The 34-count convicted felon and sexual assaulter and now dictator has no mandate. 

The convicted felon defeated Kamala Harris by less than 1.5 percentage points and that a majority of US voters voted for someone other than him.  But unfortunately, that sandpaper abrasive blond bitch with a chip on both shoulders — I can’t stand her — who serves as white house spokesliar and chief propagandist regurgitates the chronic lie that the convicted felon won the election “overwhelmingly.”  Her thinking seems to be that if she repeats this lie enough times, the masses will believe it.  Why do Republicans have the most scum of the Earth, nasty and abrasive spokesliars?

The following from Bradblog (he’s a reliable and credible source of information):

Quote:  In the early morning hours following the November 5th Election (2024), Donald Trump declared he had won an “unprecedented and powerful mandate.” Members of his transition team subsequently claimed a “MAGA Mandate” and “historic mandate for his agenda.” But, Trumpian hyperbole aside, did he actually win any such thing?

Now that all states have certified their results and officially declared which slate of Electors will vote in the Electoral College in each state capital on December 17 — (remember, I told you today was the “Certificate of Ascertainment of Appointment of Electors” Day!) — the final results, with all votes said to be tallied, reveal that Trump defeated Kamala Harris by less than 1.5 percentage points and that a majority of Americans voted for someone other than him.

That doesn’t seem particularly “unprecedented” or “powerful”, much less a “mandate”.

But what is a mandate anyway? Today, we’re joined by JULIA R. AZARI, Professor of Political Science at Marquette University, who happens to have written a book on that very topic, called Delivering the People’s Message: The Changing Politics of the Presidential Mandate.

As Azari warned in a short article posted the day after this year’s election, when Trump’s margin over Harris appeared to be far larger than it actually turned out to be, “Be wary of anyone claiming an election mandate,” given that “talking about mandates flattens public opinion, rather than lifting it up” and “elevates the president above the Constitution and gives him a popular power he was never meant to have.” As she explains today, that goes for Republicans and Democrats alike.

“I’ve been pretty critical of the way that Presidents of both major parties have used that concept,” she tells me. “Although I would also note that, in contemporary times, Republicans have been a lot more focused and ideological in their mandate claiming.”

Azari argues, essentially, that voters vote for and against many different things in an election, and there is no clear way to establish that they have voted for any one particular policy, much less in an election with one of the narrowest margins in modern history and where the winner of the Electoral College actually received a minority of the popular vote.

When any President-elect declares themselves to be the winner of a mandate — or when the media echo that claim — “this gives the President a little bit of extra power, at least in their own minds, that they feel justified in taking,” Azari says, “and it enhances that power over that of Congress, rather than thinking of Congress as a co-equal branch.”

She also notes: “When that power is in the hands of somebody who isn’t really keen on Constitutional constraints, we may see some serious consequences.”

We’ve got much to discuss with Azari on all of those points today. But what about Presidents who actually do win a majority of the popular vote? Do they have justification to claim a governing mandate? How should media report on such claims no matter who makes them? And how have claims of mandates been expanding and changing over the years going all the way back to the first such President to do so, Andrew Jackson in 1832? Please tune in for all of that history, both past and present, and much more on today’s BradCast!… [Source and Source].

I’m not convinced the election was legitimate because as Bradblog also reported at a later date, several groups of election experts asked Harris to demand a hand recount in the swing states because they saw problems in those states and voting “anomalies.”  Unfortunately, Harris ignored the election experts and went on holiday to Hawaii instead.