More Reason to Question the Mandate

MyDD points out that more votes were cast for Democratic than Republican Senate candidates, despite the Republican control of the Senate:

As difficult as it may be to believe, in the one-hundred Senate elections that have involved the one-hundred Senators who will serve next year, Democrats actually received more votes than Republicans:

Total Two-Party Votes: 189,334,976 (unofficial)
Democratic Candidates: 94,965,901 (50.16% of the two-party vote)
Republican Candidates: 94,369,075 (49.84% of the two-party vote)

These totals do not include the 2000 Senate elections in Georgia and Missouri, since there have been more recent Senate elections for the seats that were contested that year. Also, Jim Jeffords ran as a Republican in 2000, and thus his votes are counted in the Republican column. I did not total the third-party votes in these one-hundred races. Also, these results are unofficial, and I took them from CNN 2004 Senate Returns, CNN 2002 Senate Returns, and CNN 2000 Senate Returns.

So, Democrats won the Senate popular vote, but are facing a 55-45 minority. Peachy.

This is a fact Democrats should use as a justification to filibuster pretty much everything. They have the will of the people at their backs. It is time they spend their political capital to block the Republican agenda.

Besides, as Andrew Sullivan points out, mandate sounds like an awfully gay term for the GOP to be using.