Obamas Mandate

Connor Kincheloe










PLSC197H
Professor Berkman
December 14, 2012


After winning an election, it would seem the Presidents battle is over but in reality it
is just beginning. The President must debate with Congressional leadership and potentially
have to fight through gridlock in the House and Senate. That job may be easier if the
President is given a mandate from the public to push his partys platform. A mandate is
socially constructed as it is a matter of perception if the President has one or not (Grossback
et al, 2007). There is no mathematical formula for determining whether or not a mandate
exists, but rather it is a self-fulfilling prophecy; if the public believes there is a mandate,
then there is a mandate. A large influence on public opinion is the media, which is why the
play such a prominent role in Grossback et als study. By coding media stories regarding a
mandate, they reached the conclusion that a mandate was conferred in 1964, 1980 and 1994.
However, using the media today will be difficult as it has grown increasingly polarized. For
example, very few from FOX News would agree that Obama was given a mandate just like
few from MSNBC would say he was not given one. As a result, the key to determining if a
President was given a mandate is examining the election results and congressional response.
Based on the election results and congressional response from the 2012 election, Obama has
been given a mandate to pursue his economic and tax policy.
Comparing the pre-election expectations to the actual results can help determine if a
mandate has been given or not. If a candidate exceeds the expectations on election night, it
presents the possibility that the candidate has been conferred with a mandate (Grossback et
al, 2007). In the 2012 election, many were calling for a race that would go on late into the
night and be decided by a few electoral votes. However, as witnessed, President Obama
won the electoral college vote by receiving 332 votes to Mitt Romneys 206. The key to
Obamas victory was how well he did in the battle ground states, like Ohio, Florida,
Colorado, Virginia, Wisconsin and others. Obama not only won, but exceeded expectations
based on comparing the pre-election Real Clear Politics state polls with the actual results.
For example, Obama was predicted to win VA by only .3% while in actuality he won by 3%
and in FL Romney was predicted to win by 1.5% while Obama won by 0.9%.
If one party wins the presidency, regardless of by how large a margin, but the other
party gains seats or holds a majority in the House or Senate, it is harder to determine if there
is a mandate (Grossback et al, 715). In the Senate, the Democrats gained one seat and
continued to hold on to their majority. The House, however, remained under Republican
control leading House Speaker John Boehner to claim that the Republicans have been given
a mandate as well, but is that the case? The Democrats gained 23 seats, but had the
Republicans not gerrymandered many districts, the gain could have been greater. For
example, in Pennsylvania House Democrats only won 5 of the 18 seats, yet received overall
100,000 more votes than republicans statewide (Lobasso, 2012). Additionally at the
national level, Republicans won 55% of the House seats, yet received less than half of the
vote overall nationally (Stone, 2012). Although it is unlikely that the Democrats could have
taken back the House, they most certainly would have gained more than 23 seats. As
demonstrated, the election results seem to indicate that Obama has been given a mandate
and the Republican response through deflections from the Norquist pledge seem to reinforce
that notion.
In looking for a congressional response, it is important to see a larger number of
members alter their behavior in the post-mandate years than following non mandate years.
(Grossback et al, 717). Following the 2008 election, Republicans vehemently defended the
pledge and its support increased. However, after the 2012 election, newly elected
Republicans are refusing to sign the pledge and many more previously affiliated are backing
away (Berman, 2012). This sudden disaffiliation helps highlight that Republicans seem to
believe that Obama has been conferred with a mandate by their softening stance on tax
policy.
Piesiuent 0bama will use his auueu political capital to take on the appioaching
fiscal cliff. Be has alieauy saiu that he has a manuate to help the miuule class anu that
the "majoiity of Ameiicans agiee with |hisj appioach" (Cohn, 2u12). uiossback et al
(2uu7) concluue that the effects of the manuate will be the stiongest at the beginning
of the teim. The timing coiiesponus peifectly to the fiscal cliff as the manuate will
allow him to push thiough the tax iefoim that he sees fit. 0bama will achieve this by
eithei ieaching a ueal befoie the fiscal cliff hits oi by allowing it to pass anu iefoiming
tax legislation aftei.
Buiing the u0P piimaiies, the Republican canuiuates notably uug theii heels in
against any new auuitional ievenue to goveinment by iaising taxes oi effecting
loopholes anu ueuuctions. Bowevei, Boehnei saiu that the iepublicans weie "willing
to accept new ievenue unuei the iight conuitions" (Cohn, 2u12). This is ceitainly a fai
ciy fiom the paity's eaily stance as the Republicans may be iecognizing the suppoit
anu manuate 0bama has been given. 0nuei the iight conuitions, specifically foi 0bama
having the tax iate incieaseu on the top 2%, 0bama woulu accept a ueal befoie the
fiscal cliff hits. 0bama has also maue it no seciet that he woulu veto any legislation
that uoes not achieve this goal. Coulu 0bama let the countiy go ovei the cliff without
catastiophic iesults anu still achieve the uesiieu outcome.
The fiscal cliff paints the pictuie that once }anuaiy 1st hits, the economy will be
uamageu almost instantaneously. Bowevei, Chau Stone, an economist, likens the cliff
to be moie like a slope. The uamage will not begin to set in foi a couple of weeks oi
months, thus buying moie time foi both siues to uebate (Cohn, 2u12). The implications
as Cohn highlights in his aiticle aie that the cuts aie moie likely to have a gieatei effect
on uefense spenuing as well as highei income inuiviuuals, which hit Republicans
haiuei than Bemociats. Auuitionally, many Bemociats feel that if the fiscal cliff comes
to pass, the public will piimaiily blame Republicans (ualston, 2u12) anu in a NBCWS}
poll, the public oveiwhelmingly favois options that Bemociats favoi (Chait, 2u11).
These two factois coulu give 0bama the extia leveiage to achieve a ueal in his favoi.
Foi example, once the fiscal cliff has passeu anu the tax iates have iisen, Piesiuent
0bama coulu piopose tax cuts to eveiyone except the top 2% of income eaineis. The
Republicans most likely woulu not oppose a miuule class tax cut anu it allows them
maintain the iuea that they uiu not uiiectly iaise taxes, but iathei cut them.
Piesiuent 0bama has been given a manuate to puisue his economic anu tax
policy anu he can achieve his plans by two possible avenues. The aigument that
0bama has been given a manuate is all baseu on the iuea of the uiffeience between
expectations anu the iesults. While some political scientists, like Nate Silvei, pieuicteu
the election to unfolu as it uiu, many, like the Real Cleai Politics Aveiage polls, uiu not.
So it is feasible to believe that if the polls hau shown 0bama winning hanuily, then it
may be haiuei to hypothesize if a manuate was given by using the uiossback et al
ciiteiia. It goes to show that it appeais the pieuictions befoie an election aie just as
impoitant in ueteimining a Piesiuential manuate as the iesults themselves.

Woiks Citeu

Beiman, Russell. 2u12, Nov. 1S. "Noiquist tax pleuge takes election hit." !"# %&''.
http:thehill.comhomenewshouse267467-noiquist-pleuge-takes-election-hit-

Chait, }onathan. 2u11, Naich S. "Republicans Stampeue Towaiu The Cliff." !"# (#)
*#+,-'&./

Cohn, }onathan. 2u12, }une S. "0vei the Cliff". !"# (#) *#+,-'&./

Cohn, }onathan. 2u12, Nov. 7. "Bow the Election Reset the 'Fiscal Cliff' Bebate". !"#
(#) *#+,-'&./

ualston, William. 2u12, Nov. 21. "A Fiscal Cliff Compiomise That Coulu Woik Foi
Eveiyone." !"# (#) *#+,-'&./

uiossback, Lawience }. et al. 2uu7. 0'#.1234' 546741#8 &6 9:#3&.46 ;2'&1&.8. Biitish
}ouinal of Political Science. S7:4. p. 711-7Su.

LoBasso, Ranuy. 2u12, Nov. 8. "Pennsylvanians anu Ameiicans voteu Foi a Bemociatic
0.S. Bouse- So Why Bo Republicans Still Bolu Buge Najoiities." ;"&''<(2)
http:blogs.philauelphiaweekly.comphillynow2u1211u8pennsylva nians-anu-
ameiicans-voteu-foi-a-uemociatic-u-s-house%E2%8u%94so-why-uo-iepublicans-
still-holu-huge-majoiities

Scheibei, Noam. 2u12, Nov. 2u. "Calling B.S. on the Next Big 'Fiscal Cliff' Bluff". !"# (#)
*#+,-'&./

Stone, ueoffiey R. 2u12, Nov. 1u. "Why Biu the Republicans Win the Bouse." !"#
%,==&6>126 ;281. http:www.huffingtonpost.comgeoffiey-i-stonewhy-uiu-the-
iepublicans-w_b_211u67S.html