Obama and the Impossible Mandate

Did Barack Obama earn an electoral "mandate" through his overwhelming victory in 2008? To determine whether or not, we must understand that "mandate" is a rather relative term. What would define a "mandate?" Simply winning an election does not give authority to dictate terms to a heterogeneous America, nor decentralized political parties. Other considerations must be examined, such as political climate, and recent electoral trends.

To decide whether or not Obama has/had an electoral mandate, we would need a similar situation from past events to compare it to. One such is the 1984 reelection by Ronald Reagan over his Democratic challenger Walter Mondale. Reagan won handily, garnering 49 of 50 states, minus Minnesota and Washington, D.C. Simply looking at the electoral map, one would think that such a victory would result in Reagan having a political "mandate." However, he was reelected with 58.8% of the popular vote, not breaking the 60% threshold that "in a close election a vote split as large as 60-40 would be understood as very large, but the disadvantaged party nonetheless would be supported by a very large minority of that group." In other words, simply winning an election, even on a national level, does not result in absolute support for either your platform, nor your party.

Barack Obama won the general election with 52.9% of the popular vote. Again, by looking at the electoral map and counting 365 out of a possible 538 electoral votes may seem like a hefty victory. But Obama's victory goes much further than him merely winning the presidency. Taking into account electoral trends that began to shift in 2006, we have witnessed changes not only in presidential politics, but in congressional and gubernatorial respects as well.

The 2008 election (and the 2006 mid-terms which preceded it) was more of a social change relating to the type of policies that the general population would desire, as opposed to the policies that had led the country for the eight years prior. While Ronald Reagan enjoyed his electoral victory, he still found the House of Representatives in control of the Democrats. Barack Obama, on the other hand, had Congressional control in both the House and Senate shift to his party in 2006, and earned heavier gains by down-ticket voting during his election in 2008. This was due to the electorate having both frustrations and anxieties over many issues that had surmounted in the previous six years, mainly revolving around the war in Iraq (and the policies therein) along with a litany of scandals involving Republicans (ex: Tom DeLay).

What was seen in both the 2006/2008 elections was a "mandate" not just for President Obama, but for Congress as well. This can be argued by the newly formed "blue states" such as Virginia. Once a Republican stronghold, Virginia now has a Democratic governor, two Democratic Senators, and the majority of the Congressional delegation. It symbolizes a political shift that counters the "we live in a center-right country" argument. Control of Congress (at least in the House) is overwhelming, and the Democrats' power has already been exercised. The Senate, while having 58 seated (emphasizing "seated" pending Minnesota) Democrats, encounters more problems exercising its power due to the Senate being a more moderate chamber (due to its members being elected "at-large" and having to appeal to massive constituencies). But nonetheless, the shift in power to the Democratic party has been renowned. Pending their policies take shape and are received positively by the electorate, they could be poised for even further gains in both Congress and in the number of Governorships they possess.

Does Barack Obama have an electoral mandate? Yes. Not due solely to his election, but with other political considerations taken into account, including the shift in political ideologies felt across the nation.

Since he has this "mandate," what does it mean and how does he exercise it? Simply put, not much. The term "mandate" is similar to "political capital" in that it is up to the individual to determine what exactly that means. It can be easily seen that the American people were desperate for a difference in the politics they had experienced from 2001-2009, and Barack Obama is obligated to take action. By being elected, the people chose him as the person whose ideologies best matched their own. But there is a great amount of difficulty in exercising this "mandate" which he seemed to earn. Decentralized parties, such as his own, are forced to make concessions on policy objectives. Members have formed splinter groups such as The New Democrats Coalition and Blue Dog Democrats who are more moderate or fiscally conservative. There is nothing that can be done by President Obama to make members of his own party vote a certain way. Of course, he can "go public" and hope that the American people push their respective representatives to vote a certain way. But many of these representatives who belong to such groups come from "purple states" where their reelection will be dependent on garnering the support of independents and some conservatives.

Barack Obama finds himself in a grey area, where although his party controls both chambers of Congress, he is encountering opposition from his own party that may hinder his legislative agenda. The electorate will not remember what Obama wanted to  do, but what he got done. Even though he will try to use his political "mandate" to push for reforms, it has yet to be seen whether or not he is capable of centralizing his own party under his leadership.