by Rev. Joda Collins.
When the world "mandate" is used at the end of a political race as it applies to the winner, that word signifies a strong desire from the voters to boldly enact the major expressed policies of the winner rather than advance those policies in a timid, fearful, lethargic and/or overly-cautious manner.
Donald Trump, 290 (projected) electoral points. Hillary Clinton, 248 (projected) electoral points. Those figures do not represent a mandate because many of those electoral points were determined by a razor thin margin. The House and Senate are slightly weighted in the favor of Republicans. Some of the Republican wins were by a razor thin margin and some Republican seats were lost. The outcome of the congressional (House and Senate) race is not a sign of a mandate.
All of the votes are not yet counted. When all of the votes are counted, the (official) popular vote winner is expected to win by less than 1%. A 1% difference, even if it is favor of Donald Trump is not a mandate.
However, when voter fraud is considered (about 13% in the voter registration process and four to six percent in the actual voting) assuming the recorded (official and inaccurate) popular vote is evenly split, that puts the actual (honest) popular vote at 17% to 19% in favor of Donald Trump and the elected Republican congressional winners. That is a clear mandate. In addition, when that percentage is applied to the congressional Republicans that lost by a small margin that means the House and the Senate should be overwhelmingly Republican in representation. These things combine to constitute a clear mandate of epic proportion.
Rev. Joda Collins
I make no claim that anyone else agrees with me.