Mandates are rarely won on election night. They are earned after Inauguration Day by leaders who spend their political capital wisely, taking advantage of events without overreaching.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Mandates are not objective realities but subjective interpretations of elections sold successfully by the winning candidate or party.
Well, usually when you talk about a mandate, you're talking about an overwhelming win. I don't think by any measurement the 2004 election was an overwhelming win.
When I was campaigning, I told the people if nothing happens under my mandate it will still be a positive thing because my mandate will be used as a rupture between the past and the future.
Barack Obama won a second term but no mandate. Thanks in part to his own small-bore and brutish campaign, victory guarantees the president nothing more than the headache of building consensus in a gridlocked capital on behalf of a polarized public.
If you're in Congress, you vote and give speeches. But governors have to make decisions every day, and presidents have to make decisions every day.
Many businesses oppose any government mandates, even if they are already following them.
The president of the United States, on Inauguration Day, takes an oath to faithfully execute the laws. Those are the laws that are passed by Congress.
When you run on something definitive and then win by a significant margin, you have a mandate.
You see, in government, people give you a mandate, and you've got to fulfil that. Ours is very clear. Fix our public finances and get our country working.
For voters what matters is what government actually delivers for them.
No opposing quotes found.