Campaigns leave president without real mandate

That's the downside of negative campaigning

Published on November 3, 2004 By Jay Walker In Politics

Well,

having seen the light, I'll offer this thought: President Bush lacks any real "mandate" (in the historical sense that people have voted for certain specifics) except that he'll:

staying steadfast on terrorism and Iraq.

Kerry didn't do any better in that regard of course.

That's the downside of negative campaigning - it makes it tough to morally claim a "mandate" on anything (except the very narrow issues articulated about terror and war).

Tough to see anything but the continued decline of American power and prestige for the next four years, given Bush's evident isolationist policies.

JW

Comments

Daiwa

on Nov 03, 2004

Not in the traditional sense, but a reality check indicates that not only will Bush win the national popular vote, he will win a majority of the EC, the Republicans will pick up at least 4 (maybe 5) Senate seats and a significant number of House seats, and the Dems' minority leader will have been ousted.

Given the current state of politics, that constitutes a pretty fair ass-whippin'. And I can't think of two politicians more deserving of a bitch-slapping than Ted Kennedy & Terry McAuliffe. There's reason for gloom on the Dems' side of the aisle.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Daiwa

on Nov 03, 2004

The server must have been under duress last night. I didn't post that 4 times.

Sorry,
Daiwa

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!