REMEMBER the “mandate” question? Back in 2000, Democrats argued that George W. Bush, who had lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College, did not have a “mandate” to govern. Then, in 2004, after Bush had won it all by a fairly narrow margin, they claimed he still didn’t have a clear mandate to run things without extensive input from the opposition party.
Republicans dismissed this as sour grapes-a win is a win-but Democrats took the issue quite seriously. Now they face a question of their own: Does Barack Obama have a mandate? What happens if the senator from Illinois amasses enough delegates to win his party’s nomination but loses the popular vote?





Comments