And that’s before taking into account that presidential elections are heavily skewed toward consrvatives to begin with because of (a) the disproportionate representation of non-urban (i.e., red) states in the Electoral College, and (b) GOP vote suppression. In fact, Obama’s popular support — and therefore mandate — is much greater than either the PV or EV make it appear.

but not what I’d call a mandate.

Well, there’s the rub. What’s a mandate? There is no objective definition. It’s a political maneuver…the mandate is a win you can leverage into forcing your opponents to surrender further power or policy concessions.

A mandate happens when you can convince people that you have a mandate.

The laws of politics are sometimes stranger than those of quantum mechanics.

In more direct answer to your question, I think most liberals would opt for a national popular vote. One citizen, one vote. Democracy.

Aren’t you people beiong just as hyppcritical as the Republicans?

I believe that would require breaking several laws of physics and thermodynamics. Just as one cannot exceed ‘c’, or achieve perfect efficiency, no one can be more hypocritical than a modern Republican.

a) Spelling matters. You wrote “Why is Obama suing the electoral vote…” when (I hope) you meant to say “using“. :-)

b) We elect Presidents via electoral votes, not the popular vote (unfortunately). Only the electoral vote totals mean anything with respect to a “mandate”.

c) Not that either Bush or Obama said the word “mandate” in a post-election speech. Bush said he’d earned “political capital” in 2004 (not 2000). Not surprisingly, Obama’s statement was much more conciliatory:

Now, already, I’ve put forward a detailed plan that allows us to make these investments while reducing our deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade. I want to be clear — I’m not wedded to every detail of my plan. I’m open to compromise. I’m open to new ideas. I’m committed to solving our fiscal challenges. But I refuse to accept any approach that isn’t balanced. I am not going to ask students and seniors and middle-class families to pay down the entire deficit while people like me, making over $250,000, aren’t asked to pay a dime more in taxes. I’m not going to do that.

d) In both of his elections, Barack Obama earned far more electoral votes (365, 332) than did George W. Bush (271, 286). He has vastly more reason to declare a mandate (which he didn’t do) than Dubya.

e) Your comment is completely off-topic. I’d delete it if I hadn’t decided to feed the troll respond.

(1) Take out pistol. (2) Extend foot. (3) Shoot.

Let’s fast forward now to 2012. I didn’t vote for either Obama or Romney, so I have no particular opinion on the 2012 presidential outcome. However, I noticed that Obama is saying he has a “mandate” from the populace due to the outcome of the electoral votes, which look impressive, to be sure. As I recall, Obama got about 52% of the popular to Romney’s 48%, a clear win, but not what I’d call a mandate. Why is Obama suing the electoral vote to declare a mandate in the 2012 election when so many of you progressives wanted to junk the electoral college after teh 2000 election? Aren’t you people beiong just as hyppcritical as the Republicans?

She’s no Harris, Blackwell, or Husted. Nor, unfortunately, is she a Deb Bowen.