Democrats Now Have a "Mandate" -- But 1994 GOP Didn't?

Democrats Now Have a "Mandate" -- But 1994 GOP Didn't?
Adam Nagourney: "The Democratic Party can clearly claim a mandate."

Posted by: Clay Waters
11/9/2006 2:00:00 PM

Reporter Adam Nagourney, on audio clip, gets a bit excited about Democratic prospects Wednesday morning: "Twenty-five votes is a lot of votes and that's what it is right now, it could be more by the time we finish counting. And that's a large margin. And, first of all, that means the Democratic Party can clearly claim a mandate and their party leaders will have a lot of flexibility in trying to build coalitions to get stuff through."

A Nexis search indicates that the Times failed to find a Republican "mandate" in the week after the GOP gained 54 House seats in 1994 -- yet Nagourney sees a clear mandate for Democrats in a 25-seat gain in 2006.

TimesWatch RSS Feed

NewsBusted Comedy Show
New Episode! - June 17, 2009

Join us on:

Elsewhere on the Web

Was the Times wrong to hide reporter David Rohde's kidnapping by the Taliban? Mathew Ingram of the Nieman Journalism Lab at Harvard argues yes: See Article

The Times is probably safe from bankruptcy through at least the year 2015, write Nat Ives and Bradley Johnson for Ad Age: See Article

John Koblin of the New York Observer watched three top Times editors, including Executive Editor Bill Keller, trying to humanize themselves in Midtown Manhattan: See Article

A little White House diplomacy was all it took to get Times columnist and left-wing Obama-critic Paul Krugman back on the team. New York magazine writer Hugo Lindgren has the tick-tock: See Article

Archive