Of course you did. I am EVERY BIT as pedantic as you are.Did I really have to add "and won the election" to that?
The point is that "mandate" is not a well-defined term. It's a thing that pundits like to talk about, but there's no clear definition.
-=-=-
We are actually saying the same thing.
Trump and his supporters may succeed in changing the word. His most clever trick is to brazenly tell people what to think and then sit back and watch them do it. But I had never seen anyone use the word simply to mean winning. You used to have to have something remarkable aside from that that was clearly visible and easy to explain to mean that the population was doubled down on selecting you. In Trump's case, if it weren't too embarrassing to do so, a Republican maybe COULD claim it on the basis of the majority of the popular vote. George HW Bush didn't do that, W Bush only did it once and Trump didn't do it before. But the explanation is too embarrassing, so it doesn't work. In 1980, Reagan got only 50.7% of the vote, which doesn't sound like that big of a deal. It is the same percentage the W Bush got in 2004. But he won 44 states, making the same narrow majority look totally different.
Last edited: