Since election night, President Obama's fans in the media have been trying to establish his victory as giving him a mandate to enact his agenda.
Doing his part Sunday was NBC Meet the Press host David Gregory (video follows with transcript and commentary):
DAVID GREGORY: Yeah, I remember, Steve, President Bush, two days after the election, holding a press conference, the president will do it next week, but not immediately after the election, and he talked about how he viewed the mandate. This is what he said back in-- in 2004.
(Videotape; November 4, 2004)
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Let me put it to you this way, I earned capital in the campaign, political capital and now I intend to spend it. It is my style.
(End videotape)
GREGORY: So, how much capital does President Obama have and where does he spend it?
So Obama's win was akin to Bush's in 2004? How?
In 2004, Bush became the first sitting president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1936 to win reelection while adding to majorities in both the House and the Senate.
This was why his mandate was perceived as being so strong leading some to think that this might have been a realigning election whereby the Party that achieved such an historical feat would rule the country for years to come.
By contrast, Obama's Party though holding the Senate failed in its attempt to take control of the House of Representatives in 2012.
Beyond this, Bush got 11.5 million more popular votes and 15 more electoral votes in 2004 than he received in 2000.
Obama received 7.5 million fewer popular votes and 32 fewer electoral votes in 2012 than he received in 2008.
Add it all up and 2004 was a far better election result for Bush than 2000 while 2012 was a far worse result for Obama than 2008.
As such, there is absolutely no comparison between Bush and Obama's reelection victories and their historical significance from a mandate perspective.
Nice try, David.
