need to govern like they got a mandate, because they did.

    The loudest cries for war come from those who have never seen one.

    by MadGeorgiaDem on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:13:41 AM PST

  •  Greens (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MadGeorgiaDem, IM, Miggles, grover

    So the greens managed to get a big 0.35% of the popular vote.  I guess we can stick a fork in them, too.

  •  Actually according Politico's (7+ / 0-)

    election results, Obama has already passed Bush's 2004 vote total.  Obama now has 62,085,892 votes, about 40,000 more than Bush in 2004.  

    We have nothing to fear but fear itself

    by bhouston79 on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:16:25 AM PST

  •  But but but (9+ / 0-)

    Romney won more counties! If you really want a wingnuts head to explode remind them dems won the popular vote in the House!

  •  bush said he had (5+ / 0-)

    political capital after 2004 so it seems logical to say obama has more in 2012, i know math is not a gop strong suit but the arithmetic adds up, believe me gop.

  •  why are you using old data (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mdmslle, Steve Magruder

    As of last night, Obama beat Bush '04 and there are still outstanding voted primarily in big blur states of, Washington, Oregon & New York

  •  A majority in a demoncratic system is a mandate by (8+ / 0-)


    Especially so when Shrub claimed a mandate bc he won 2000 by a 5-4 vote. :)

  •  BTW, Obama is over 62 million votes (5+ / 0-)

    And is closing in on a 3.3 million vote advantage.  There are still millions of votes left to count.

    Alternative rock with something to say:

    by khyber900 on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:19:27 AM PST

  •  I took an online quiz shortly before the election (4+ / 0-)

    I forget where it is, but it was about which candidate most accurately reflects my views.

    Oddly, Dr. Jill Stein represented 91% of my views; Barack Obama "only" 80% and I was told that my views, even as liberal as I am, were shared by 55+% of people in Georgia.

    Maybe next time Dr. Jill.

    Or maybe not: Look at the votes she got.

    The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:20:09 AM PST

    •  A lot of people don't realize how liberal they (7+ / 0-)

      really are. I had a number of friends take the Pew Research Center Political IQ test that I took in one of my politcal science classes during the summer. Many of them were surprised at how liberal they were, even as self-described conservatives.

      The GOP and the right has done an insidious job in redefining the noble term "liberal" into a synonym of evil.

      The loudest cries for war come from those who have never seen one.

      by MadGeorgiaDem on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:30:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Dems have a share of the blame in that. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        HOW LONG has the GOP had FOX News?

        How many times have democrats tried to create something similar?

        ZERO, to my awareness. ZERO attempts to build a network. ZERO.

        Of course, the other issue is that liberals and people like me don't need nor require, nor even like 'talk radio' and 'infotainment news.

        I hate it. I don't like talk radio even if it say things I agree with.

        It's annoying.

        Repubs have scientifically exploited the Dumb with remarkable success.

        Dems have spent the past 10 years just being victimized by it.

        The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

        by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:46:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  what about Al Gore's Current channel? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sethtriggs, MadGeorgiaDem

          If the plutocrats begin the program, we will end it. -- Eugene Debs.

          by livjack on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:57:44 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Good question. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sethtriggs, MadGeorgiaDem

            I see it in the cable line up, but I don't get it. They have good show titles, it'd be nice to watch it, but I never hear about it. I'm not going to pay extra just to see it.

            Have to pay extra and I am just about to rip cable out. if my wife didn't watch it once every blue moon, it would be gone.

            FOX news simply dominates.

            Even though its full of shit.

            It is that accomplishment Dems haven't really looked at.

            If dumbasses can do it......why can't smarter people?

            It may be the fact that many liberals and people like me do not need to have people talking to us telling us which end is up. We don't need to hear talking points over and over again.

            We aren't set up for fascism and they are.

            When I hear ANY talking on the radio, I turn the station or shut it off. I listen to news such as FSRN occasionally

            Wingnuts listen like hypnotized zombies.

            I have my own drummer.

            The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.

            by xxdr zombiexx on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 08:02:48 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  More funny things (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Steve Magruder, sethtriggs

    So, if there is a mandate today, based on Mr. Obama winning 50.53% of the popular vote, then I suppose that Bush in 2004 had more of a mandate, with 50.73% and Clinton in 1996 hadn't much of one at all, with only 49.24%.

  •  Another interesting fact is that it appears that (5+ / 0-)

    Virginia may be the new national popular vote bellweather.  Virginia's popular vote percentage according to Politico is 50.8% for Obama to 47.8 % for Romney.  That is extremly close to the national popular vote percentages.  Virginia was also the state that most closely mirrored the popular vote total in 2008 as well.  So that's two elections in a row where the national popular vote percentages have closely matched the popular vote percentages in the state of Virginia.

    However, in what is good news for us, Virginia was NOT the tipping point state according Nate Silver.  Instead the tipping point state in both 2008 and 2012 was Colorado, which means that we could have won the electoral college in both 2008 and 2012 while still losing the national popular vote by 2 or 3 percent.  

    We have nothing to fear but fear itself

    by bhouston79 on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:25:32 AM PST

  •  Obama now has 2 highest vote totals ever (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mdmslle, sethtriggs, grover

    Now over Bush 2004, and will surely have a 3+% lead when all votes are counted.  And this is with him losing close to 1 million votes in the Northeast from hurricane Sandy.

    Here's the official results so far.  

  •  lol forever @ Romney winning 47% NT (5+ / 0-)

    Shoot blues -> Tell Vile Rat

    by CayceP on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:31:12 AM PST

  •  Anyone Else Remember... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mdmslle, bontemps2012, Steve Magruder Republicans claimed that Bush had a mandate after the 2004 election?  

    For that matter some even tried to make the case that he had a mandate after the 2000 election.

    If either of those were mandates than Obama got one and then some.

    “I believe all Southern liberals come from the same starting point--race. Once you figure out they are lying to you about race, you start to question everything.” ― Molly Ivins

    by RoIn on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:31:44 AM PST

  •  Bush thought that his marginal 2004 win (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Steve Magruder

    gave him the political capital to declare a mandate to privatize Social Security. Reality bit him on the ass.

  •  i know right! (0+ / 0-)

    they have to be shamed!!!

    it's too bad Bill Clinton isn't on the talk show circuit!!!


    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:39:44 AM PST

  •  You have to declare a mandate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Steve Magruder

    I think Obama and his reps should simply state that a majority of voters voted for Obama, and he was clear about his priorities.

    Especially for push-back on the Bush tax cuts:

    Look, in 2000, George Bush actually lost the popular vote.  It was an extraordinarily close election, and yet he went ahead with his proposed tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.  And I didn't hear any Republicans complaining that he didn't have a mandate.

    Binders full of fail!

    by deminva on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:39:57 AM PST

  •  And, when was the last time we saw Kerry (0+ / 0-)

    on Sunday morning television?

    The good we secure for ourselves is precarious and uncertain, is floating in mid-air, until it is secured for all of us and incorporated into our common life. Jane Addams

    by Alice Olson on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:41:22 AM PST

  •  These are stupid games. (0+ / 0-)

    First, the "mandate" talk is something losers bitch about for a month and then the whole subject just goes away.

    Second, electoral votes don't mean a thing when evaluating mandates.

    The only way any of this stuff matters is to hilight GOP pundit hypocrisy. Really not worth going on about.

    You can call it "class warfare" -- we call it "common sense"

    by kenlac on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:41:53 AM PST

    •  sez you (0+ / 0-)

      and maybe you're right.

      Then again, maybe not, because the chattering class can't wean themselves from the concept.

      But what's more important than any of that is what Obvama does, and what the GOP does.

      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

      by Greg Dworkin on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 07:08:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  QFT: (0+ / 0-)
        But what's more important than any of that is what Obvama does, and what the GOP does.
        Dead on.

        The paradox is that the chattering class is both insignificant and influential at the same time. They control what people fight about, they control what the everyday fools on the street say to interviewers, and then the rest of the country goes ahead and votes for who they vote for anyway. The real damage happens when the congress critters start quoting these fools verbatim, and the feedback loop that develops between the "Conservative entertainment complex" (thank you Mr. Frum) and the Bachmann's of the world, which leads a kind of tug of war where the rope is Mr. Boehner's spine. The people don't give a hoot if Obama has a mandate, but maybe there's a couple of Blue Dogs out there who will be swayed by how the concrete of conventional wisdom sets, and that has marginal impact on what policy gets passed. (Did I throw enough metaphors in there?).  

        You can call it "class warfare" -- we call it "common sense"

        by kenlac on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 08:13:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Here's Beck on his show (6+ / 0-)

    talking about if Romney got 321 EVs, he'd have a mandate.
    I wonder how that little logic is going to be turned around to mean, if any republican gets 321 EV's, he'll have a mandate? Certainly not enough for a democratic mandate. Don't be silly?

    "Please proceed, Governor."

    by Dema Broad on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:48:17 AM PST

  •  Where's Roseanne? Didn't she get some votes? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, Miggles


    Happy little moron, Lucky little man.
    I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!
    —Spike Milligan

    by polecat on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 06:55:04 AM PST

  •  I Like Tenuous Consensus Rather Than Mandate (0+ / 0-)

    You could probably say it was a mandate for policy if you had an opposition that interested more in winning elections than ideology. There does some to be some softening of the GOP stance on immigration. Although listening to Graham last night on Huckabee, their reform still seems pretty hard line. You see Kristol softening the stance on taxes on the rich. Will we sway some republicans in the House enough to get them to join the democrats in getting majority votes. Remains to be seen but if they do that the majorities will be damn tenuous. Think Obama will not have the problem that Bush had in pursuing unpopular policies with lousy sales techniques (privatization, Schaivo) and botching the mandate or consensus or whatever. Think the key is the media not covering the reaction of the GOP base like they did the tea party in 2009. They will go batshit crazy and we have to fight the perception that it represents a groundwell against Obama's policies.

  •  The notion of mandate is not the correct focus! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The reason that John Bohner and his fellow right wing, extremeists, stubbornly clings to their false ideology is because they think that a majority of their constituents still buy in to it.

    The correct focus is to re-educate the public about the fallacy of supply side/trickle down economics and the benefits and inherent fairness of a combination capitalist/socialist system.

  •  WOW! (0+ / 0-)

    Look at those numbers - 120.5MM people voted!  What is so interesting is that it must be a huge percentage of  eligible voters in this country.  Does anyone know the Nationwide total of registered/eligible voters?  Googling only shows state figures.  

    Of course, in Googling for the numbers, there were several tin-foil posts saying Obama won due to voter fraud.  I can't help but wonder whether they just see in others what they see in themselves.  Go figure....

    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

    by CyberDem on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 07:08:18 AM PST

  •  Texas vote (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miggles, Williston Barrett

    When a huge state "comes into play" or even switches from red to blue IT'S A BIG DEAL.
    Texas did not do that this year.

    BUT   BUT  BUT

    On election day itself, the 40% of the vote cast went about 45% for Obama.  THAT IS A BIG DEAL.

    The vote percent for Obama spiked in Texas by 5% on election day..... reversing the normal situation of a decline in Democratic percentage on election day compared to early vote.

    The trend was especially pronounced in medium sized cities, and even in rural areas of West Texas, exceeding 10% in many areas.  

    If targeted in a presidential election in which the candidate is white, TEXAS CAN BE A PURPLE STATE.

    Even if Texas in the end votes red in 2016, a proper attention by Democrats on the Lone Star State could force the Republicans to spend massively to hold the state.

    In Texas demography IS destiny, and Ted Cruz can't hold back the tide.

    Once Texas turns blue, either the Republicans update their 1920's politics, or they lose every election for a long time to come

  •  You can add some more to that total... (0+ / 0-)

    VA is outdated on his site as of 10AM EST today.

    He currently shows
    Obama - 1.897m
    Romney - 1.783m
    That is with several precincts missing.
    Obama +3.05%, @50.73%

    The newest update from VA is:
    Obama - 1.963m
    Romney - 1.820m
    Only two missing (one of which I believe is actually already reported just VA is messing it up)
    Obama +3.73%, @51.08%

    An increase of 104,000+ votes to the total.
    +66,364 to Obama
    +36,914 to Romney

  •  Sorry, this is all nonsense. (0+ / 0-)

    East Dakota and South Virginia have yet to report.  It could go either way.  It's a tie, I tell you, a tie!

    Ceterum censeo Factionem Republicanam esse delendam.

    by journeyman on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 07:29:21 AM PST

  •  Nobody seems to notice the depressed Sandy vote (0+ / 0-)

    The estimates I've heard are between 200,000 and 800,000 voters never got to the polls in two very blue states, New York and New Jersey.

    WE must hang together or we will all hang separately. B.Franklin

    by ruthhmiller on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 07:38:55 AM PST

  •  i hate to use a four letter word (0+ / 0-)

    to make my point with the con religious right gop but if you look at the MATH mandate is an appropriate label to put on the 2012 election, tell the gop the truth and they will think its hell aka truman speak.

  •  I don't think very many people realize (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    that Obama won the popular vote by a convincing margin.  At the point Ohio was called, the pop vote was pretty close, and that's where the mainstream media left it.

    The story became about the ShellShocked Right, and many people never went back and saw the numbers.

    I've had several middle of the road friends argue no mandate because the vote was so close.  They've been shocked when I told them it wasn't close at all and Obama had won by more than 3 million votes.

    If you took the greed out of Wall Street all you’d have left is pavement ~Robert Reich

    by k8dd8d on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 07:42:17 AM PST

  •  Consider "poaching." (0+ / 0-)

    This 2012 campaign saw the first ever large-scale effort to "poach" older White male voters.

    Here's the GOP's read on the effect:

    ...from the disgraced Karl Rove, who told Fox News on Thursday that Obama “succeeded by suppressing the vote.” Make no mistake: Rove was talking about the white vote. .... Since blacks, Latinos and Asians increased their turnout, as did women and young people, Rove couldn’t be talking about anybody but whites, and particularly older white men.

    -- from Joan Walsh in Salon

    That was achieve by plan and by competent implementation of the plan.

    Many, many contacts and many radio ads were cast on the waters to make this happen.

    Look to the Montana Senate race for an ugly/beautiful example. Senate Libertarian got thousands more votes than the Libbie running for governor. A protest against the GOPer Senate candidate, who had been hit with a moderately effective poaching campaign.

    All of poaching is generated non-rationally by the way. Rammed in, the same way the GOPers have been going after these Angry White Male guys for years.

  •  The demographics are steadily getting worse (0+ / 0-)

    for the GOP. The striking thing is Texas. By 2020, it could switch to blue. However, there is clearly a rising panic within the GOP that something dramatic has to be done to alter course. Whether a successful strategy can be initiated is unclear. The onus on the Democratic side is to develop a much more cohesive Texas strategy than appears to be in effect today. The Texas Democratic Party needs more support to build on 2012. An objective of turning Texas blue by 2016 would be very worthwhile. Good thing we have Julian Castro.

    For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

    by Anne Elk on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 08:18:46 AM PST

    •  Texas Dems are wussies (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Anne Elk

      They used to be four tough Dem Operatives Mass/Tex/Chicago/Philly...then in the 80's and 90's Frost and Bentsen started to hire wigglies and since then texas Dems run away anytime a conservative Farts...sorry but one trusts them, that is why they get no help

      •  Makes it all the more important (0+ / 0-)

        to get started on rebuilding then.

        For if there is a sin against life, it consists perhaps not so much in despairing of life as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this life. - Albert Camus

        by Anne Elk on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 10:49:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I think (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    As Democrats, we care too much about what the Republicans think. We won, we have a mandate, so lets stop discussing this triviality with them and push our agenda HARD!!!!  One cannot reason with irrational people.

    Very informative diary BTW.

  •  Does this mean we can look forward (0+ / 0-)

    to seeing Willard Rmoney on Meet The Press every Sunday?

    Oh, boy.

    What is valued is practiced. What is not valued is not practiced. -- Plato

    by RobLewis on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 08:54:25 AM PST

  •  No, there is no "mandate" (0+ / 0-)

    I wonder how the number of votes cast compares to the past, adjusted for growth in population and voter registration.

    Simply saying Obama got more votes than the winner in a very close race 8 or 12 years ago is not much of an argument, frankly.

    Clinton got only 49.2% in 1996 because Perot got 8.4%.  Otherwise he easily would have been a re-elected president who broke 50%.

    The whole concept of a "mandate" like Reagan in 1984 -- he won every single state except D.C. and his opponent's home state -- is perhaps not as applicable in these times.  It's a different political world now, with the netroots and TV viewers being offered so many more options.

    That's not to say Obama didn't win DECISIVELY.  He did!

    But why are we reaching back to the 80's for some outdated sense of validation?

    We won in a 21st century manner now we govern in a 21st century manner.

    Are we going to be like Sally Fields and exclaim "[The voters] like us, [they] really like us!"

    Or we going to just move forward and keep kicking a-- regardless of semantics?

  •  50%+ in consecutive elections is a rare thing, too (0+ / 0-)

    The only Democrats who have EVER won more than 50 percent of the popular vote in consecutive elections are Andrew Jackson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Barack Obama.

    The only Republicans who have done it are Grant, McKinley, Eisenhower, and Reagan.

  •  Glenn Beck said 321 would be a MANDATE, a hugeHuge (0+ / 0-)

    No less than THE authority said a 321 EV victory would be a mandate.  He’s the guy.  Can’t argue with that.  He says it’s a mandate, it must be.  But wait there was more, yes MORE than 321. Yes big  Huge More:  the final totals were 332 to 206.  WOW a Mandate +.    Thank you Glenn Beck.  First time I ever agreed with you.  And a majority vote win twice in a row—first time since Reagan--and we know that was a Mandate too.
    Know anyone in Glennbeckastan?  send them this link:

    Elizabeth Warren 2016!

    by windwardguy46 on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 09:46:38 AM PST

  •  I don't like red and blue backwards either. (0+ / 0-)

    Can't tell you how long I stared at that graph thinking "what don't I understand?".    Then I saw the first comment and thought phew.

    If money is speech, then speech must be money. Call your mortgage company and pay your rent now.

    by dkmich on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 11:59:49 AM PST

  •  Dave HAS to get with the program w. red and blue (0+ / 0-)

    I find his maps completely confusing now that we've got the conventions down and consistent everywhere else.

    Some people are intolerant, and I CAN'T STAND people like that. -- Tom Lehrer

    by TheCrank on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 12:09:56 PM PST

  •  Is Mitt really at 47%? (0+ / 0-)

    That's SO perfect it's delicious! What an excellent piece of irony.

    "Until one has loved an animal, part of one's soul is unawakened." Anatole France

    by Pam LaPier on Mon Nov 12, 2012 at 03:57:45 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site