NOT a mandate - by the numbers

** From anotherliberalblog

Some historical perspecitve on the election

Yes, I'm devastated by Kerry's defeat as well, but I take some solace in the fact that it was a pretty pathetic victory for an incumbent. Bush and the Republicans will claim a great victory (a mandate, even), but the numbers (from 1900 on--see below, download the Word or PDF version) tell a different story:

Assuming Bush gets New Mexico and Iowa, he will have gotten the lowest percentage of electoral votes (54%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Wilson. If those two states should swing Kerry's way (NM might), it'll be even lower.

He will have won with the lowest percentage of the popular vote (51%) of any incumbent running for reelection since Truman (well, technically since Clinton, but he also ran against Perot, who was a more significant 3rd-party candidate than Thurmond and Wallace were in '48)

He will have won by the lowest margin of the popular vote (3.5M) of any incumbent running for reelection since Truman (2.1M, and back then only 50M voted).

He will have won the three states that put him over 270 (OH, NM and IA--assuming the last two go his way) by only 161,989 (not counting the provisional ballots, absentee, etc.).

So, this is NOT a smashing incumbent victory like those of Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, LBJ or FDR. It was a bit pitiful for an incumbent, frankly, especially after 9/11. There's really no mandate here; this is still basically a 50-50 country, and we'll live to fight and win another day.