This is borrowed from Bartcop:
Why do we keep hearing "51% is not a mandate" from the media talking heads?
According to the Brookings Institute, approximately 120,300,000 voted for a presidential candidate on 02 November, 2004, a 59.0% turnout of 203,898,000 eligible voters in a US population of 293,027,571 (July 2004 est. by the CIA).
Of that, 50.9% of ballots (according to the CIA) were attributed to Bush. That is, IF the election results were legitimate; i.e. not tampered with - but, let's leave that aside for the moment, ignore the hundreds of "irregularities," and assume for the sake of argument that the election was 100% legitimate.
So, we've got 30% of eligible voters endorsing the GOP.
Of those, a Gallup poll indicated that only 6% of these voters chose Bush due to his "agendas/ideas/platforms/goals." The balance chose him due to some level of brand loyalty to the GOP, or perceived personal qualities attributed to Bush.
That means 6% of 30% - 1.80% of the electorate - actually supported Bush's platform. No information is available regarding the number of Bush voters who understand and/or can explain any such alleged platform.
So, that's the real number of people who support the Bush agenda. Slightly less than one out of every fifty eligible voters.
1.80% is not a "mandate."
But, it gets better.
Consider that 1.80% represents approximately 2,165,400 actual votes, in a US population of 293,027,571.
That means 0.74% of America voted to endorse the Bush agenda. Three quarters of one percent is not a "mandate."