Every electoral winner has claimed a mandate, no matter how narrow his or her margin. So it shouldn’t shock anyone when Hillary Clinton — if she wins in November, as I expect — claims that her election is proof Americans back her agenda and demands that Congress enact it quickly.
Of course, the magnitude of her mandate surely depends not only on the margin of her potential victory but also on the outcome of House and Senate races across the country. The bigger – and more far-reaching – the Democratic sweep, the easier it will be for Clinton and those in her party to claim a national mandate for their to-do list.
But in at least one very important way, a Clinton mandate won’t be nearly as overwhelming as her supporters will claim. Unlike Ronald Reagan or even Barack Obama, Clinton will not win the White House because of her policy agenda or the public’s confidence in her. She’ll win it because of the ineptness and vulgarity of her general election opponent, Donald Trump.
Not being Trump is a wise electoral strategy for the Democratic nominee, but it doesn’t create a rationale for a post-election Clinton presidential agenda.
Democrats will counter that Clinton talked a great deal about inequality, taxes, women’s rights, infrastructure, the environment and foreign policy during her campaign. And they will be correct. But the former secretary of state is not going to win the White House because of those positions or her promises to push for legislation.
The 2016 race is not a referendum on Clinton or her agenda (though against a different opponent it could have been.). Nor is it a choice between two different views of the role of government, since it is unclear that Trump’s views on the role of government are fundamentally different from Clinton’s. It is a referendum on Donald Trump – nothing more and nothing less.
Let me be very clear: I am not arguing that if Clinton is elected, will be paralyzed politically from her first day of her presidency or that she should not get a 6- to 12-month honeymoon the way other first-term presidents have.
She will get that honeymoon, as she should. Every new president enters the White House with some degree of goodwill from most of the country, even if the election was tight and even if the winner of the popular vote lost the election. So Clinton can expect a window to build momentum for a major legislative proposal or two.
Elections have consequences, as President Obama and many others have said over the years. Voters have at least a general idea about Clinton’s values, political principles and policy priorities, and if she wins the presidency they ought to expect that she will govern consistent with them.
Moreover, some of the things she can and will do as president flow from executive power, such as the right to nominate Supreme Court justices and her authority as commander-in-chief.
But neither journalists nor Republicans should fall into the trap of believing that Clinton won because a majority of voters agreed with her agenda or because they had great confidence in her character and integrity. And that limits some of the mandate that she is likely to claim. (Of course, winning fewer votes than his opponent did not affect how George W. Bush saw his mandate after his 2000 squeaker.)
Part of Clinton’s goal over the next two months ought to be to create the impression that her agenda is her appeal. Only then could she credibly make the argument that the election was an ideological referendum that would fuel her presidential agenda.
With Republicans already starting to run “don’t give Hillary Clinton a blank check” campaigns, they could put themselves into a position to answer Democrats’ mandate argument with a mandate argument of their own.
After all, if the GOP can maintain control of at least the House, which isn’t guaranteed but continues to be likely, Ryan will be able to argue that “the People’s House” represents the national will just as much as the president does.
Republicans can’t yet know exactly when and how vociferously they will oppose a Clinton administration. That depends on what Clinton proposes. Will she begin her administration by reaching out to Republicans (assuming that they control at least one chamber of Congress), or will she opt to satisfy the demands of her party’s vocal progressive wing?
For now, only two things seem guaranteed. First, Clinton would come out of the gate very fast, understanding that her political honeymoon is likely to be brief. And second, no Republican is likely to say that denying Clinton a second term is the top item on the GOP’s agenda.
Stuart Rothenberg writes about the politics of the presidential and congressional races.
