I keep hearing people like Michael Moore and Peter Colavito of the SEIU refer to Obama's win as a mandate. According to Merriam-Webster the definition of mandate is "an authoritative command". I guess what those guys are saying is that the people of America gave Obama an authoritative command, to do what I have no idea. But did they even do that?
According to Center for the Study of the American Electorate only 57.5% of the eligible voters voted in this election. So 126 million people voted and 93 million people didn't. Obama won 51% of the people who voted, Romney 48%. So out of all of the eligible voters in the U.S., Obama got 62 million out of 219 million people to actively support him. Since when is 28% approval enough to be called a mandate?
Look, I get it, Obama won. And politicians from both sides like to act as if their victories are "mandates". But this is ridiculous. 72% of voters wanted someone other than Obama. And even if some of the voters who didn't vote are happy that Obama is president they are certainly not so overjoyed that we should consider their tacit approval a mandate.
I wish politicians from both sides of the aisle would realize that most voters usually choose the lesser of two evils and that given the choice between Obama, Romney, and a Bert and Ernie ticket, Bert and Ernie would have easily gotten a plurality. Especially if they tapped Big Bird as their campaign manager. Sesame Street vs. K Street. That would have been an interesting 4 years.