created by The_Egalitarian on 09/03/2025 at 23:42 UTC
0 upvotes, 34 top-level comments (showing 25)
Donald Trump and Project 2025 has envisioned a vast restructuring/reduction of the US government: potentially slashing whole departments without congressional approval, realigning previous trade and military alliances like NATO and USMCA, antagonizing close allies like Canada, and appointing Elon Musk, an ultra-wealthy billionaire with billions in government contracts, to identify waste and inefficiency in departments after firing the Inspector Generals responsible for doing so.
Generally a political "Mandate" is a term used to refer to when a government wins massive overwhelming support to make change in an election, commonly cited examples are Reagan 1980/1984 and Obama 2008.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For some date driven background on the closeness of the election:
The 2024 presidential election was close, not a landslide[1] - Image Source
1: https://abcnews.go.com/538/2024-presidential-election-close-landslide/story?id=116240898
Tipping Point State Margin comparison
Electoral College Margin comparison
Popular Vote Margin comparison
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does he and his administration have a mandate for these massive changes?
If yes, what components of the election or political climate are the best reasons for this?
If no, then what motivates the desire to implement massive change?
Comment by AutoModerator at 09/03/2025 at 23:42 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
A reminder for everyone[1]. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
1: https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/
Violators will be fed to the bear.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2: /message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion
Comment by I405CA at 09/03/2025 at 23:48 UTC
1 upvotes, 4 direct replies
The election was won with 49.8% of the vote and a 1.5% spread between first and second place.
A plurality, not a majority. A thin margin of victory. Absolutely not a mandate by any objective standard.
Comment by Sands43 at 09/03/2025 at 23:48 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Mandate is basically irrelevant.
The real question is who has control of the legislature and who has the votes? Legislative control gives you control over the committees for bill construction and hearings. Votes get's you passed bills.
In a rational, logical, empathic world, no Trump does not have a mandate.
Comment by Polyodontus at 09/03/2025 at 23:49 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
“Mandate” is a meaningless term in American politics. It’s a thing pundits say to lend their arguments more gravitas than they deserve.
Comment by kinkgirlwriter at 09/03/2025 at 23:53 UTC
1 upvotes, 3 direct replies
Not a mandate, but also this isn't what anyone voted for.
Seriously, didn't he run on lowering prices? And yet, he's not lifted one finger in that direction, not one.
Comment by rogun64 at 10/03/2025 at 00:01 UTC*
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Of course not. George Bush declared he had a mandate after the 2004 election, before everything fell apart. It's what Republican Presidents do to bully the people.
Comment by 12_0z_curls at 09/03/2025 at 23:52 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
"mandate" means nothing. It's a catch phrase. If you're using the word "mandate", you're buying into propaganda.
Comment by 3Quondam6extanT9 at 09/03/2025 at 23:53 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
We've already established it wasn't a mandate. It doesn't stop them from making the claim.
Comment by Ornery-Ticket834 at 10/03/2025 at 00:12 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
They won. Narrowly. So if you mean a broad approval to follow his policies, whatever they are. No. He can govern and like anyone else ultimately be judged on what happens.
Comment by CaspinLange at 10/03/2025 at 00:26 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
The data says that if everyone had shown up to vote, the election would have swung the other way.
There’s also lots of data that allows us to see that the MAGA corridor of the Party is only 25 to 30% at best.
And of the many voters who did vote for Trump, a lot are feeling deep regret, which will only grow as the economy completely collapses.
Comment by ZanzerFineSuits at 10/03/2025 at 01:19 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
IMO we have learned the following from this election:
- Margins don’t matter, only victory
- Your mandate is defined by your boldness, your willingness to break the rules, and the strength of the opposition.
Trump and MAGA are bold AF, have no qualms about breaking any rules (or laws), and the opposition has no leg to stand on. Any in-party opposition (which other presidents had to deal with) has been neutered by MAGA in this case, so there are no guardrails.
All this talk of “no mandate” doesn’t mean jack-squat.
Comment by peetnice at 09/03/2025 at 23:53 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I think you've already answered your own question just from the past comparisons- the administration likes to frame it as a mandate from the EC votes, but even those are relatively slim in comparison - the popular vote makes more sense when talking about a mandate and that is the slimmest popular majority/plurality vote since 1968 (excluding the past couple R victory cycles where they did not even win a plurality of the popular vote).
The republican party since Bush II is incapable of a popular vote mandate hence the move toward gerrymandering, SCOTUS power grabbing, citizens united, vote suppression, and if necessary a scrapping of democracy altogether.
Comment by koske at 09/03/2025 at 23:57 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
If he can maintain control of the republican party (SCOTUS included) he can do what ever he wants.
As far as an electoral mandate, it is the closest election in modernity and Trump spent the last 3 months of the campaign denying any connection to project 2025, which he is now attempting to enact, so I say there is very little claim to a mandate.
Comment by Grand-Inspection2303 at 10/03/2025 at 00:22 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
The whole concept of mandates is mostly made up. You're either president with all the powers of the presidency or you're not. A president planning on seeking reelection may feel incentivized by a closer election to pivot more to the middle than they would if they win by a landslide, but there's no requirement they do so and Trump has no such motivation because he can't seek reelection and half the country will always hate him.
Comment by cferg296 at 10/03/2025 at 00:26 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
It literally doesnt matter if he has a "mandate" or not. He and the republican party won and took pretty much everything. You can shout at the top of your lungs that he doesnt have a mandate, but how is that going to stop him?
Comment by TheOvy at 10/03/2025 at 00:28 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Few presidencies have an actual mandate that Trump is claiming. Elections are usually decided on a handful of small issues. Pardoning Jan 6'ers, eliminating USAID, doing massive layoffs without any discretion or due diligence, the federal spending freeze -- these are not the issues that got him elected, these are not the issues he campaigned on. Indeed, the plan for all this -- Project 2025 -- is something he directly contradicted on the campaign. And yet he's doing it. It's overreach, especially the illegal actions that breach the separation of powers and broach his oath to the constitution (such as trying to suspend the 14th amendment by mere Executive Order).
That said, discussion of mandate is mostly meaningless -- the opponents always deny it, the winner always claims it, and the winner will do whatever they can get away with. There's no repercussions until there's a midterm.
Comment by ManElectro at 10/03/2025 at 01:02 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Trump had a mandate to fix inflation (hint: inflation had already largely waned by the time of the election, but he and Vance pretended like it hadn't). Instead, he is on course to cause the highest levels of inflation in the history of the US, if course isn't corrected.
Otherwise, dude has zero mandate. If he had a true mandate, he likely wouldn't be bum rushing and abusing EOs. His whole gambit is not to make the unitary executive theory a reality in law, but to pretend it always was the law. It's the only way for him to pull this off.
Unfortunately, far too many ignorant people are ready to line up to empower the guy, even if it hurts them, as long as people they don't like get hurt worse. As for using the word ignorant, it is being used in its defined term, lacking knowledge.
Comment by che-che-chester at 10/03/2025 at 02:42 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
IMHO, if you can make a valid argument (with numbers, not gut feelings) that it was not even close to a mandate, how can it possibly be a mandate?
Comment by almightywhacko at 10/03/2025 at 13:53 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
In electoral politics a "mandate" is generally considered to be a clear and concise victory by a larger than normal margin.
In 2008 Obama won a "mandate" by getting 10 million more popular votes than McCain (~8.5% lead) and more than double the electoral votes. Democrats also won 8 seats in the Senate and 21 seats in the House, which strongly indicated that voters preferred Obama's policies over whatever the Republicans were running on. That overwhelming (in this day age) support indicates a "mandate."
Trump beat Kamala by about 1.6 million votes (~1.5% lead) and 86 electoral votes (~10% lead). Republicans gained 4 seats in the Senate but lost two seats in the House. This shows that support for Trump and his policies is/was marginal at best, so not a "mandate."
But the "mandate" stuff is just bumpers-sticker marketing anyway. Once you've won an election it doesn't really matter except that it indicates how easy it maybe to enact your agenda during the early days of your administration. However that doesn't seem to matter for Trump, because he is trying to forcing his agenda through using illegal means which gives the opposition party a lot of leverage to resist and will *hopefully* come back to bite him a little bit later on.
Comment by MonarchLawyer at 10/03/2025 at 15:45 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
A "mandate" is an opinion. He won the election so he's the president. But if "mandate" means he has wide approval for his actions then he certainly does not. Less than half of the electorate voted for him and his approval rating although higher than I think is reasonable is still way too low to be considered a mandate.
Comment by kingjoey52a at 10/03/2025 at 00:01 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
If one of your points is messing with trade you can’t cite Project 2025 as a blueprint. Project 2025 wants free trade and less tariffs, not the tariffs Trump is putting in.
Comment by [deleted] at 10/03/2025 at 00:27 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[removed]
Comment by discourse_friendly at 10/03/2025 at 00:32 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Almost every country shifted right and he won every swing state.
but they only shifted right a bit.
So he has a mandate to shift the country, a little to the right.
Comment by poppadada at 10/03/2025 at 00:37 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
he's slashing and cutting, bypassing traditional norms, like asking Congress for approval. what are the elected officials there for? they bring nothing home to their districts to validate their existence. the leader of our country is supposed to ensure our well-being and not make our lives difficult. that guy is supposed to help, things weren't this bad before he got back in office, he forgot he's supposed to be for the People... when do you think he's ever bought GROCERIES, I like to say groceries.
Comment by d4rkwing at 10/03/2025 at 00:52 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Yes. Elections matter. His party controls the executive, both houses of Congress and even the Supreme Court. Personally I think he’s doing a lot of harm to this country but I’m in the voting minority and I respect the results my fellow citizens decided upon.
