my last pol-sci spammity for a while, universe willing....

[lagilman]

Taken from an earlier comments thread: a pretty decent breakdown of the voting: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/05/1646644.aspx

Highest turnout rate since '08 -- 1908: Provided the number stands, the turnout rate for yesterday's election was the highest in 100 years, according to the estimate from turnout guru Dr. Michael McDonald at George Mason University. Almost 137 million (136,631,825) went to the polls -- 64.1% of the voting-eligible population. 1960 saw 63.7% of the populace go out to vote; In 1908, 65.7% voted. It was, of course, the most people ever to go to the polls topping 2004's 122 million. That's 12% increase from 2004. For those wondering why the current total vote in the presidential adds up to approximately 117 million, note that it's going to climb. There is still a ton of vote missing on the West coast.

I think the word "mandate" can be used now, yes? Mandate, mandate, mandate.

---------------
And now, something completely non-political -- feline picspam!:


"all ur desk r ours"

Comments

[badgermirlacca.livejournal.com]

I respectfully disagree. The volume of votes don't make for a mandate; they indicate a hotly contested election, which means that there is a substantial Other Side to the story. The figures I've seen for the popular vote are Obama 52%, McCain 46%. A six-point spread does not equal an overwhelming mandate from the people. There have been eight elections in the past sixty years with a wider margin than that. If you think 6% is a mandate, what was Nixon's 23% margin over McGovern?

The fact that Obama won big in terms of electoral votes doesn't mean he won big in terms of the people. He still has a lot of work in front of him in terms of convincing that Other Side.

[handlebar605.livejournal.com]

that's a good idea, having a shelf for the little kitties to lounge on, so they don't have to use your keyboard! It's a good thing that the Flat Panel monitors take up a lot less room than the old CRTs did.

[fakefrenchie.livejournal.com]

I never noticed before that both Boomer and Pandora have white bibs and mittens. They are like matching bookends, but in different colors. ;-)

[saare-snowqueen.livejournal.com]

They look pretty pleased with the results.

[tezmilleroz.livejournal.com]

Kitty on the left needs more paper, but kitty on the right has a good stack.

Have a lovely day! :-)

[lagilman]

hah. That's no shelf, that's the entire damn desk they're taking up.

[lagilman]

"hotly contested?" Not by the numbers every outlet is reporting, no. Not when it was called early and cleanly and by such a high turnout. WHY the Dems won is open for interpreation (my one-word anwser: Sarah) but "Obama" is the clear winner, with several times the mandate that Bush claimed (which was my primary intent in reclaiming the word from his clueless clutches.)

[lagilman]

and significantly different sizes....

[music-lover3.livejournal.com]

Awww, cute picture!!!

[badgermirlacca.livejournal.com]

I am totally with you on the word needing to be reclaimed. But this WAS a hotly contested election. Yes, it was called early, based on the electoral votes--but look how CLOSE the contests were in those states.

The bottom line is the 6% difference in the popular vote. Yes, it could have been a lot closer, but it still isn't an overwhelming majority.

I am concerned that focusing so much on the win and using words like "mandate"--just because Bush misused it doesn't mean we should too--will lead to ignoring the fact that a very large minority did NOT vote for Obama, and their legitimate concerns should not be ignored.

I don't think Obama WILL ignore them, as a matter of fact--he's good at reaching across the aisle and paying attention to what everybody wants and needs (which is why I voted for him).

[handworn.livejournal.com]

Far more of a mandate than Bush could legitimately claim, it's true. But a mandate for what? If Democrats overreach, as human beings tend to (else what's a Heaven for, maybe?) they may be setting themselves up for a defeat before needs be.

Of course, the counterargument would be that it'll happen anyway, at some point, so they might as well get as much done as possible. I wonder which is truer.