Connect with us

Politics

As Trump’s lead in popular vote shrinks, does he really have a 'mandate'?

Published

on

As Trump’s lead in popular vote shrinks, does he really have a 'mandate'?

In his victory speech on Nov. 6, President-elect Donald Trump claimed Americans had given him an “unprecedented and powerful mandate.”

It’s a message his transition team has echoed in the last three weeks, referring to his “MAGA Mandate” and a “historic mandate for his agenda.”

But given that Trump’s lead in the popular vote has dwindled as more votes have been counted in California and other states that lean blue, there is fierce disagreement over whether most Americans really endorse his plans to overhaul government and implement sweeping change.

The latest tally from the Cook Political Report shows Trump winning 49.83% of the popular vote, with a margin of 1.55% over Vice President Kamala Harris.

If there ever was a mandate, this isn’t it.

— Hans Noel, Georgetown University

Advertisement

The president-elect’s share of the popular vote now falls in the bottom half for American presidents — far below that of Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson, who won 61.1% of the popular vote in 1964, defeating Republican Sen. Barry Goldwater by nearly 23 percentage points.

In the last 75 years, only three presidents — John F. Kennedy in 1960, Richard Nixon in 1968 and George W. Bush in 2000 — had popular-vote margins smaller than Trump’s current lead.

“If there ever was a mandate, this isn’t it,” said Hans Noel, associate professor of government at Georgetown University.

Advertisement

Trump’s commanding electoral college victory of 312 votes to Harris’ 226 is clear. And unlike in 2016, when he beat former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, he won the popular vote and the needed support in the electoral college.

The question is whether Trump can garner significant public support to push through his more contentious administration picks and the most radical elements of his policy agenda, such as bringing in the military to enforce mass deportations.

Democrats say that the results fall short of demonstrating majority public support for Trump and that the numbers do not give him a mandate to deviate from precedent, such as naming Cabinet members without Senate confirmation.

“There’s no mandate here,” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said last week on CNN, noting Trump had suggested using “recess appointments” to get around Senate hearings and votes for his nominees. “What there certainly should not be is a blank check to appoint a chaos Cabinet.”

GOP strategist Lanhee Chen, a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution who ran for California controller in 2022, rejects such framing by Democrats. He argues that Trump’s victory was “quite resounding,” in large part because it defied expectations.

Advertisement

In an election that almost all political pundits expected would be close and protracted, he reversed Democrats’ 2020 gains, won all seven battleground states and even made inroads with voters in blue states such as California. Republicans also will take control of the Senate and retain their control of the House.

“Look, if the popular vote ends up having him at 49.6% versus 50.1%, do I think it’s a meaningful difference?” Chen said. “No, I don’t.”

Scholars of American politics have long been skeptical of the idea of a presidential mandate.

The first president to articulate such a concept was Andrew Jackson, the nation’s seventh president, who viewed his 1832 reelection — in which he won 54.2% of the popular vote — as a mandate to destroy the Second Bank of the United States and expand his political authority. In arguing he had the mandate of the people, Jackson deviated from the approach of previous presidents in refusing to defer to Congress on policy.

In “Myth of the Presidential Mandate,” Robert A. Dahl, a professor of political science at Yale University, argued the presidential mandate was “harmful to American public life” because it “elevates the president to an exalted position in our constitutional system at the expense of Congress.”

Advertisement

Even if we accept the premise of a mandate, there is little consensus on when a candidate has achieved it.

“How do we know what voters were thinking as they cast ballots?” Julia R. Azari, an assistant professor of political science at Marquette University, wrote in a recent essay. “Are some elections mandates and others not? If so, how do we know? What’s the popular vote cutoff — is it a majority or more? Who decides?”

In “Delivering the People’s Message: The Changing Politics of the Presidential Mandate,” she argues that it’s politicians in weak positions who typically invoke mandates. This century, she wrote, presidents have cited mandates with increasing frequency as a result of the declining status of the presidency and growing national polarization.

That’s particularly true of Trump, who has long reveled in hyperbole.

In 2016, he bragged that he’d won in a “massive landslide victory,” even though his electoral college win of 304 to Clinton’s 227 was not particularly dramatic by historic standards and he lost the popular vote by 2 percentage points.

Advertisement

Four years later, he refused to accept he lost the electoral college and the popular vote to Joe Biden, falsely claiming he was the victim of voter fraud.

When Trump speaks of his supposed mandate, he is not an outlier, but is drawing from bipartisan history.

In the last four decades, no president has won the popular vote by double digits, but politicians including George W. Bush and Barack Obama have increasingly tried to justify their agendas by invoking public support.

When Democrat Bill Clinton defeated Republican President George H.W. Bush and Ross Perot, an independent, in 1992, his failure to win a majority of votes did not stop his running mate, Al Gore, from declaring they had a “mandate for change.” Five days after Clinton was inaugurated, he announced he was creating a task force to devise a sweeping plan to provide universal healthcare.

“In my lifetime, at least,” Clinton told reporters, “there has never been so much consensus that something has to be done.” The effort ultimately failed for lack of political support.

Advertisement

The fake news is trying to minimize President Trump’s massive and historic victory to try to delegitimize his mandate.

— Karoline Leavitt, incoming White House press secretary

Four years ago, Biden also declared a “mandate for action.”

And while Biden prevailed in the electoral college 306 to 232, his share of the popular vote was 51.3%, hardly a dominant performance.

Advertisement

As mainstream news outlets have reported on Trump’s shrinking popular margin, Karoline Leavitt, Trump’s incoming White House press secretary, has lashed out at the media.

“New Fake News Narrative Alert!” Leavitt posted on X, adding a red warning light emoji. “The fake news is trying to minimize President Trump’s massive and historic victory to try to delegitimize his mandate.”

Trump’s victory is not by any objective measure “massive or historic.” But Republicans say that news outlets have subjected him to a different standard than they apply to Democratic presidents.

After Clinton won in 1992 after 12 years of GOP presidents, some Republicans note, Time magazine put his face on its cover with the headline “Mandate for Change.”

Clinton won just 43% of the popular vote, one of the lowest shares in U.S. history.

Advertisement

Presidents sometimes bolster their claims of a mandate by cherry-picking polling results.

On Sunday, Trump’s transition team highlighted new polling from CBS News, claiming it showed “overwhelming support” for his “transition and agenda.”

But even though the poll indicated that 59% of Americans approved of Trump’s handling of the presidential transition, it did not show overwhelming or even majority support for many parts of his agenda.

For example, while Trump won strong backing for his broad immigration plan, with 57% supporting a “national program to find and deport all immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally,” the poll showed far less support — 40% — for his plan to use the military to carry out deportations.

Whatever the popular vote, the Hoover Institution’s Chen argues, Trump is in a strong position because he can count on GOP majorities in both houses of Congress.

Advertisement

“He’s going to be able to do, from a legislative perspective, largely what he wants to do,” Chen said.

But several GOP senators have already emphasized the importance of requiring FBI background checks for Trump’s more contentious nominees.

It also appears he lacks public support for pushing through his picks without Senate approval. More than three-quarters of respondents, according to the CBS poll, believe the Senate should vote on Trump’s appointments.

Noel, the Georgetown professor, said that Trump’s rhetorical strategy aside, the president-elect might have to move past the “‘I won, so everybody get out of my way’ kind of politics” and work behind the scenes to seek common ground with moderate Republicans and maybe even some Democrats.

“In the past, people have made strong claims about mandates, but then they’ve coupled that with more cautious policymaking,” Noel said. “If Trump doesn’t do that — if he acts like he believes his own story — then we’re in a different, more Trumpian kind of place.”

Advertisement

Politics

Commentary: How do you stand up to lies and brutality? Maybe you blow a whistle, for starters

Published

on

Commentary: How do you stand up to lies and brutality? Maybe you blow a whistle, for starters

Frank Clem, a pickleball pal of mine, recently put out the word that he was collecting whistles to deliver to the front lines of anti-ICE demonstrations in downtown Los Angeles, Highland Park, Pasadena and other locations.

I was out of the country at the time, but shortly after I returned, I thought about Clem when Minneapolis nurse Alex Pretti was shot dead by ICE agents at a protest in Minnesota. It wasn’t long before the Trump administration’s top officials took turns blaming the victim, lying about the circumstances and calling Pretti an assassin.

Pretti’s distraught parents responded with this:

“The sickening lies told about our son by the administration are reprehensible and disgusting.”

And yet entirely unsurprising, given the state of disinformation and the blatant corruption of legal and moral codes of conduct under Trump, who just the other day was blowing gas yet again about the 2020 election being stolen.

Advertisement

How do you stand up to a president who hypocritically pardons drug kingpins and other rabble, including the barbarians who beat up cops and ransacked the Capitol, even as he invades cities to terrorize and abduct working people?

Maybe you blow a whistle, for starters.

I know, it’s a small gesture. But Clem and others are choosing sides, standing up for their communities, and refusing to remain silent as it becomes clear that the ICE agenda is less about law and order and more about the politics of scapegoating.

I came upon a story on Fox11 about a broader whistle brigade in Los Angeles. Musician Hector Flores, of Las Cafeteras, said he had been distributing free whistles to coffee shops because “we’ve got to protect one another,” and a whistle can sound the alarm that ICE agents are on the prowl.

If Trump were honest about rounding up violent criminals, we wouldn’t need this kind of resistance. But arrests of immigrants with no criminal records are increasing, and the majority of them are here to work and support their families. And U.S. employers have embraced and relied on them as essential contributors to the economy.

Advertisement

When I couldn’t immediately get hold of Flores, I called the owner of Cafe de Leche, the Highland Park coffee shop he had delivered whistles to. Matt Schodorf told me he was fresh out of whistles, and I thought of Clem, who agreed to meet me at Cafe de Leche with a special delivery.

Clem, an actor, is someone you want on your pickleball team because he comes to play and he covers a lot of ground. You might have seen him in theater productions, on TV shows or in movies, and you couldn’t possibly not have seen him as the emu farmer in a Liberty Mutual commercial.

Clem walked past a window sign that says “I Like My Coffee Without ICE” and took a seat at Cafe de Leche. He was wearing an L.A. ballcap and carrying a shopping bag containing hundreds of whistles.

A sign reading “I like my coffee without ICE” is posted in the window of Cafe de Leche in Highland Park. Cafe owners Matt and Anya Schodorf have been giving away whistles to customers to be used for ICE sightings and at demonstrations.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

Black whistles. Red whistles. Whistles with strings and whistles with hooks to clip onto key chains.

Enough for a symphony.

“It’s 18, 20 bucks for, like, a hundred whistles,” Clem said, displaying a sandwich-size baggie of 100 multicolored whistles in the shape of small pencils.

Clem has been buying them in bulk on the internet, accepting donated whistles from friends, and making his with a 3D printer. He said he had already given away more than 1,500 the last few weeks at rallies and demonstrations.

Advertisement

People smile, Clem said, “when they see the possibilities,” when they join the chorus and the cause, and rather than retreat in silence, make themselves heard. Stiff opposition to ICE atrocities in Minneapolis has led to the withdrawal of hundreds of agents, so maybe a corner is being turned.

“We’re blowing $20 on coffee, right?” Clem said. “But here’s $20 you can spend on something and really feel like you’re getting some kind of return on it. … Throw me 100 whistles, and we’ll get them into the hands of people that might make a difference.”

Schodorf joined us with a cleaned-out whistle rack that said “Free Ice Alarms” on it, and said he’d be glad to fill the rack with Clem’s contributions. Before long, it was loaded up with 100 whistles and placed on the front counter.

When I asked Schodorf about joining ranks with the whistle brigade, he mentioned his wife, Cafe de Leche co-owner Anya Schodorf.

“She grew up here, but she was born in Nicaragua,” he said, and it’s hard to not to get involved when “they’re just profiling people right off the streets. I mean, nobody feels safe … and they’re charging the brown people, right? My wife would identify as that, and she’s afraid to go out of the house.”

Advertisement

Schodorf said they’ve been scrambling to keep the business running after they lost their Cafe de Leche restaurant in the fire that tore through Altadena a year ago. A photo of them in the ruins of their other shop hung on the wall, along with other photos of the destruction in Altadena.

“I don’t know what to do,” Schodorf said about the ICE tactics in Highland Park and beyond, “but I feel like we want to raise the voices of people.”

His wife entered the shop and greeted friends and customers before joining us. She has been a U.S. citizen for decades, and yet she feels as though the color of her skin makes her a suspect.

Anya and Matt Schodorf, owners of Cafe de Leche in Highland Park, talk about their fears about ICE in the community.

Anya and Matt Schodorf, owners of Cafe de Leche in Highland Park, talk about their fears about ICE in the community.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

“You can scream from the top of your lungs that you’re a citizen, and they don’t care,” Anya said. “I honestly can’t think straight … and it’s really hard for me to concentrate.”

Anya said she walks and sometimes runs on Arroyo trails but has begun taking extra precautions, like calling her husband and leaving the line open. She went to a park in Pasadena recently and got worried after entering a restroom.

“I heard … a commotion outside and I got nervous,” Anya said. “And then I came out and saw ICE people kind of harassing the workers, like city workers. They’re city landscapers, and I panicked. I went back into the bathroom, like, what do I do? And why should I be panicky? I’m a citizen.”

Her kids are just as concerned about her as she is.

“It’s my son I really worry about,” Anya said. “He says, ‘Make sure you have your passport.’ Yeah, my kids. They’re really worried. And my son is like, please be careful. … It’s that additional stress that they don’t need — that they have to worry about me.”

Advertisement

The Schodorfs said ICE agents recently grabbed a neighborhood fixture — a guy who sells tamales.

“They’re just picking people off, right and left,” Matt said.

“He’s like 72,” Anya said.

The first whistles delivered by Hector Flores were gone before long.

“It was just a matter of hours,” Matt said. “I think it’s twofold. It’s people who think they might need it just for themselves, but it’s people who feel like they might need it for other people. … It’s been wildly popular.”

Advertisement

“We’re a good country,” Anya said. “But we’re falling into the hands of people that are cruel and they don’t really care about anyone but themselves, and they are enriching themselves.”

Clem said that at rallies, he’s making sure to offer whistles to vendors.

“People selling hot dogs and churros,” he said. “They’re asking how many they can take for their families and friends, right? I want them to take as many as they can. I’ve got 1,500 of these things sitting on my dining room table.”

Clem said he was never really a protester, but “anyone who has eyes can see” the alarming level of corruption coming out of the White House.

“My dad fought in the Battle of the Bulge, right?” Clem said. “My dad fought Nazis and fascists in World War II, and he was always warning me growing up that it could happen here. So now, the least I can do is pass out whistles.”

Advertisement

When Clem’s whistles were on display at the counter, one of the first customers was Hana McElroy. She ordered a coffee and took a whistle.

“I’m a nanny, and I pick up a couple of kids from their preschool and I know and love so many kids with parents in pretty tenuous situations,” said McElroy, who is Irish American. “It’s just been a scary time to be an Angeleno.”

Hana McElroy, right, picks up a free whistle while ordering a cup of coffee from Soleil Hernando at Cafe de Leche.

Hana McElroy, right, picks up a free whistle while ordering a cup of coffee from Soleil Hernando at Cafe de Leche.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

McElroy said she knows some of the Latina nannies who take their charges to the little park across the street from Cafe de Leche, and she worries about them too.

Advertisement

McElroy showed me a whistle on her key chain but said it was broken. Soleil Hernando, a barista, told her after she’d taken one of Clem’s whistles that they were free, and she should take as many as she wanted.

McElroy grabbed another.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

White House says murder rate plummeted to lowest level since 1900 under Trump administration

Published

on

White House says murder rate plummeted to lowest level since 1900 under Trump administration

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said murders in major U.S. cities plunged to their lowest level since at least 1900 as federal arrests, gang takedowns and deportations surged under President Donald Trump’s promise to “restore law and order.”

Speaking to reporters at Thursday’s briefing, Leavitt said newly released data shows Trump is “delivering overwhelmingly on his promise.”

“A study from the Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ) shows that the murder rate across America’s largest cities plummeted in 2025 to its lowest level since at least 1900,” she said. “Let me repeat to put this in perspective, this marks the largest single-year drop in murders in recorded history.”

“This dramatic decline is what happens when a president secures the border, fully mobilizes federal law enforcement to arrest violent criminals and aggressively deport the worst of the worst illegal aliens from our country,” she added.

Advertisement

LEAVITT SAYS TRUMP WILL NOT ‘WAVER’ ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION CRACKDOWN DESPITE DEMOCRATIC BACKLASH

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt says murders plunged to historic lows as Trump ramped up arrests, deportations and gang crackdowns, citing new crime data. (Getty Images)

According to the CCJ’s report, nationwide homicide data released later this year could show killings in 2025 falling to roughly 4.0 per 100,000 residents – the lowest rate ever recorded in law enforcement or public health data dating back to 1900 and the largest single-year percentage drop on record.

The report found homicides fell 21% from 2024 to 2025 in the 35 cities that reported data, amounting to 922 fewer killings. Thirty-one of those cities saw declines, with Denver, Washington, D.C., and Omaha, Nebraska, each posting drops of around 40%.

Other major crimes also fell sharply in the cities studied. 

Advertisement

TRUMP SAYS CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIENS ‘MAKE HELLS ANGELS LOOK LIKE THE SWEETEST PEOPLE ON EARTH’

The White House says murders plunged to historic lows as Trump ramped up arrests, deportations and gang crackdowns, citing new crime data. (Alex Brandon/The Associated Press)

Robbery declined 23%, carjackings dropped 43% in cities that reported that data, aggravated assaults fell 9%, and motor vehicle theft decreased 27%.

CCJ cautioned that its findings are based on a limited group of cities and preliminary police data that could change, and said the report documents crime trends rather than proving that any single policy caused the declines.

“The numbers don’t lie,” Leavitt said. “Under President Trump in 2025, the FBI increased violent crime arrests by 100% compared to the prior year. The FBI also conducted more than 67,000 arrests from Inauguration Day 2025 to Jan. 20, 2026, which is 197% more arrests than the same period previously.”

Advertisement

TRUMP SAYS IMMIGRATION CRACKDOWN NEEDS ‘SOFTER TOUCH’ WITH ‘TOUGH’ STANCE AFTER DEADLY MINNEAPOLIS SHOOTINGS

She also highlighted a drop in crime in Washington, D.C., saying as of last week, homicides were down 62% and motor vehicle theft down 53%.

Leavitt argued that the drop in crime is the direct result of Trump’s leadership and willingness to empower law enforcement, rejecting media skepticism and saying rising violence under Democratic leadership was the product of deliberate policy choices.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“It’s a choice to put violent criminals ahead of innocent Americans, a choice to force us all to live in fear because of soft on crime, liberal politicians, prosecutors and judges who lack the basic willingness to do their jobs and put dangerous people behind bars,” Leavitt said.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Senate is not ‘anywhere close’ to a funding deal as ICE fight intensifies

Published

on

Senate is not ‘anywhere close’ to a funding deal as ICE fight intensifies

Senate Republican Leader John Thune warned Thursday that Congress is not close to an agreement to fund the Department of Homeland Security, signaling that another short-term extension may be the only way to avoid a shutdown as Democrats demand “nonnegotiable” ICE reforms ahead of the Feb. 13 deadline.

The Republicans are increasingly looking to punt the full funding package a second time if negotiations collapse. Speaking on the Senate floor Thursday, Thune said that such a move would not include any reforms lawmakers had previously negotiated, including body cameras for immigration agents.

“As of right now, we aren’t anywhere close to having any sort of an agreement that would enable us to fund the Department of Homeland Security,” he said. “If [Democrats] are coming to the table demanding a blank check or refusing to consider any measures but their own, they’re likely to end up with nothing.”

He spoke hours after House and Senate Democrats announced they were aligned behind a list of 10 demands they say must be passed before approving the Homeland Security funding package through September.

Democrats are pressing for statutory limits on immigration raids, new judicial warrant requirements, body-worn cameras, identification rules for agents and enhanced oversight of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection — reforms they say are necessary to rein in what House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) called an agency “out of control.”

Advertisement

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Democrats are planning to propose the legislation as soon as possible.

“We want our Republican colleagues to finally get serious about this, because this is turning America inside out in a way we haven’t seen in a very long time,” Schumer said.

The coordinated demands signal unity among House and Senate Democrats after a rocky week on Capitol Hill. In a slim vote, 21 House Democrats joined Republicans on Tuesday to end a partial government shutdown by temporarily extending Homeland Security funding through Feb. 13.

The two-week stopgap, called a “continuing resolution,” was meant to leave time for the two parties to debate how to rein in ICE after the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis.

But that truce has quickly unraveled. Republican leaders have little appetite for the full slate of reforms. Some have indicated openness to narrower changes, such as expanding body camera programs and training, but reject mask bans and the removal of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

Advertisement

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has already ruled out warrant requirements, which would limit immigration agents from entering private property without a court order. In remarks to reporters Wednesday, he also hinted at some interest in attaching voter ID and anti-sanctuary city policies to negotiations.

“It will be part of the discussion over the next couple of weeks, and we’ll see how that shakes out. But I suspect that some of the changes — the procedural modifications with ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement — will be codified,” he said.

Johnson was confident the two sides could make a deal without further delays, adding that negotiations are largely between “the White House, Schumer and Senate Democrats.”

President Trump has privately supported the short-term extension to cool tensions while publicly defending immigration agents and expressing skepticism toward Democrats’ reform push, according to House leadership.

White House border policy advisor Tom Homan also announced a drawdown of 700 federal agents from Minneapolis this week as what officials framed as a goodwill gesture amid negotiations.

Advertisement

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said Thursday that the administration is willing to consider some of the demands Democrats have made, but said some of their requests are not “grounded in any common sense and they are nonstarters for this administration.”

Leavitt did not specify which reforms the administration was willing to consider. She did, however, say the president is committed to keeping the government open and supporting “immigration enforcement efforts in this country.”

The White House did not respond when asked if the president would support a short-term spending measure should negotiations stall.

Republicans continue to warn that a failure to reach a deal would jeopardize disaster response funding, airport security operations, maritime patrols, and increased security assistance for major national events, including the upcoming World Cup in Los Angeles.

“If we don’t do it by the middle of next week, we should consider a continuing resolution for the rest of the year and just put this all behind us,” said Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), chair of the House Freedom Caucus.

Advertisement

Democrats, however, remain adamant that verbal assurances are no longer enough.

“These are just some of the commonsense proposals that the American people clearly would like to see in terms of the dramatic changes that are needed at the Department of Homeland Security before there is a full-year appropriations bill,” Jeffries said.

Times staff writer Ana Ceballos in Washington contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending