Steve Antler has an excellent cautionary note on mandates from the last election. It ain’t necessarily so:
Sooner or later those on the other side will notice there were only four elections since 1920 with a lower “mandate” number than that generated by our just-finished election.
Hmm. Is this based on the gap between the winner and loser? If the loser in an election is seriously bled by a third party candidate, how does this give the winner a greater mandate (whatever a “mandate” supposed to be)?
Consider the very high “mandate” rating for 1924. Coolidge got 54% of the vote, better than Bush of course, but Davis got only 29% because of the very strong LaFollette Progressives. How does this give Coolidge a greater mandate?
Likewise, 1996 is shown as having a higher mandate. But Clinton got fewer votes than Dole and Perot’s combined vote. How does that mean a better mandate?