A mandate? Perhaps not.
Typically, a newly elected president declares they have a mandate because they won the election. But is that an appropriate assumption? Considering the last election, President Donald Trump received 49.8% of the popular vote. That means over 50% of the voters voted against him. Kamala Harris came in at 48.3%. Does that sound like a clear mandate?
Also consider that most voters have key issues that matter most. They don’t necessarily agree with every issue their preferred candidate stands for. Was it immigration, gun rights, abortion, the economy, education and so on? So can a candidate assume that those who voted for him support every position they ran on?
Furthermore, many of the voters likely did not care for either candidate. So they voted for the lesser of two evils. What is their mandate? And then consider all the people who did not vote because they’re fed up with the system. Their mandate? Unless the margin of victory is huge, the president has no mandate. Elected officials must have a pulse on how voters feel about each individual issue.
And what about the big money that helps them get elected? Does taking care of those special interests create an entirely different mandate?
I would like to remind Rep. Hurd and Sens. Hickenlooper and Bennet to honor that they were elected to serve their constituents, not a president who does not have a clear mandate from the voters.
Daniel Klein
Durango
