>>>I'm only pushing that as it relates to the question of whether he has a mandate, not the results.
>
>"Mandate" has a definition. It's sophistry (and junk science) to invent a new definition to promote a discredited narrative.
>

I'm not inventing a new definition. There's a long-standing idea in the US that a president or governor who has a convincing win has a mandate for his or her policies while one who wins a close election does not.

Tamar