MyDD :: Senate Democrats Have a Mandate To Oppose Bush

Senate Democrats Have a Mandate To Oppose Bush

by Chris Bowers, Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:54:03 PM EST

With the growing threat of the nuclear option, it is important for Senate Democrats to remember, and for the country to be reminded, which party really has a mandate in the Senate. As the Gadflyer reports:

Although Republicans gained four Senate seats in the 2004 elections, Republican Senate candidates actually lost the nationwide popular vote. In 33 Senate races across the country, 41.6 million Americans cast votes for Democratic candidates, while just 38.1 million voted for Republicans.

Though only a third of the Senate was chosen in 2004, the 2002 election had a similar bias: Republicans won 65% of the available seats with just 50.1% of the popular vote (52% ignoring votes for third parties). In 2000, Democrats won 56% of the available seats with a bare plurality of the popular vote, but this was not enough to balance the results of 2002 and 2004. In all, over the past three Senate elections, Democrats have beaten Republicans by nearly 2 million votes -- yet Republicans hold a 55-seat Senate majority.

In the 100 elections that determined the current make-up of the Senate, 200,723,923 votes were cast. The Democratic candidates in these elections received a combined 96,307,088 votes, for 47.98% of all votes. The Republican candidates received 94,994,293 votes combined, for 47.33% of total votes. (4.69%, or 9,422,542 votes, went to other parties). I removed the 2000 elections in Georgia and Missouri from the Gadflyer totals since those elections were not the most recent for the seat in question. Incidentally, both of those elections were won by Democrats.

Democrats won the popular vote for Senate. Thus, we have a mandate to oppose Bush's agenda. In the wake of the bankruptcy bill, the ongoing Social Security struggle, and the coming judicial nominee and energy conflicts, this is a point we all need to be constantly reminded of. Back in January, Jerome wrote more about the national balance of power between the two parties.

Tags: Senate 2006 (all tags)

Permalink :: 32 Comments :: Post a Comment

Somebody should mention this to the DLC (none / 0)

Harry Reid, Biden, Lieberman and the entire Credit Card Corps need to get this message real soon. One more vote like the bankruptcy bill could shatter the party. The grass/netroots are not going to sit back and watch the Faux Republican Corporate Scumbags Du Jour hand Bush victory after victory.

The next big test is medical malpractice caps. Does anybody have any idea how many DLC turncoats are going to go over to the dark side on med mal?

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:48:59 PM EST

While I agree with the sentiment... (none / 0)

How much of that mandate was provided by Obama vs. Keyes?

by Jefe Le Gran on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 12:58:36 PM EST

If we have a senatorial mandate (none / 0)

Then Bush has a mandate.

This whole senatorial mandate stuff is non-sense, especially since Dems got 4 million more votes in Illinois and New York alone. What we need to look at is what we net lost 4 seats to the Republicans.

by falcon4e on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 01:10:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If we have a senatorial mandate (none / 0)

It's a counter to the Bush mandate. Simple justification for obstruction, that's all. Since Dems got the majority vote in Senate races, they represent more voters than the GOPer Senators. There is absolutely no justification for not shutting down the Senate if necessary.

One example is the new and improved Verified Paper Trail legislation. DeLay and Haster blocked it for two years in the last session. I think Dems need to take a drop dead ultimatum stand that it gets voted on in both Houses or business grinds to a halt.

by Gary Boatwright on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 01:16:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If we have a senatorial mandate (none / 0)

Do any of you understand that we do not have a true democracy? We enjoy a constitutional republic form of government.
Ben Franklin said it best; "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch". The masses cannot be trusted. Which ever side is in power at any given time is limited in the amount of damage that they can do.
The whole idea of a "mandate" in either house based on total popular vote is irrelevent. I do not want either of my Senators or my Represntitive to look at how the rest of the country voted to decide what is best for our state.

by Not A Democracy on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 08:25:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

A large amount was in the Boxer v. Jones race, too (none / 0)

Jones was such a lousy canidate, he never ran any TV ads. In California.

Basically, the Boxer and Obama blowouts throw this statistic way out of whack. This number is meaningless.

by Geotpf on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 01:38:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Only If Carried Over To The House (3.00 / 1)

The total Senate vote is interesting, but largely irrelevant. The Senate represents states, not population. Winning big in a few populous states isn't a mandate. If that type of vote had been carried over to the House of Represenatives, there might be a better argument for a mandate of some kind for the party.

by SLinVA on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 01:27:55 PM EST

Re: Only If Carried Over To The House (none / 0)

Yea, put if you click through that link, you'll see that the D's gained huge in 2004 in House total.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 01:54:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks (1.00 / 1)

For the reminder about Fred Barnes. There are two kinds of partisans, smart ones and idiots. Fred Barnes falls in the latter.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 01:52:49 PM EST

No one ever has a "mandate" (none / 0)

Sorry. It's an absurd term. Mandate, with always reminds me of the Chinese notion of the Mandate of Heaven, implies you could go burn down the villages of your enemies and kill them as they run away screaming.

In American politics, there is no mandate. You're running your re-election the minute you get elected. The wolf is always at the door, so you better not go outside.

The GOP right now is a fine example of this. If they had a "mandate" of any kind, we'd all be shot by now (especially if the wingnuts had the mandate).

The reality is that everyone needs to cut the mandate crap and focus on screwing over the guys who are up for re-election.

by jcjcjc on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 02:00:53 PM EST

This is just the EV problem again (none / 0)

This is just a simple corollary of the fact that there are two senators in every state, irrespective of population, and the fact that the GOP dominates the smaller states?

It's perfectly natural that at a 50-50 popular vote the GOP will have 55% percent of seats, isn't it?

So it's the same old electoral vote stuff again.

by Winger on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 02:57:29 PM EST

Yes, and No (3.00 / 1)

Yes, the imbalance in Senators arises for a similar reason to the electoral vote process used in Presidential elections. But I don't think most people realize when they see a 55-44 advantage for the Republicans that the 44 Democratic Senators received the same number of total votes as did the 55 Republicans.

This is especially true given the trumpeting about the Democrats thwarting the "will of the majority" when they block Republican initiatives in the Senate. The implication is always that those Senators were put there by a majority of American voters, which is simply not true.

Publicizing the fact that 44 Democratic Senators received just as many votes as their counterparts across the aisle can only help dispel the perception that Republicans are at the head of some large American majority. The perception is wrong and works to the disadvantage of Democrats.

by Curt Matlock on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 03:06:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good point (none / 0)

Yes, I see your point now. It's an extra opportunity for us to push the idea that we are the party of the popular vote, since our senators were elected with more votes.

It's amazing we don't hear more about this.

by Winger on Tue Mar 22, 2005 at 06:00:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dem Senators also represent more constituents (none / 0)

I got interested in the numbers a week or so ago, and went searching... turns out, if Senators are supposed to represent all the people in their state (and, they are), Democratic Senators, in toto, represent a constituency of 293,698,914 people, or 50.59%. Republican Senators, in toto, represent a constituency of 286,174,765, or 49.30%. If we include Jim Jeffords, who represents 619,107 people, more than eight million more constituents are represented by non-Republicans than are represented by Republicans. Even without Jeffords, we're talking more than 7.5 million more constituents. (Note, each person is counted twice as a "constituent," once for each Senator.)

I was so shocked and amazed that I wrote a Kos Diary on the subject (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/7/19506/97196), but I discovered (after following the link above and clicking around the site), the Gadflyer also ran the numbers (http://gadflyer.com/flytrap/index.php?Week=200507#1513) almost a month earlier - although he focused more on the population represented solely by Democratic Senators (16 states, 120 million people), vs the population represented solely by Republicans (21 states, 116 million people).

But the bottom line here is, any way you look at it, Republican Senators actually represent a minority of the population.

by KarenJG on Mon Mar 14, 2005 at 07:06:57 PM EST

Re: Dem Senators also represent more constituents (none / 0)

No, the Republican Senators represent thier states. It is the United States of America, not the Peoples Republic of America.
Following your logic Bush then gets almost half of California's electoral votes. I am sure that he would trade half the electoral votes from Nevada, Montana, Utah, the Dakota's and so forth. But it does not work that way, the Senators represent thier states and the people in those states alone.

by Not A Democracy on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 10:11:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dem Senators also represent more constituents (none / 0)

Senators represent thier states and the people in those states alone.

I rest my case. Senators represent the people - ALL the people - of their states. Therefore, there are more people represented by Democrats in the Senate than represented by Republicans. Thereofore, Republican Senators represent a minority of the total population of the US.

by KarenJG on Tue Mar 15, 2005 at 11:00:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dem Senators also represent more constituents (none / 0)

The Senators from California represent more people than do the Senators from Idaho. But the total number of people that each represents is irrelevent. Each Senator has an equal amount of power. If there were only one house in the Legislative branch then the number of people represented would matter. Remeber that it was only at the begining of the last century that the people directly elected thier own senators.

by Not A Democracy on Wed Mar 16, 2005 at 06:58:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]