If for no other reason, you have to admire Democrats for their dogged adherence to the party line.

I have lost count of the number of times I have heard “not a mandate” in the last 12 hours. They clutch this tired rhetoric to their chest like a tattered battle flag, torn, dirty, dropped in the heat of a lost battle, but now recovered and serving as a symbol of their hoped-for relevance.

I find it fascinating that the party that so consistently celebrates diversity bemoans the fact that we don’t all agree, but I digress.

It’s time for Democrats to take a step back and evaluate what really happened.

On November 2^nd, Americans:

1. Confidently voted the president back into office by a greater margin than four years ago in virtually every state in the union.
2. Exhibited enthusiastic support for the Compassionate Conservative agenda by sending more Senators and Representatives to Congress, leading to an astounding four-seat gain in the closely-divided Senate.
3. Clearly sent a message to the Democrat party that they are too far left by banning same sex marriage in all eleven of the states where it appeared on the ballot.

In addition, the citizens of South Dakota screamed louder and clearer than Dean ever dreamed that obstructionism and minority rule is not how an American party is expected to operate; they put America first by sending their Senator into retirement and going with an untried Senator, losing the power that comes with having 25 years of seniority.

Yet Democrats insist that Republicans in general and Bush in particular do not have a mandate from the American people. They say that the country is “deeply divided” — more divided than ever.

This leads one to wonder just what is a “clear mandate”? How often has it been achieved? Just how united have we been in days past?

Since the popular vote started being recorded in 1824 there have been 46 elections (before that, only electoral votes were cast). Of those before the current election year, only 22 (roughly half) have been won with a larger margin than that of President Bush in 2004. The remaining 23 were won by even slimmer margins than the 51.4% achieved by the president yesterday.

Click graph for larger image

Clearly, the country has been divided throughout the history of this little federal republic experiment of ours. If you do better than half of the elections before you, you’d think that was a mandate. Perhaps Democrats don’t, so just what is that magic number?

How about 55%? Would that be a “mandate”?

In our history there have been just 13 elections won by a margin of 55% or more, so less than a third of our elections fit into this category.

Can a country be effectively governed if the president can set the agenda only a third of the time? Maybe Democrats think so, but I certainly don’t.

So the next time you are talking to some media-puppet who starts spouting Democrat talking points, explain to him or her just how divided this nation usually is. When they begin talking about how contentious todays politics are, invite them to do a little reading and educate themselves. And when they say Bush does not have a mandate, ask them who did. If you get anything other than gibberish or a blank stare please drop me a line. I’d really like to know.

Just for informational purposes, there have only been four elections in which the winner took 60% or more of the popular vote. All happened in the 20^th Century spanning the years from Harding to Nixon.

Query: do you think Democrats thought Nixon had a mandate?

Data (including charts) in Excel 2003 format.
Data sources:

• HistoryCentral.com
• Census.gov (PDF format)
• InfoPlease

Update: Watcher of Weasels addresses this subject rather effectively with Mandate This!

Update: James Taranto notes that Bush received a higher percentage of the popular vote than any Democrat candidate for president has received in 40 years.

Update: Outside the Beltway theorizes that the markets are up today because of relief that the whole mess is over with, but if that were true then why the drop yesterday?

Investors know who is going to be more business friendly, who will reduce the tax burden (and who will increase it), and who will not call for over-regulation.

PoliPundit notes that Kerry won his home state of Massachusetts 62-37, yet Gore took the state 60-33.

This seems to be repeated across the nation. Even though blue states remain blue and red states remain red, the popular vote will go to Bush because of the margin of victory in each state. Which should shut down any talk of “mandate”.

Unbelievable — go read it at Dizzy Girl’s. Really.

Stormin’ Norman Schwarzkopf is a New Jersey native and a strong Bush supporter, even appearing on stage with the president at rallies.

But the DNC in Jersey appears to be making phone calls using Schwarzkipf’s name with the implication that it is the retired general making the call:

“In 2000, I voted for George W. Bush, but this year I’m voting for John Kerry.” The man goes on to say that Bush took his eye off the ball when it came to finding the people responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, which killed nearly 700 New Jersey residents.

“John Kerry has a real plan to make our military stronger and to go after terrorists wherever they hide,” the man says on the tape. “We need a vote for change, a vote for John Kerry.”

Schwarzkopf released a statement today saying the the DNC were making fraudulent phone calls and demanded that they stop.

When you can’t get the domestic endorsements and the foriegn endorsements seem to be hurting you, I guess you start making stuff up.

Kerry has received another newspaper endorsement, this time from the “newspaper of record” for the “mostly” economically free nation of Norway.

I’m betting this has the same effect as similar attempts to meddle in our political process: very little. Or, as one American responded a Brit who got his email via the Guardian:

“Real Americans aren’t interested in your pansy-ass, tea-sipping opinions,” came one of many animated responses. “If you want to save the world, begin with your own worthless corner of it.”

Right on.

Winds of Change reposts his assertion that whoever wins tommorrow, “he’ll be my president“.

A nice sentiment and one that I share, with one caveat.

If Kerry takes the oath of office in January (whether I am convinced that he won or was put there through litagtion, disenfranchisement of military votes, and or massive voter fraud) he will be my president as soon as he signs a Standard Form 180 and I know that he was not given a dishonorable discharge from the military for having performed treason against his country.

The evidence is mounting. First we found out about the ties between the communist regieme in Vietnam and the anti-war effort spearheaded by Kerry and his comrades. Now an ex-JAG officer rather convincingly questions the circumstances surrounding Kerry’s departure from the military (and if this were about Bush the MSM would be all over it, but it’s not and they’re not).

I have suffered under poor presidents in the past (egads, how did Carter ever happen?) and will do so again. I will not call a traitor my leader. Ever.

Kerry has made much of his ability to reach out to the leaders of other nations to get international cooperation. Last month, Australian Prime Minister John Howard had a comment about our election and the chances for a Bush victory, saying, “I hope he wins.”

A Kerry advisor issued this admonishment to PM Howard, “I would remind Australians that the same applies at home. Such comments about our politics are a little inappropriate.”

Kerry has not, in turn, admonished his advisor. His continued silence is equivalent to approval of a policy statement, and thus if elected Kerry will already have damaged relations with one of our biggest allies before he has even taken the oath of office.

But such behavior is not surprising as it rather resembles French President Chirac’s statement that representives of other countries in the EU had “missed a good chance to shut up”.

Proving that the acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree:

John Kerry’s stepson, Chris Heinz, 31, displayed his mother Teresa’s famous lack of rhetorical restraint at a recent campaign event with a group of Wharton students.

Philadelphia magazine reports: “Heinz accused Kerry’s opponents – ‘our enemies’ – of making the race dirty. ‘We didn’t start out with negative ads calling George Bush a cokehead,’ he said, before adding, ‘I’ll do it now.’ Asked later about it, Heinz said, ‘I have no evidence. He never sold me anything.’”

Heinz also reminded writer Sasha Issenberg of Pat Buchanan by saying, “One of the things I’ve noticed is the Israel lobby – the treatment of Israel as the 51st state, sort of a swing state.” Buchanan was blasted as an anti-Semite years ago when he cited Israel’s “amen corner” in Congress.

Le Monde is an influential French newspaper — the French version of the NYTimes, if you will. In these troubled times, the paper has decided to put aside its policy of not meddling in foreign elections and has officially endorsed Kerry.

Another display of meaningless French presumptuous misbehavior. I wonder if the voters in Ohio are listening?