If Barack Obama is elected president on Nov. 4, will he and the ruling congressional Democrats have a mandate from the voters to radically change our government?
The liberal media will certainly proclaim that Obama has an overwhelming mandate to move the country to the left.
One left-liberal writer has gone further, arguing that Obama is making very moderate, modest policy proposals — but because Republicans have called him a socialist and Marxist, if voters cast their ballots for Obama they will, thanks to those Republicans, be giving him a mandate to govern as a socialist or Marxist.
Thomas Jefferson said that “great issues should not be forced on slender majorities.” But President William Jefferson Clinton, elected by a 43 percent plurality, tried to impose socialized medicine.
Unlike some Euro-socialist countries, we do not have mandatory voting. You can vote with your feet against the lesser-of-two-evils, tweedle-dum and tweedle-dumber choice of candidates we are often asked to validate.
Because voting is not compulsory, approximately one-third of eligible voters — who meet the age, citizenship, and other legal requirements — never even register.
Of the remaining two-thirds, on a typical national Election Day only half of us — perhaps a bit more this year — who have registered bother to vote.
And of this one-third of eligible voters casting ballots, only about half will vote for the winner.
This means that the winner will win only about one-sixth of the potential ballots of eligible voters, and no matter how you slice this, it is hard for the winner to call his less-than-17 percent of eligible votes a mandate.
But in Barack Obama's case, his victory will carry even less of a mandate than this.
You might recall from 2004 that Newsweek Magazine's Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas in two different interviews estimated that the heavy media bias in favor of Democrats John Kerry and John Edwards was “going to be worth maybe 15 points,” a number he later lowered to “media bias might be worth five points for the Democrats on Election Day.”
But the media bias in 2008 promoting Democrat Barack Obama exceeds by at least 100 times the 2004 leftward media tilt favoring Johns Kerry and Edwards.
The liberal mainstream media has actually broadcast coverage proclaiming Mr. Obama “the Messiah,” “the One,” a once-in-a-lifetime divinely-anointed leader who, as MSNBC's Democratic shill Chris Matthews said, made “a thrill run up my leg.”
The coverage on NBC as a whole, according to a new bias study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, was 65 percent positive about Obama but only 31 percent positive about his Republican rival Sen. John McCain.
And the other networks were scarcely better, this study reported. ABC coverage had 57 percent favorable comments about Democrats but only 42 percent favorable for Republicans. CBS was 73 percent positive in comments about Obama versus only 31 percent positive about McCain.
So, how many percent of Barack Obama's Nov. 4 vote comes from this massive, unfair, and dangerous-to-the-integrity-of-our-democracy tilting of the playing board by journalists who violated their ethical duty to be honest, even-handed providers of information?
Let's, for sake of this example, say that Barack Obama wins an even 50 percent of the vote.
The slanted mainstream media coverage — equivalent in advertising to billions of dollars in illegal political campaign contributions — by Thomas's standard could give Mr. Obama 15 more points on election day that he would never have won had the media been fair.
Deduct 15 points from Mr. Obama's 50 percent of the total vote and we are down to an honest Obama vote of 35 percent.
But, of course, we know that Mr. Obama's vote will not be honest. That's what all those years of radical groups such as ACORN putting fraudulent names on voter rolls was for, so that election fraud could easily steal close contests for liberal Democrats such as Mr. Obama.
Over the years ACORN and its front groups claim to have added 4 million people to the voter rolls in America. When Virginia authorities investigated a random sample of ACORN registrations, they found that 83 percent of them were fraudulent or otherwise had potentially disqualifying problems.
Multiply the 4 million names ACORN registered by 83 percent — and, voila, we get approximately 3.3 million potentially fraudulent votes that might be cast for Barack Obama. And ACORN was only one of many left-wing entities engaging in electoral manipulation.
During the 2004 election Milwaukee police found that 5,217 “students” were registered to vote in one college dormitory that only houses 2,600 students. John Kerry won Wisconsin that year by only 11,000 votes.
A popular YouTube video shows a West Virginia voting machine being demonstrated by a Jackson County office. When a voter pushes the button to vote for John McCain, the vote actually records for left-liberal Ralph Nader.
So what does it mean if ACORN alone was able to steal 3.3 million votes for Barack Obama in a country of 305 million people?
The first thing to remember is that only about 210 million of us are of voting age, and that of those 210 million, only 80 million — but they predict 120 million in this enthusiastic year — will vote.
What percentage of 120 million votes is 3.3 million votes? About 2.75 percent.
So deduct another 2.75 percent from Barack Obama's 35 percent of the vote and we get 32.25 percent of the total vote he would have won, fewer than 1 out of 3 votes cast.
Barack Obama, in other words, if this were an honest election, would win approximately 1 out of every 9 eligible voters.
Yes, the media will call it a mandate. Their ethical dishonesty is electing Mr. Obama. But you should vote against him to weaken this mandate.
This is the same media who in 1984 said it was not a mandate when Ronald Reagan swept to re-election carrying 49 states.
© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.