Now that President Obama has won re-election, we are hearing a narrative about how close the result was - if only a few votes had gone the other way in key swing states or even in the counties in those states Romney would have won instead. Since the popular vote was so close, there is an impression being shared that there is no clear mandate for Obama. In light of this kind of talk, I believe it is time to bring some reality of perspective into the election discourse.
Today, pundits are treating the margin as though it was very slim. And it was, unless you consider everything Obama had to overcome to win. A clear acceptance of the Obama agenda is clear once you have taken into account certain facts.
Kos reminded us that "President Barack Obama is the first Democrat to get reelected with an absolute majority of the popular vote since FDR." And whenever Republicans have managed this feat, they have always claimed full acceptance of their policies by the masses, and therefore are not to be questioned, but rather embraced by all. Naysayers of the agenda are biased against the people and are to be publicly shunned.
But just consider the numerous, repeated lies of the Romney campaign: Americans were told that Obama thinks that they didn't build their businesses. We were told that he was not born in the US, he hates America, and he is a Muslim. He received blame for the economy that was not his to receive - that the stagnant unemployment rate was all his fault. There was the lie about gas prices having doubled during the past four years. With repetition after repetition of the countless lies, using uncountable millions of dollars to influence the American people every day of the campaign, Obama had to overcome all that to win by a sliver.
But take just a moment and imagine how much more he could have won by if Americans had not been influenced by the lies. Imagine how much more he would have won by if the campaign had been waged on a level playing field, using public funds - without billionaire elites funding the other guy.
Imagine his margin of victory had there not been 24 hour per day criticism of Obama by a widely-viewed cable "news" channel that pretends to be fair and balanced, but provides nothing but endless propaganda designed to appease their corporate masters. Americans were told that Obama engaged in an "apology tour" of the Middle East. Americans were told that Obama had eliminated the "welfare to work" program. Americans were told that the National Debt is Obama's fault and that Romney would be more fiscally responsible. Americans were told that the price of gasoline at the pump would be lower if he had approved the Keystone pipeline. Americans were told that Obama sat on his ass and did nothing while an Ambassador was killed. And on and on and on . . .
How many voters were influenced by lies to vote against their own interests and values? How many more votes would Obama have received had Romney been honest?
Oh, and how many more votes would Obama have received had so many thousands of eligible voters not been removed from voter registration lists? Without the voter purges in many states? Without the dishonest robo calls? Without having to obtain an expensive Identification Card. Without the billboard threats of arrest in minority communities? Without the extremely long lines to vote in urban areas. Again, how many more votes would Obama had won despite these and other successful voter repression efforts that were implemented all over the US, particularly in those sensitive swing state elections. What margin of victory would Obama have enjoyed if the US held legitimate elections? How many more votes would he have had?
The answer to the above questions is: lots and lots more votes. Possibly millions more.
So understand that President's ideas, personality, accomplishments, character, and policies are preferred by a majority of Americans by a wide margin, much wider than the officially counted margin of victory in yesterday's event that we called an election. The reality is that a strong, clear mandate for the President. It would required continued dishonesty to deny this.