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

Adam Nagourney: "The Democratic Party can clearly claim a mandate."

Clay Waters

November 9, 2006 - 2:00pm

Reporter Adam Nagourney, on audio clip [1], 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.

Publication: Articles [2]

Division: TimesWatch [3]

Tags: TimesWatch.org [4], TimesWatch [5], NYTimes [6], NewYorkTimes [7], congress [8], 1994 [9], Mandate [10], AdamNagourney [11], Campaign2006 [12], congre [13]

Links:
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/washington/20061108_ELECTION_FEATURE/blocker.html
[2] http://archive2.mrc.org/taxonomy/term/10
[3] http://archive2.mrc.org/division/timeswatch
[4] http://archive2.mrc.org/tags/timeswatchorg
[5] http://archive2.mrc.org/tags/timeswatch
[6] http://archive2.mrc.org/tags/nytimes
[7] http://archive2.mrc.org/tags/newyorktimes
[8] http://archive2.mrc.org/tags/congress
[9] http://archive2.mrc.org/tags/1994
[10] http://archive2.mrc.org/tags/mandate
[11] http://archive2.mrc.org/tags/adamnagourney
[12] http://archive2.mrc.org/tags/campaign2006
[13] http://archive2.mrc.org/tags/congre
[14] http://www.tellthetruth2012.org