Right-wing talking point on De Blasio's win

[markpkessinger]

Reading comments to various articles at The New York Times and Huffington Post to articles about Bill De Blasio's nearly 50% margin of victory, I've repeatedly encountered the same talking point (I'm guessing it comes from Fox). They are trying to downplay the significance of that margin by pointing to the very low turnout, saying that negates any talk of a 'mandate.' While the turnout was appallingly low (something like 20% of the electorate), the low turnout does not negate De Blasio's win for this simple reason: the results of the election are totally consistent with the pre-election polls, which were representative of the electorate as a whole (or at least of likely voters), not just of the 20% who turned out to vote. As I pointed out to some of those commenters, a likelier explanation for the low voter turnout is simply that many voters, having seen the polling predicting an easy win for De Blasio, simply didn't feel as if it would matter all that much if they themselves didn't vote.

[Arcanetrance]

1. 100% of the electorate could turn out and the democratic candidates could get 60% of the vote

The Republicans would still find a way to discount it

[krispos42]

2. Bush had a -0.5% victory, yet somehow had a mandate.

Go figure.

[markpkessinger]

3. Funny how that works! n/t

[Heather MC]

4. Oh what you really wanted your guy to be beaten by an even greater number of voters

These people are so stupid. The other guy was going to get his butt kicked wether it was 20% or 805 turn out.

Also in VA Terry got 20% turn of the Black Vote the same precentage as President Obama in 2012. That's being considered a victory for Terry that he was able to maintain Presidental levels of the Black vote in an Off year election

But most importantly
LET THEM TALK, DeBlasio WON they can't change that!!!!!