President Obama's victory margin grows, while Romney is stuck with, yes, 47%



A few days after Election Day, I posted this graphic depicting Mitt Romney’s ironic 47% popular vote:

Then, few days ago, there was this Moment of Irony: Full circle: Mitt Romney likely to finish at– ta daa!– 47 percent.

Today we're finding out that President Obama is widening his lead to 51%, and Willard is still stuck at 47%.

Since President Obama is winning by a bigger margin than GW Bush did, and Bush declared a "mandate," then using that same logic, couldn't Obama say the following, but with more conviction? Especially because a majority of voters agree with the president's tax policy as opposed to disagreeing with Bush's very, very unpopular ones:

Via First Read:

Cook Political Report’s David Wasserman: Obama’s national lead over Romney continues to expand as votes keep on coming in. It’s now Obama 50.9%, Romney 47.4%. That’s a bigger (and more decisive) margin than Bush’s victory over John Kerry in 2004 (which was Bush 50.7% and Kerry 48.2%). What’s more, the president’s lead has grown to close to 3 points in Ohio, 4 points in Virginia and 6 points in Colorado. One doesn’t win Colorado by six points without winning swing voters; there isn’t a big-enough Democratic base to make that argument.

  • Jason Corley

    No you would be wrong declaring a mandate. That's just silly. Not only did Bush win, the R's also carried the House and the Senate. Big difference between the two. Obama won those who make less than 50k by such a margin that Romney's victory with those who make more than 50k, 100k, and 200k, couldn't carry him to 50. 


    There is no such thing as a mandate. You or I have never seen one in our life time. A lot goes into a mandate. They've only happened a few times. None of which have happened this century. 

  • cognachas4paws

    No, no, no.  Democratic presidents don't get to claim a mandate EVER.  He could win by 90% but, that's right, NO MANDATE.  That's how it works...or so I'm told.