Dan Cannon is a resident of Seaford.
First, Happy New Year to everyone! Now …
You’ve probably heard that Donald Trump sycophant billionaires Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk are busy with their nongovernmental Department of Government Efficiency, as they outlined in a Nov. 21, 2024, Wall Street Journal op-ed.
As with other Trump administrative disruptors, the success of Ramaswamy and Musk’s DOGE plans hinges heavily on Trump’s election claims of a “powerful mandate.” The two echoed Trump by saying, “On 11/5, voters decisively elected Donald Trump with a mandate for sweeping change.”
Of course, virtually no one questions that Trump won the Nov. 5 election, including the popular vote and the Electoral College. President Joe Biden rather graciously acknowledged this during a fireside chat with President-elect Trump in the White House.
However, the size, impact and implications of Trump’s popular vote win deserve close scrutiny, especially as related to claims of “mandates.”
As of Dec. 15, with 155,206,853 votes counted, the Cook Political Report offered this data:
If this were a “landslide” victory, it would certainly justify claims of a “mandate for sweeping change.” But compare Trump’s 1.5% margin of victory to past landslides, like Richard Nixon’s 23.2% in ’72, Lyndon Johnson’s 22.3% in ’64 and Ronald Reagan’s 18.2% in ’84. Obviously, Trump’s margin is not close to past blowouts or landslides.
But, as some like Ramaswamy and Musk may argue, perhaps it does not take a landslide margin to have a “powerful mandate” to support “sweeping change.” What would another measure of the strength of a win, using the winning percentage of the popular vote, show?
Trump scored 49.8% in his 2024 win. In comparison, according to The Nation, Biden won 51.3% in ’20, Barack Obama won 51.1% in ’12, George W. Bush won 50.7% in ’04, Reagan won 50.7% in ’80, and Jimmy Carter won 50.1% in ’76. Do these winning percentage records indicate Trump and his allies have a legitimate claim of a “mandate for sweeping change”?
So, back to Vivek and Elon.
Naturally, these billionaires must lean heavily on Trump’s exaggerated claims of a mandate from voters to attempt to justify and implement the disruptive changes they (and others of the same ilk) are hawking.
At their own risk, Ramaswamy, Musk and others may choose to ignore that the 2024 election was one of the closest in our history. The fact (from the Nov. 21, 2024, New York Times) is that Trump’s popular vote margin of victory was smaller than every winning president’s since 1888 (except in 1960 and 1968).
Like it or not, Ramaswamy and Musk, et al., should recognize that a swing of just 230,000 votes to Harris in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan would have won her the presidency with 270 electoral votes, despite losing the popular vote. This hypothetical outcome would have been similar to Trump’s real-life 2016 win of the presidency, with 304 electoral votes, while losing the popular vote by 2.1% (2.87 million votes).
Clearly, the facts do not indicate a “mandate” for Ramaswamy and Musk, et al., to try to shove radical ideas and practices down people’s throats.
If they are really as smart as they think they are, they will acknowledge the closeness of the election between Trump and Harris, and should, therefore, tread judiciously — not act like bulls loose in a china shop.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
