Trump says he’ll accept election results—if he wins

October 20, 2016 • 1:15 pm

My CNN feed tells me that Trump has proven himself dumber than I thought by effectively mocking the democratic process:

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump says that he will accept the results of the general election next month — if he wins. [JAC: watch the video at the site to see some complete insanity.]

“I would like to promise and pledge to all of my voters and supporters and to all of the people of the United States that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election,” Trump told supporters at a rally in Delaware, Ohio, his first comment since the final presidential debate Wednesday.

After pausing for effect, he said, “… if I win.”

Trump was widely panned by Republicans and Democrats alike after the debate during which he refused to pledge to accept the results of the election, regardless of the winner.

After Election Day, nobody in this country will take Trump seriously any more.

113 thoughts on “Trump says he’ll accept election results—if he wins

    1. I accept the eventual results (including the SCOTUS decision) — because that’s our legal system.

      Do I accept that Bush actually beat Gore by the rules at the time? No.

    2. Yes, but Al Gore did, in what was probably his finest moment. That was the one vote for American democracy that year that counted most.

        1. The Supremes had sung. There was nowhere left to go. Al could see that, and could see that anything further would diminish all involved. I’m not a huge Gore fan, but I was moved by his final concession speech.

  1. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I am an idiot. Be sure and pick up the latest copy of my book, which I did not write, in the lobby of the Trump tower, which I did not build without the help of illegal folks from various places.

  2. Ironically, this move on Trump’s part probably granted Clinton a landslide, plus the Democrats control of the Senate.

    Trump has just declared that elections don’t matter. Those who continue to support him, regardless of opinions on policy, are standing with an authoritarian would-be tyrant who is openly contemptuous of the electorate.

    Or, it’s just become an one-issue campaign. Do you or don’t you support the right of the people to express their consent to be governed through the elections process?

    A vote for Trump is a vote against a representative republic, a vote against democracy. History will not kindly remember those who stand with him to the bitter end.

    Pundits frequently talk of a candidate’s “coattails,” the notion that a popular candidate at the top of the ballot can sweep along members of the same party. Trump is the anti-coattails candidate: voters who vote against Trump will also vote against those who stand with him. Campaign advisers are going to be telling their candidates this in no uncertain terms; look for more rats fleeing the S.S. Trump in coming days.



    1. Supporters of Trump can always satiate themselves with a new handgun for Xmas and dream of its use.

      In the short term (10 years), people will look back and say, “Hey do remember that neighbor with the Trump-Pence sign in their yard.” “Yeah, scary.” Embarrassing and not easily forgotten.

      On another note, in the real real long run (>400 years), they won’t care about any of this but they will remember this was the century humanity woke up and began to lose religion. That’s something worth being apart of.

      1. In all my travels around the Minneapolis-St. Paul area over the last few months, I’ve seen a grand total of 1 Trump/Pence yard sign. (I’ve probably seen 3-4 bumper stickers.)

        1. I live in a very liberal urban area surrounded by conservative countryside. I went for a drive last weekend. I saw a dozen or so yard signs for Republicans for congress and for state & local offices, but I saw only one Trump/Pence sign.

        2. Have you cruised through Michele Bachmann’s old district in the NW suburbs to see how Trump-Pence is doing there?

          1. I have not; but I live across the street from District 6 and I have seen nada up there (I drive across a chunk of it for my music instruction).

        3. “In all my travels around the Minneapolis-St. Paul area over the last few months, I’ve seen a grand total of 1 Trump/Pence yard sign.”

          The good news is I haven’t seen a single Trump lawn sign. The bad news is I live in Alabama where they are apparently considered an unnecessary campaign expense.

      2. “this [21st] was the century humanity woke up and began to lose religion”

        Absolutely not, the beginning – the crucial events – happened in the 17th century, with precursors even earlier and additional important steps up to now.

        I’ll use the guns I already have to imitate Clint Eastwood in “Gran Torino” with his “get off my lawn” if I see anyone approaching with a Trump sign. Not really, not a situation where a gun is needed. But I resent the tarring of gun owners with a cheap Trump association.

  3. Trump’s willingness to defy election results as well as his assertion that he would jail Hillary Clinton if elected makes him a very dangerous person. He should be monitored by the FBI for sedition, even during this campaign (which he will lose). The Republican Party attracts the most toxic candidates.

    1. Live in infamy? Not likely. Trumps nativist views are not too different from those held, for the most part, by our grandparents in the 1920s and 30s, the one that turned back Jewish imigrants fleeing Nazi Germany.
      On the other hand, Trump, if he feels cheated, has the right and obligation to question the election. There is nothing in the constitution or law to say he shouldn’t or prohibit him from doing so. If he makes a stink, and there is nothing found, that will just be more bad news for Republicans.

      1. Trumps nativist views are not too different from those held, for the most part, by our grandparents in the 1920s and 30s, the one that turned back Jewish imigrants fleeing Nazi Germany.

        Are you suggesting the decisions to turn back the refugees isn’t today infamous?

        His nativist views are also exactly the same ones held by Germans themselves at the time. Don’t you think there’s at least a bit of infamy associated with them, as well?

        On the other hand, Trump, if he feels cheated, has the right and obligation to question the election.

        Of course — but that’s not even remotely close to what he’s stating.

        He’s saying that the only result he will accept is his own victory. And he’s declaring there’s a vast conspiracy that includes everybody who’s not one of his supporters that’s working to deny him the Presidency.

        The point he’s missing, of course, is that a majority of people voting against him is not, in fact, a conspiracy; it’s an election he’s losing.

        Much, much worse…a Clinton landslide now seems reasonably probable, and yet Trump is insisting that even that won’t be enough for him to concede the election. That’s so far beyond the pale that you, frankly, should be ashamed for defending Trump for it.




        1. A nativist who gains power and implements their plans becomes infamous. A nativist who fails to gain power is merely remembered as a run of the mill bigot.

      2. I think you’re partly right.
        Let’s assume Hillary wins.
        If Trump feels that there was actual election fraud, he is entitled to challenge the results through the legal process for as long as it takes to investigate and debunk the claim (which shouldn’t be long); if he merely feels cheated, which it seems he feels whenever he doesn’t get what he wants, he can just suck it up.
        Question: will the Republican Party stand by Trump if he does decide to challenge the election results, or would they rather slink away and pretend that the world doesn’t know that they allowed this disgusting lump of flesh to become their candidate for president? I think the latter.

        1. Besides, who cares whether Trump does concede if Hillary wins?
          Everyone knows he’s a sore loser, he’ll just be making that even clearer.
          That said, if he advocates illegal acts against the election results (e.g. urges violence against Hillary or anyone else), he should be prosecuted for it. That is going to be tricky. Urging protest is one thing, “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” is another: the former is permissible, the latter not.
          I like the solution in Andy Borowitz’s column yesterday: “Obama Signs Executive Order Requiring Loser of Presidential Election to Leave Country”.

      3. I wish Chris Wallace would’ve asked Trump last night what he would do if he won, but learned there had been voter fraud in his favor or (much more likely) that his lunkhead supporters had gone round to minority polling places and suppressed the vote through intimidation.

        If the Rooskies really want to fuck with us in this election, they’ll hack into a single precinct anywhere in the country and leave a trail to show they did so. All they’d have to do is change a single vote in Hillary’s favor (hell, they could even immediately change it right back) to plunge the nation into a constitutional crisis.

        1. Probably wouldn’t be the Russians. Might be the North Koreans. Or Turkish hackers (though I’m not sure if they’re good enough to do anything more than stick silly slogans on websites…)


      4. He is undermining the political system by condemning it in advance.

        He has asserted and insisted the system is rigged in advance just because he things aren’t going well for him – then he has said just recently that unless the result is a landslide against him (in terms that he will judge) he will not accept defeat and will seek investigation and review

    2. You need kids for perspective. Mine will probably remember Trump in the same way that I remember Ayatollah Khomeini. And their kids will remember Trump in the same way my kids remember Ayatollah who?

      1. I doubt they’ll even reach that level of knowledge: Khomeni achieved power and ran a country. A better analogy would be to some other failed presidential bid. So, young kids today will remember Trump the way 16 year olds remember Kerry, or Romney. Which is to say – not at all, unless they pay particularly close attention in History class.

  4. After Election Day, nobody in this country will take Trump seriously any more.

    I long for the glorious day when he tucks his serpent’s tail between his cloven hooves and slinks from the public eye for good.

    1. Yeah, except I don’t think that will happen. Trump has a following, and they will still believe in him after the election, and they will believe that there was a vast left-wing conspiracy against him.

      Trump will continue to speak to and for them, because he is not capable of accepting defeat graciously. He cannot bear the thought that he is a Loser.

      I actually worry about what will happen after the election because of the way Trump has handled this, including his encouragement of violence against his opponents. There is a history of right-wing terrorists and militias and they will not be persuaded that their candidate lost fairly and squarely and Trump is not the kind of person who will talk them down, at least not until it’s too late.

      1. He’s 70; this is almost certainly his last bid for political power, just based on age. Moreover, he’s a resident of Manhattan, which basically eliminates any possibility of him getting a House or Senate seat.

        I suppose he could move to Louisiana or some other highly conservative state and then run for House or Senate in 2018. In that case his base maybe wins him the primary and gerrymandering or state-wide conservativism wins him the general. But I think that sequence of events taken together is highly unlikely. If nothing else, Trump’s ego will probably prevent him from moving to some place he doesn’t want to live just to run for a political office lesser than the one he thinks he’s entitled to.

        1. You’re right about political office, and Ken is too. I’m thinking in a broader sense. He will start a new TV show, and if no network will take it, he’ll create his own, which I’m sure he’ll tell us will be, “Much better than Oprah’s or that crooked, corrupt CNN.”

          It will be all about him, not any form of public service. That’s what I meant – I should’ve been clearer.

          1. Drumpf may well try.

            But it’ll be a money pit, and last only so long as he’s willing and / or able to bleed himself dry. If nothing else, he’s not going to have any hope attracting any significant advertising dollars.

            The Trump brand used to be about opulent luxury. But now it’s a dirty old man who grabs teenaged girls by the netherbits and the whines about how ugly they are. And it’s about spectacularly losing an election that anybody else could have won with one hand tied behind his back.

            His base will continue to be every bit as toxic, but they’re not going to want to have anything to do with Drumpf. And it’ll take time for a new standard-bearer to rise.

            And even his base is going to have a tough time swallowing his over-the-top attacks on little-d democracy, especially in light of his love affair with Russia and Putin.




          2. Good points all. And I hadn’t thought about the need for advertising dollars to sustain the enterprise – that will/would make it another failed venture.

          3. He’ll get his supporters to pay for it. Like televangelists do.

            Does he have enough brains to keep the faithful watching? Probably. Think Rush Limbaugh. Bill O’Reilly. (Excuse me while I hurl…)


          4. Those who’ve attempted to leave Fox to blaze new trails for themselves have had vanishingly little success. Drumpf doesn’t even have the strong brand he’d need to come close. He’s a loser, and his sycophants aren’t going to be happy to identify with a loser.

            Especially not when his being such a big and incompetent loser guaranteed Clinton the White House….



          5. Yeah, that’s another option, and a scary one, because to get their money he’ll have to keep them riled up.

          6. Trump won’t go broke on a new media venture, because he won’t put any of his own dough in it. Money is one of the few things Trump is smart about, having learned his lesson going el busto in the casino business. Now, he only licenses his name to risky ventures. (Of course, his name may not have any worth left after his campaign fiasco, so he may not be able to find a sucker to back him, and the venture may never get off the ground.)

            We can only hope.

          7. Money is one of the few things Trump is smart about, having learned his lesson going el busto in the casino business.

            I would suggest that Drumpf is incapable of learning much of anything, and further suggest that he’s nowhere near as successful a businessman as he pretends to be.

            What he’s good at is charming people with his confidence. People tend to trust that, if somebody appears certain, there’s good reason to trust that person. Trump is incapable of self-doubt or self-criticism. That permits him to project limitless confidence…at the cost of the necessary feedback and self-governance for true success.




          8. Agree with Ben. I dont think Trump learns from anything and he is a mediocre businessman.
            He is getting older and can’t do that much after, except his disaffected base will continue to be disaffected. Hope the republican party can learn something from this and be a bit more concerned about ordinary people. The US is a two party system so I can’t see an alternative.


  5. He is so annoying. I’m more annoyed at myself.I was making a doctors appointment and its Nov 10 .I thought i have to wait awhile for this.Then i thought thats after the election. What does the election have to do with it nothing why did i think that? Well he better not win.

      1. Good for you; we may need it. Because, if Trump wins, the whole goddamn country will be bleeding from every orifice.

  6. An innocent question from the Land of Oz. Does he mean that he will appeal to the Supreme Court, or that he will initiate some sort of coup d’etat?

    1. That’s the problem: nobody knows.

      In every election up until now, it hasn’t even remotely been a question. Even in Bush v Gore, after the bizarre process played itself out (a process which was clearly unconstitutional, since it’s the House’s job to determine the legitimacy of questioned Electoral College electors, not the Court’s), the loser called the winner to offer congratulations and to acknowledge the new President as his own.

      At the very least, it seems reasonable to suggest that’s never going to happen — and almost certainly not in a timely manner.

      Trump may well launch a legal challenge, but it’s highly unlikely any court would grant the case standing. But he does love to sue people for no good reason, and loves even more to threaten to sue them.

      He could even threaten and maybe be stupid enough to attempt to rally his supporters to a violent uprising. I doubt it, and it’d be swiftly crushed…but just the thought that that could happen, and that Trump is doing nothing to shut down that sort of speculation…

      …well, again. History will not kindly judge those who stick with him these remaining few weeks to the bitter (and bloody?) end.




    2. My guess is that he personally will do neither, he’ll just make a lot of public noise. Maybe threaten to sue someone. But keep in mind he threatens to sue people all the time and doesn’t follow through on it. He threatened to sue the NYT just last week.

      I think the more credible risk is that his followers interfere with elections in some precincts during the voting. That’s what I’m worried about. Also, I think there’s a credible possibility that afterwards, in some places, his followers riot. Causing damage and possibly killing people.

  7. Massive voter fraud to a republican just means one person who looked like a minority showed up to vote. It’s just a mistake and that person was lost and showed up at the wrong polling station. Trump will fix this with a wall.

  8. Actually, there may be some built in fraud or fix in the election depending on your location.
    I have my ballot here in front of me and it is less than thrilling. There are 10 different parties listed for Pres. and VP. That is 20 names. I did not know there were 10 parties. And still another line to write in someone. Who is at the top of the list – Donald Trump. Then in the contests for Senator, Representative, state senator and rep. The republican name is first. When you get to some of the really local stuff, like Sheriff, County Attorney, and so on – only one person running so why vote. Then to finish it off we have a big group of Judges to vote for. Why are we voting for Judges? And the way you vote for all of these judges we never heard of is Yes or No. Do you say yes or no to people you never heard of?

    1. I always look up the local race contestants – as well as the bond measures and other local statutes – a couple of days before the election. That way I can cast at least a somewhat-informed informed vote for those positions and issues.

      If you haven’t already filled out your absentee ballot and sent it in, I’d recommend you take a few hours and do that.

  9. From time to time I have thought it’s all a joke. He’s putting us on. He really doesn’t care about politics much, but he loves the attention and he thinks he’s pushing his “brand”. I know there is quite a bit to counter that view, but I’m thinking it more now than ever.
    If he really wanted to win, I think he had a very good chance with his solid base. All he would have had to do was pivot toward rationality. He seems to be constantly subverting his chances. I don’t think he really wants the job.

    1. Trump’s brand is shit. It used to be all about opulent luxury and conspicuous consumerism, but now it’s just a dirty old man impulsively grabbing teenaged girls by the crotch and then breathlessly whining about how ugly they are.




    2. there is a common bit of advice that warns about getting into a relationship expecting the other person to change: if you can’t accept that person as they are now, at best disappointment and at worse tragedy awaits you.

      this is why i never believed that trump could “pivot toward rationality” and why i’ve believed since he won the nomination that his downfall was inevitable. what you see is what you get.

    3. I think you’re right, Trump has no interest in actually governing this country.

      Until now, his only interest in politics has been two-fold: First, he likes to hobnob with powerful pols, and to drop them the occasional campaign contribution, to maintain an account in the New York and Washington, D.C., “favor banks.” Second, for nigh unto three-and-a-half decades, Trump has been pretending to weigh a run for the presidency as a means of drawing attention to himself. (In the off years, he usually makes a similar feint toward the governor’s mansion in Albany to get reporters to flog his name in the press.)

      The only reason Trump actually got into the presidential race this year is because he could no longer generate publicity by pretending to do so. The press had grown weary of his game playing and was refusing to cover his phony events. Worse for Trump, reporters were openly laughing at him when cornered them to write about his planned run.

      Trump has no interest in public policy; he knows no public policy; and he has no interest in knowing any public policy. His only interest is in promoting his brand, and it shows.

      1. Garrison Keillor has a nice essay in (I think the Chicago Tribune) where he traces the root of Trump’s drive for attention. He points out that he and his father are from Queens and have always yearned for acceptance among the elite of Manhattan – a mostly Jewish. Unable to achieve approval through the normal means of public service or high social achievement, Trump decided the only way to get invited to the best parties was to be filthy rich. The presidency is another avenue to becoming a member of the better set. Sad, sad, sad.

        1. What a keen and funny piece by Mr. Keillor! Thanks. That kind of second-person, direct-address essay is something of a lost art form.

          Btw, I had the radio on last Saturday night and caught the first PHC hosted by his replacement, Chris Thile. We’re gonna miss ol’ Garrison …

    4. Sam Harris has (rightly in my opinion) likened Trump’s mind to a balloon, inflated and then released to sputter randomly about the room.

      On top of that, he is a vile person and as SH has also noted: “The man lies about everything, and yet he can’t even pretend to be a good person for five minutes at a stretch.”

      The people who love Trump must be either amoral, or nasty people like Trump, or so blinded by the (false) idea that Trump will make them rich (or right their economic ship, which has been continuously damaged over the last few decades by GOP policies about taxes, labor, etc.), that they are willing to ignore Trump’s obvious moral failings and general obnoxiousness. (So much for their touted “family values”!)

      Trump is nothing (nothing) but a front, an empty shell of self-promotion with zero substance behind it.

      1. Do I detect some degree of frustration here?

        Harris is right. I was not surprised watching the Alfred E. Smith charity dinner last night to see Trump’s nervous and uncomfortable reading of his jokes. He failed to show the true good humor the occasion called for. He lacked grace and dignity. His jokes began to go sour as he made comments similar to his hateful campaign speeches. The crowed looked shocked. He was booed and the event became painful to watch.
        The thing is he is not capable of coming out of his delusional self which has now become one of bitterness – even at an event like this. Good riddance – I hope.

        1. Are we sure that wasn’t the Alfred E Neuman dinner? There seems to be something uniquely bizarre about the occasion.


          1. It’s a Catholic event. Men in robes and funny hats mixing with politicos. Bishop Dolan sat between Hillary and the Donald to make sure there wasn’t a food fight. Ya, pretty bizarre.

    5. I think a problem with that scenario, and similar ones that I have heard quite a bit of, is that Trump just isn’t very bright. Yeah, he has some degree of animal cunning, but he isn’t very bright. Neither intellectually or emotionally. I really don’t think he has the cognitive abilities to make a play like you speculate about. He has one play, the one we’ve seen. It doesn’t involve any significant amount of planning or thinking because he isn’t capable of it or thinks it isn’t necessary. It’s pretty much all just off the cuff. What you see is the real Trump. A crude carny with a nasty streak.

      Listening to him talk, it just isn’t the case that he is a gruff straight talker that is smart and disdains highfalutin speech for some noble reason, as many of his followers portray him. He talks the way he does because he has an impoverished vocabulary and, just isn’t very bright. He hasn’t made his way through his life by use of his intellect but by use of those traits that correlate strongly with common thuggery.

      1. I agree with you. I think he’s just smart enough to make it through the primaries with bluster the other candidates lacked. Other than that, he is basically winging it.
        If you were able to stomach watching the Al Smith charity dinner speech, it’s clear he has no integrity or substance. It’s an event where we expect candidates to relax and enjoy some lighthearted jabs at each other. Trump’s talk degenerated into a grudgy campaign-like speech. He’s beginning to see himself as a loser. He’s transparent.

      2. I think you’ve nailed it. Trump’s strength in debates is that his ego is so powerful it will never allow him to be embarrassed or admit he’s wrong. He just counter-attacks, loudly. And sooner or later tries to turn every debate into a brawl, because that’s what he’s good at.


    6. I think this last debate shows you’re wrong. The first half hour he stuck to very standard GOP talking points. Then he lost it.

      It’s worth remembering that candidates aren’t necessarily perfectly equipped for the experience of running. Trump is a 70 year old man who has never run for office or had to be in floor debate in his life. If he does poorly in the last half of a 90 minute debate, its IMO very easy to believe that it’s because he just didn’t have the mental stamina to get through it. No ‘secret sabotage’ idea is required. Heck, my grandpa had to walk around and change the subject after 20 minutes when he was 70. Trump lasting almost 40 is pretty good for a septuagenarian.

      1. Well not all of us are suffering dementia…yet. 😎

        Hillary can talk detailed policy for hours. She’s not much younger and cannot be accused of lacking stamina. Age is not Trumps problem. Lack of experience is a very significant factor, but his moral and intellectual bankruptcy is his greatest weakness.

    1. As mayor of liberal New York City, I think Rudy Giuliani had the reputation as being a moderate to liberal Republican. His reputation soared after 9/11. Now he is a pathetic clown. But, I’m not sure why he has so debased himself. Is it because he misses the public spotlight? Or, perhaps, he believed that Trump could win and that he would get an important post in the new administration. With a little luck after November 8th he will disappear from the public airways except for the occasional appearance on FOX news

      1. Yes its very sad. He even lied (or perhaps he had genuinely forgot) that Hilary Clinton was not with him talking to people near Ground Zero just after Sept 11

  10. After Election Day, nobody in this country will take Trump seriously any more.

    Wait. When that time before? I missed it. In my recollection, Trump was always a joke.

    1. But the thing is quite a lot of people don’t see him as a joke – enough to get him the Republican nomination, in fact.

      I don’t share JAC’s confidence. I think there will be a core of bitter Trump supporters who will not accept the loss.

  11. There is a really great test online that goes over the candidates positions on about 75 issues. I took the test and came out leaning more towards Johnson! I had to admit I was surprised since I was planning on voting for Clinton. Still researching and contemplating!

    1. Johnson: That guy who didn’t know what Aleppo is and couldn’t name a single foreign leader?

      Yeah, that’s the guy we need running the state department in these placid, untroubled times.

    2. Its entirely believable that a reasonable amount of the US population would agree more with the platform of the libertarians or the greens than with the Dems or GOP. And AIUI that’s what those surveys are based on – the platform. They don’t really say anything about the measure of a candidate in terms of ability to make tough decisions, work with Congress to get things done, etc. Those things count somewhat too.

      1. Absolutely! However, being angry, stoic, and “looking presidential” does not give the candidate the ability to work with congress. It is the President’s choices of who they surround him/herself with that will determine what will or will not happen to our country.

    3. Johnson is also the idiot who claims that we should not do anything about global warming since it is permanently in our future when the sun turns into a red giant about five billion years from now! His intellectual depth is no more than monoatomic layer.

      1. “Well, climate change — I think the world is getting warmer. I think that it’s man-caused. That said, should we be engaged in cap and trade taxation? No. I don’t think that we should. We should lend certainty to the energy field. We should be building new coal-fired plants. When you look at the amount of money that we’re looking to spend on global warming, in the trillions, and look at the result, I just argue that the result is completely inconsequential to the money that we would end up
        spending, and that we could direct those monies in other ways that would be much more beneficial to mankind.” this was a quote from the same interview regarding global warming. The government wants to spend money “studying” it, Johnson believes the money would be better spent on things like alternative energy.

  12. I think business people do that – keep the morale high, to the point of absurdity – and the more outrageous the better – while the stock tanks and sales slide. He might be great at business – hey, I wouldn’t be able to do what he’s done. He’s not a president in my view though.

  13. Also I bet he’s got a documentary about this unprecedented spectacle almost ready to sell, and a book. And steaks.

  14. Meanwhile, over at theAtheistConservative, is a listing of the number of times the Democrats claimed a rigged election in the past 2 decades.

  15. “After Election Day, nobody in this country will take Trump seriously any more.”

    He’s still polling at 38% – that’s millions upon millions of people.

    I think it is wishful thinking to believe that “nobody” will take him seriously after the election. **He hasn’t lost yet**. This is not a done deal, and complacency through wishful thinking is a good way for the Dems to lose this election.

    Hillary Clinton could still stumble – she’s held to a much, much higher standard than Trump’s “I could shoot a guy and still win” standard – and loose. And complacent voters could stay home.

    Please, please, please stop claiming that Trump has lost until he has actually lost. This is a horror movie come to life, and Trump’s presidential run isn’t dead until it’s been killed at least twice over, and not before.

    1. Agreed. For me, it isn’t even so much about just defeating Trump anymore. I’m determined to vote in order to add my single digit to what is hopefully a large tidal wave that washes away this ugly stain on our country.

    1. This is not the same thing. I’m sure most of the people pushing this false equivalency know it too. This is, very specifically, a presidential candidate saying that he will not accept the election results unless he is the winner. If you don’t think what Trump is saying, and especially if he follows through and does what he says, is out of the ordinary and something to be taken very seriously there are plenty of experts on both sides of the aisle who have been explaining why.

      The example of the Bush v Gore election cited at the link you provided is actually a very positive example that supports the claim that Trump’s behavior is rare and significant rather than a negative example. I don’t understand how anyone could miss that.

    2. Having lived for 12 years in Chicago (where I worked in grassroots politics), I can tell you that yes, vote-fraud is quite real. It’s also quite local, varying by the precinct or city at most.

      I also saw for myself that Democrats are much better at stealing elections than Republicans are. Repubs cheat by keeping or throwing people off the registration rolls, or losing ballots. Dems cheat by stuffing the ballot boxes, which is much more effective. I haven’t lived in Chicago in 30 years, but from all I hear, I’m still voting there.

  16. *Snort* Given Trump’s history of bombast, what he means is that if there’s any tight race where he loses, he’ll ask for a recount. Given the Bourgeois-Liberal media’s tendency to use Special Snowflake dithery Political Correctitude when it suits them, I’m not surprised that they’re howling about Trump starting a redneck revolution when he loses.

    A plague on both their houses! Vote Libertarian.

  17. Trump is incapable of proving dumber than I thought. He just continuously sets the bar lower and it’s a race to the bottom. I have no idea where the bottom is, but I suspect it won’t be November 8th. A lawsuit in all 50 states and sending out dog whistles to the insane portion of his supporters to take to the streets wouldn’t surprise be at all. Nor would anyou tactics I’m not creative enough to think of.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *