According to Politico's Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen, President Obama doesn’t have a “broad mandate” because……not enough uneducated white men voted for him?
If President Barack Obama wins, he will be the popular choice of Hispanics, African-Americans, single women and highly educated urban whites. That’s what the polling has consistently shown in the final days of the campaign. It looks more likely than not that he will lose independents, and it’s possible he will get a lower percentage of white voters than George W. Bush got of Hispanic voters in 2000.
A broad mandate this is not.
In 2004, George W. Bush claimed a mandate (despite the fact that his administration spent so much time scaring the crap out of people & many people voted for his second term only on that basis):
Bush staked his claim to a broad mandate and announced his top priorities at a post-election news conference, saying his 3.5 million vote victory had won him political capital that he would spend enacting his conservative agenda.
"I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it," Bush told reporters. "It is my style.
President Obama won with a very broad mandate (332 to 206 electoral votes and by 3.2 million votes in the popular vote) with a majority of women, hispanics, African Americans, and educated white men, and the right wing can whine and bitch all they want, but it won't change the facts.
Adds........."Republicans, who have not won as many electoral votes as Mr. Obama did on Tuesday in 24 years”