To follow up on Ramesh’s Whitman musings, this is the second time this week I’ve heard the observation that Bush’s margin of victory is the lowest of any incumbent president ever to win reelection. It fails to take into account the fact that a number of incumbent presidents have lost reelection, including Bush’s father. How much of a criticism is it that the President’s (non-plurality) election was closer than any that came before? This seems to be a particularly weak criticism and an ineffective attempt to undermine the President’s mandate. I’m not sure what Whitman would gain from such efforts, but then again, she didn’t exactly distinguished herself in service of the President.