Patterico's Pontifications

9/20/2022

Trump ‘Election Denialism’ Model Continues: Republican Candidates Refuse To Say If They Would Accept Their Election Results

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:05 am



[guest post by Dana]

Why else would any Republican candidate refuse to respond in the affirmative other than they understand that the unspoken rule is that one must follow Trump’s lead if they want to stay in his good graces, and those of his base? It all trickles down:

A dozen Republican candidates in competitive races for governor and Senate have declined to say whether they would accept the results of their contests, raising the prospect of fresh post-election chaos two years after Donald Trump refused to concede the presidency.

In a survey by The Washington Post of 19 of the most closely watched statewide races in the country, the contrast between Republican and Democratic candidates was stark. While seven GOP nominees committed to accepting the outcomes in their contests, 12 either refused to commit or declined to respond. On the Democratic side, 17 said they would accept the outcome and two did not respond to The Post’s survey.

[Ed. If you’re keeping score, the report also mentions gubernatorial nominee Stacey Abrams, who claimed that voter suppression occurred in 2018, and thus she refused to concede defeat to Brian Kemp: “But unlike Trump, Abrams never sought to overturn the certified result or foment an insurrection.” More about her post-election comments at the link.]

–Dana

71 Responses to “Trump ‘Election Denialism’ Model Continues: Republican Candidates Refuse To Say If They Would Accept Their Election Results”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (1225fc)

  2. @MattWolking
    “Just a reminder:

    In January 2017, after Trump’s win, House Democrats objected to certifying the election results in 9 states.

    Alabama
    Florida
    Georgia
    Michigan
    Mississippi
    North Carolina
    South Carolina
    Wisconsin
    Wyoming

    About 70 House Democrats boycotted Trump’s inauguration.”

    Also… https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/19/politics/trump-inauguration-protests-womens-march/index.html

    Colonel Haiku (76a1de)

  3. Dana,

    Why do you support this obvious Concern Moby wedge?

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  4. Candidates that refuse to answer this question do so because their answer would be “fukc Trump!” and that will lose them the election. The Democrats (and apparently some others) want them to choose sides.

    Failing to choose sides is somehow hyper-partisan.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  5. Whooops. I misread. Still, it is part of a package of demands.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  6. In January 2017, after Trump’s win, House Democrats objected to certifying the election results in 9 states.

    And no Senate Democrats joined them, and the objections were gaveled down by VP Biden. And VP Gore did the same in 2001.

    Is attending the inauguration mandatory?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  7. BTW, I will not accept the results of the 2022 NM districted elections, as the gerrymander was blatant (and the majority leader made that clear) and does not reflect the people’s will. The vote count may be accurate but dimply counting votes correctly does not make an election fair or free.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  8. *simply, although some may have dimples.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  9. Concern Moby wedge

    Ha. The fact that just answering the question would cost Republicans in competitive states to lose their contests is the point. It speaks to Trump’s co-opting of the GOP. This is not healthy for the country, nor is it healthy for a robust and principled Republican Party. Going into an election with the belief that if one loses, it can only be due to malfunctioning machines, a rigged election, or corruption of poll workers – anything but loss due to the voters preferring an opposing candidate – is just madness. All of which continue to destroy the GOP.

    Dana (1225fc)

  10. Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 9/20/2022 @ 11:00 am

    What is the people’s will when it comes to gerrymandering?

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  11. From a post on the Weekend Open Thread:

    60 Percent Of Americans Will Have An Election Denier On The Ballot This Fall
    ……..
    ……..Out of 552 total Republican nominees running for office, we found 201 who FULLY DENIED the legitimacy of the 2020 election. These candidates either clearly stated that the election was stolen from Trump or took legal action to overturn the results, such as voting not to certify election results or joining lawsuits that sought to overturn the election.

    ……..[A]n additional 61 candidates RAISED QUESTIONS around the results of the 2020 election. These candidates haven’t gone so far as to say explicitly that the election was stolen or take legal action to overturn it. However, they haven’t said the election was legitimate either. In fact, they have raised doubts about potential fraud.

    There were 123 candidates whose position on the 2020 election we could not determine. They either had NO COMMENT on the 2020 election or AVOIDED ANSWERING when asked directly.
    ……..
    ……..Using the latest data from FiveThirtyEight’s 2022 midterm election forecast, we can see that 118 election deniers and eight election doubters have at least a 95 percent chance of winning. Several additional candidates who have denied the election are in competitive races.
    ……..
    ……..At least two election deniers and three election doubters are poised to be inaugurated as governors next year. And we can’t rule out election deniers being elected governor of swing states like Arizona and Pennsylvania.

    ……..An election-denying secretary of state could refuse to certify an election that he or she believes was rigged. An election-denying governor could attempt to submit electoral votes that defy the will of the people. And election-denying senators and representatives could vote to count those electoral votes. The 2022 election will determine how many of these candidates get that chance.

    See whether the Republicans running in your state have denied or accepted the legitimacy of the 2020 election.
    ……..

    Emphasis in the original.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  12. About 70 House Democrats boycotted Trump’s inauguration.

    And Trump boycotted Biden’s inauguration. Whatever.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  13. Whateverism!

    All depends on whose ox is gored… got it!

    Colonel Haiku (76a1de)

  14. If those people, running for office, have doubts about the legitimacy of our elections, that they won’t trust the results, then they should not be running for office. They should be at the Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow training in revolution. Or they may have already been, and this is their mission, to delegitimize our elections, the dirty neo-Soviets.

    nk (11045d)

  15. Ha. The fact that just answering the question would cost Republicans in competitive states to lose their contests is the point. It speaks to Trump’s co-opting of the GOP. This is not healthy for the country, nor is it healthy for a robust and principled Republican Party.

    Losing all your elections is also unhealthy. I have no argument that Trump is a pernicious troll, but he controls a quarter of the party. He is no different than Jerry Falwell was 20 years ago, bending the GOP towards Bible-thumping and away from core beliefs.

    But if you had demanded that candidates circa 2000 denounced the Bible as a source of law, you would have been creating the same wedge.

    Trump will be gone soon enough. The laws that a Democrat super-majority will pass will not be gone in your lifetime.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  16. If those people, running for office, have doubts about the legitimacy of our elections, that they won’t trust the results, then they should not be running for office.

    Good thing we didn’t tell black folk in the 60’s things like that.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  17. 60 Percent Of Americans Will Have An Election Denier On The Ballot This Fall

    Once is happenstance.

    Twice is coincidence

    Three times is spam.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  18. What is the people’s will when it comes to gerrymandering?

    Hard to say when the legislature elects itself.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  19. BTW, the state passed a law establishing an independent redistricting commission, and then some judge said the legislature could ignore them. And it did.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  20. Not to worry; just tie up Lindsey in a closet w/an apple in his mouth [ he’d love it, too]– and let Squinty do all the talking about… commiting to going to war with China over Taiwan, health issues- the pandemic is over you know because nobody is wearing a mask now, [Jeez] … economics: inflation is ‘zero’… his love of gas guzzling corvettes while pushing electric cars on everybody; open borders, wandering cries of ‘where am I, where do we go now’… the political land mines he keeps stepping on never stops– he could guest star on 50 Combat! episodes. He’s the gift that keeps on giving to his opposition. This is a GOP cycle to lose– and if they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and lose to America’s farting, pants pooping, wandering, stumbling, brain-damaged loser– they deserve it. But America doesn’t.

    DCSCA (23025c)

  21. No Senators joined the objections in 2017. Oh, okay. So it’s all good. What about 2005?

    mikeybates (a4d6ae)

  22. …..but (Trump) controls a quarter of the party……

    USA Today/Ipsos poll, 8/28/22:

    Four in five Republican voters (82%) believe Trump can win the next presidential election…..Nearly three in five Republican voters (59%) believe President Trump should be the Republican nominee for president in 2024. …. Donald Trump favorable/unfavorable (Rep voters) 81/17.

    Looks like he controls more than a quarter of the Republican Party.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  23. No Senators joined the objections in 2017. Oh, okay. So it’s all good. What about 2005?

    mikeybates (a4d6ae) — 9/20/2022 @ 12:00 pm

    One Senator (Boxer) joined in the objection to the electoral votes of one State (Ohio). Certainly not on the scale of last meeting of the Electoral College.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  24. Dana: “It speaks to Trump’s co-opting of the GOP. This is not healthy for the country, nor is it healthy for a robust and principled Republican Party”

    No one that continues to dabble with election denialism will get my vote. Kevin can try and scare me about Democrat super-majorities….but this nonsense will not change unless people come to their senses and realize that this is no way to run a major party…..or winnable races continue to be lost. This, “it’s got to be Trump” mentality has to be rejected.

    I will not vote for a guy that wants to pull us out of NATO….that wants to pull us out of S. Korea…..that wants to pull us out of Africa……and has a weird obsession with using nukes against Iran….and giving Putin what he wants. Couple in his manic narcissism and that fact that he has blown through the A-quality and B-quality cabinet teams, who could possibly trust that he won’t abuse his power if given the chance again? The guy is a wrecking ball….and doesn’t offer much to replace what he wrecks…other than a bizarre cult of personality. This binary cr*p doesn’t work with this guy. He should be exiled from the GOP because of his inaction as the Capitol was stormed. It’s embarrassing that people keep making excuses for him…..

    AJ_Liberty (5f05c3)

  25. BTW, the state passed a law establishing an independent redistricting commission, and then some judge said the legislature could ignore them. And it did.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9) — 9/20/2022 @ 11:54 am

    I all am favor of gerrymandering-it’s as American as apple pie, and both parties do it. I have never liked legislatures punting redistricting to an “independent” commission. It’s just a way for a legislature to avoid responsibility. Redistricting is a political act-let the politicians do it and own it.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  26. It speaks to Trump’s co-opting of the GOP. This is not healthy for the country, nor is it healthy for a robust and principled Republican Party…”

    Echoes of 1964: “It speaks to Goldwater’s co-opting of the GOP. This is not healthy for the country, nor is it healthy for a robust and principled Republican Party…”

    It’s healthy and long, long overdue; the tail no longer wags the dog.

    DCSCA (23025c)

  27. I guess I’m confused, then. Are commenters here saying that someone who objected to certification in 2021 must be shunned and opposed, even if it means voting for a Democrat, etc., but that the same should not happen to someone who objected in 2017 or 2005?

    ‘It’s only wrong when Republicans do it’ seems to be the theme. The 1/6 committee itself is made up of several members who objected to certification in 2017 (Raskin) and 2005 (Thompson).

    mikeybates (a4d6ae)

  28. Dana,

    Please show me who has been charged with insurrection for you to keep using such a word loaded with meaning.

    NJRob (8da5ef)

  29. the pandemic is over, according to biden, and so is the need for pandemic crisis voting rules

    but the lax rules will remain, and so will doubts about election results

    JF (f62728)

  30. R.I.P. baseball great Maury Wills

    Icy (a9a69b)

  31. This seems like good changes that will make it harder for someone to attempt to steal the presidency in the future.

    Of course, Trump could motivate another group of supporters to assault the police and violently seize the capital in order to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. But I expect there will be better security in the future.

    Time123 (4f4aa8)

  32. Looks like he controls more than a quarter of the Republican Party.

    Your numbers include many who don’t view “supports Trump” as their litmus test for voting.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  33. No one that continues to dabble with election denialism will get my vote.

    AJ, you distort my comments. I said that there is a difference between supporting Trump’s delusions and not wanting to make them an issue in your local race.

    Democrats and confused conservatives would put those front and center, but their reasons are different. Democrats do it because it’s a handy club. Conservatives do it because they mistake a moral point for a political one.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  34. R.I.P. baseball great Maury Wills

    Sad. I saw him play. He was likely to steal third as second. Three world series wins. 104 stolen bases in 1962 to set the MLB record.

    This was back in the day when the Dodgers scored runs with a walk, two stolen bases and a sac fly.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  35. I guess I’m confused, then. Are commenters here saying that someone who objected to certification in 2021

    Then you’re confused. Because they are saying that someone who simply doesn’t want to nationalize the campaign around Democrat talking points is an insurrectionist.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  36. Dana,

    Please show me who has been charged with insurrection for you to keep using such a word loaded with meaning.

    NJRob (8da5ef) — 9/20/2022 @ 12:33 pm

    Leader of Oath Keepers and 10 Other Individuals Indicted in Federal Court for Seditious Conspiracy and Other Offenses Related to U.S. Capitol Breach

    18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy:

    If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

    My emphasis.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  37. Nice one Rip

    Time123 (3ac60a)

  38. Nice one Rip

    Time123 (3ac60a) — 9/20/2022 @ 1:36 pm

    Thanks. It’s as plain as day if you want to see it.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  39. > Candidates that refuse to answer this question do so because their answer would be “fukc Trump!”

    You’re quite skilled at mind reading, apparently, to know that this is their answer, and that “i’ll refuse to certify but don’t want to say it because that would cause me to lose” isn’t.

    I don’t have that skill, meaning I don’t know which way the candidates will behave if they’re given the opportunity to show their true colors — and the downside risk here is just terrible.

    aphrael (d9db76)

  40. 36. “Seditious conspiracy” is not the same thing as “insurrection.”

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  41. 104 stolen bases

    Shouldn’t people be wondering how the rule against stolen bases is not enforced??

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  42. It continues to be miscommunicated, and probably purposely. The objections from regular R people is not about simple fraud and counting, it is about manipulation of the process. Rules don’t get followed and that causes consternation about elections.

    Richard Wetmore (aad2e4)

  43. 36. “Seditious conspiracy” is not the same thing as “insurrection.”

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a) — 9/20/2022 @ 1:57 pm

    Insurrection:

    Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

    True, and the penalties for “rebellion or insurrection” are lower than for seditious conspiracy (10 v. 20 years). “Insurrection” is not defined in the statute, so the seditious conspiracy statute would probably be held up as constitutional but not the insurrection statute, since it is vague.

    But people can call it whatever they want.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  44. 5th circut rules texas law on preventing social media censorship is constitutional. As A victim of censorship my self I support free expression of opinion. Just because it is unpleasent doesn’t mean it is disinformation. Rather it should be pointed out when liars are lying is the way to get at the truth.

    asset (9e15ad)

  45. If you’re keeping score, the report also mentions gubernatorial nominee Stacey Abrams, who claimed that voter suppression occurred in 2018, and thus she refused to concede defeat to Brian Kemp: “But unlike Trump, Abrams never sought to overturn the certified result or foment an insurrection.” More about her post-election comments at the link.

    In other words, she’s a fly in the ointment of both side’s hyper-partisan narratives. Contrary to the bleating of Dems, she is Trump-like in her election denialism, in kind if not degree. And contrary to the false equivalents of Republicans, she doesn’t share Trump’s penchant for violently overthrowing the government. No principled Democrat should be supporting her, yet they are, and no principled Republican should be claiming she’s just as bad as Trump, yet they do.

    lurker (cd7cd4)

  46. And contrary to the false equivalents of Republicans, she doesn’t share Trump’s penchant for violently overthrowing the government.
    lurker (cd7cd4) — 9/20/2022 @ 2:46 pm

    but she does share your penchant for misstating the facts

    nearly two years later Trump has not been charged with anything

    JF (e93630)

  47. It is very important that all Republicans behave like Barbara Boxer and Stacey Abrams. E pluribus unum!

    nk (f65337)

  48. Betelgeuse!

    Colonel Haiku (76a1de)

  49. but she does share your penchant for misstating the facts

    Please, do tell, what facts did I misstate?

    nearly two years later Trump has not been charged with anything

    So? Are you saying there won’t be any more indictments? How do you know? Two years isn’t so long for a federal criminal investigation, much less for one this complex, much less for one that could end in the indictment of a former president.

    Also, assuming arguendo that Trump is never charged, it’s your contention that means he committed no crimes for which he’s morally culpable? By that reasoning you’d have to also believe that Bill Clinton, who likewise was never charged, didn’t commit perjury. So which is it? Is failure to indict a factual and moral exoneration, or isn’t it?

    lurker (cd7cd4)

  50. by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States

    Gee, that’s pretty wide-ranging. So, if the loggers come for the sequoias and I attempt to block their lawful tree-cutting through any physical means, it’s insurrection?

    Give me a moment and I will come up with a more ridiculous example of this law’s breadth. Maybe involving a mattress tag.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  51. Shouldn’t people be wondering how the rule against stolen bases is not enforced??

    Worse, he stole them by physical force, so it’s insurrection!

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  52. Trump was charged twice while president. Another word for it is impeached.

    Trump could not be charged for the other crimes he committed per OLC rules, which concluded that a sitting president could not charged for ordinary crimes and misdemeanors, at least not until after he’s run out of office.

    Paul Montagu (753b42)

  53. Charles C.W. Cooke puts forth a persuasive case against demanding that candidates pass some kind of litmus test concerning Trump (He doesn’t state it outright, but I assume it includes gotcha questions concerning the 2020 election).

    https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2022/09/12/a-long-goodbye-to-trump/

    The process will be an evolution rather than a revolution; a battle of attrition, not a glorious charge; a question of erosion instead of jackhammers. It will, in short, be a grind, with the most important work of all being performed by those who fall short of explicit repudiation.

    Emphasis mine.

    Don’t reject a candidate simply because he/she doesn’t repudiate Trump.

    Historically, when political parties have gotten themselves into difficult situations, they have extricated themselves not by staging truth-and-reconciliation commissions, or by engaging in relentless self-flagellation, or by deciding in unison that a new epoch had begun, but by simply muddling on until the zeitgeist changed and a majority was prepared to quietly accept their mistake.

    It seems to me that some commenters here want to stage “truth-and-reconciliation” events about Trump. That strikes me as fanciful.

    Ronald Reagan did not transform the post-Nixon Republican Party by relentlessly repudiating the 37th president; he transformed the post-Nixon Republican Party by standing hopefully atop the rubble and casting himself as the future. Gerald Ford did not draw a line under Watergate by prosecuting Richard Nixon once he was out of office; he drew a line under Watergate by pardoning him. Hubert Humphrey chose not to lambast LBJ, the president he served as VP, for the ongoing disaster in Vietnam. Likewise, Al Gore elected to ignore, rather than to condemn, Bill Clinton’s terrible behavior with Monica Lewinsky.

    Exactly. People are stubborn. The more you rub their noses in something, the more they will dig in. Pride is powerful.

    They are more likely to quietly change their minds over time than to eat crow publicly. It’s human nature.

    I have observed a tendency toward what might best be described as “De-Ba’athification” — that is, toward the purist, almost epidemiological desire to reject any political candidate who can in any sense be contact-traced back to Donald Trump or to his presidency. As it was with Iraq, this approach is profoundly mistaken, for the most likely alternative to the Republicans who coexisted with Donald Trump is not some slate of immaculately conceived neophytes; it is more Donald Trump.

    It’s emotionally satisfying to insist on purity, but that approach is counterproductive. Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is a surefire way to end up with something less than good (either more Trump or entrenched leftism).

    Writing off any candidate who won’t call out Trump on the 2020 election is a simplistic, feel-good approach, but political matters aren’t so clear-cut. They are messy and complex.

    norcal (da5491)

  54. All bank robbers are insurrectionists. All who enter the United States illegally and use any kind of force to prevent their apprehension are insurrectionists.

    This law is so broad as to defy limits. Probably why it’s not used as some people would want.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  55. Hip deep in sheep dip. We’re in a tight spot. Oh, what will we ever do!?!?

    Colonel Haiku (76a1de)

  56. The problem with all this is that it only affects Republicans. Democrats are only worried about their popcorn supply. Make them denounce packing the Supreme Court, subverting the Electoral College, 90% tax rates or the New Green Deal. But you don’t care about that as your concern is only with your own self-image.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  57. Shorter: Trump will live blog his own execution if it will get him more attention.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  58. All bank robbers are insurrectionists. All who enter the United States illegally and use any kind of force to prevent their apprehension are insurrectionists.

    You better not wear too heavy an after-shave in a federal building elevator, either, Kevin.

    The statute is not read to the jury. They don’t interpret it. The jury is given instructions by the judge. Which instructions reflect how the statute has been interpreted.

    In the federal system, they’re pattern instructions, for the whole circuit, put together by a whole big committee. Every good lawyer, defending or prosecuting, will use them as the starting point of his legal research.

    The trial judge has the option and the duty to do his own legal research. When he reads the indictment and, if a bench trial, when he renders judgment.

    nk (bd6147)

  59. @Kevin@56 The thing is, you can find Democrats in good standing who will say they are against any of those things.

    Nic (896fdf)

  60. https://www.rgj.com/story/news/politics/elections/2022/09/19/adam-laxalt-catherine-cortez-masto-joe-lombardo-steve-sisolak-debates-scrapped-lyngar-herman-set/10428961002/

    I suspect it is precisely because of a potential question about the 2020 election that both the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate from Nevada and the Republican candidate for Governor of Nevada have declined to participate in debates.

    Republicans can’t win if they offend the Trumpers. It’s pie in the sky to think so. Does it mean these candidates must be dismissed out of hand? No. See my lengthy comment above. This is precisely what Cooke was talking about.

    norcal (da5491)

  61. @Kevin@56 The thing is, you can find Democrats in good standing who will say they are against any of those things.

    And you can find Republicans in good standing who abhor Trump and all his works. But the party is what rules, not the individual members, and that matters. Right now, the choice is a party that favors all those things, and one that doesn’t that seems dominated by a total assh0le.

    While I would prefer the GOP tossed Trump to the curb, at a basic level I prefer their policies over those of the Democrats. Trump or no Trump, they will tend to heed those positions. I probably cannot bring myself to vote for Trump, ever, but I can bring myself to vote for people who are reluctantly caught in his web. The alternative choice is a set of policy planks I think will destroy the country. Unlike Caesar, the evil that Trump does will be interred with his bones.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  62. Here is the basic disconnect. The people who support Trump — and have supported him since 2015 — have one thing in common: THEY DON’T TRUST YOU.

    Trumpism is a reaction to what they see as a train of abuses against the common man by the elites. It should come as no surprise that this lack of trust extends to close elections. Especially when they are led in that direction. Given that your counter argument is “Trust the system” it’s not hard to see why we are at this impasse. Over the last 20-30 years they’ve been given no reason to do that.

    tl;dr THEY DON’T TRUST YOU

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  63. #62

    You make me think of GK Chesterton here —

    “When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”

    Substitute “the system” for God, and you have the crazytown part of MAGA world.

    Appalled (d3a026)

  64. Here’s the funny part. They – MAGA supporters – think less of you than you do of them.

    Colonel Haiku (9faf71)

  65. Appalled,

    Yes, but your argument to the agnostics is that “God said so!” Is it a great surprise that they don’t accept that?

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  66. Throughout this exercise, the Trump supporters have been saying “You keep fukking us and we’re tired of it” and the response has not been “Oh. How can we change this?” but “You aren’t bending over far enough!”

    Starting with “deplorables”, continuing through a very irregular election (for the first time ever, most ballots were cast off-site (and 20% more votes were cast)) all the way down to the narrowly-elected president calling Trump’s supporters “a clear and present danger.”

    No one seems interested in working to fix this. Instead everyone is being sorted into tribes. This will not end well. The country will not survive a second civil war.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  67. No one seems interested in working to fix this.

    Ahhhhh. but the ‘fix’ is in: “You bought him; you own him.”

    “Which way do I go now?” – Squinty McStumblebum

    DCSCA (473568)

  68. Memo to Squinty;

    Plagiarize this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_DrUaJEBtE

    DCSCA (473568)

  69. continuing through a very irregular election (for the first time ever, most ballots were cast off-site (and 20% more votes were cast))

    I have always voted “off site” and some states like Oregon are completely “off site.” There is nothing irregular not going to overcrowded, inefficiently run, polling places. Not sure where you got the 20% increase (the Census Bureau reported it was a 12.4% increase), but that is easily explained by increased voter registration and high interest in the 2020 election.

    More voters (154.6 million) turned out for the presidential election in 2020 than in 2016 (137.5 million), the largest increase between consecutive presidential elections…..

    In 2016 61.4% of registered voters voted, in 2020 it was 66.8%, the highest since 1992.

    The Census Bureau’s estimates confirm the general perception that 2020 voter turnout was very high, at 66.8%. This was the biggest turnout in a presidential election since 1992 (67.7%) and more than 5 points higher than the 2016 election.

    See also here.

    Nothing nefarious about this. If Trump runs and is the MAGA Party (I mean Republican Party) nominee, I expect another high turn out election. I doubt there will be another civil war.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  70. Kari Lake, by the way, has said that she would not have certified the Electoral vote.

    I am not sure how the bill passed by the House would handle it.

    The problem is you have to deal both with a governor who does not certify what he or she should and one who certifies what they shouldn’t.

    Fortunately, Electoral vote chess is a complicated game whose outcome should depend upon what is the truth. Only about one third of a political party that is lying needs to side with the truth for the real truth to win.

    I don’t think it should be made too uncomplicated

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

  71. Congressional Record from 2005

    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2005-01-06/html/CREC-2005-01-06-pt1-PgH84-6.htm

    This made so little impression on me, (in news coverage) I didn’t know it happened.

    Excerpt:

    The VICE PRESIDENT. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Ohio rise?

    Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Vice President, I seek to object to the
    electoral votes of the State of Ohio on the ground that they were not,
    under all of the known circumstances, regularly given and have a signed
    objection, and I do have a Senator.

    [[Page H86]]

    The VICE PRESIDENT. Has the Senator signed the objection?
    Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Vice President, the Senator has signed the
    objection.
    The VICE PRESIDENT. An objection presented in writing and signed by
    both a Representative and a Senator complies with the law, chapter 1 of
    title 3, United States Code.
    The Clerk will report the objection.
    The Clerk read the objection as follows:

    We, a Member of the House of Representatives and a United
    States Senator, object to the counting of the electoral votes
    of the State of Ohio on the ground that they were not, under
    all of the known circumstances, regularly given.
    Stephanie Tubbs Jones,
    Representative, State of Ohio.
    Barbara Boxer,
    Senator, State of California.

    The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there further objections to the certificate
    from the State of Ohio?
    The Chair hears none.
    The VICE PRESIDENT. The two Houses will withdraw from joint session.
    Each House will deliberate separately on the pending objection and
    report its decision back to the joint session.
    The Senate will now retire to its Chamber.
    The Senate retired to its Chamber.
    The SPEAKER. Pursuant to Senate Concurrent Resolution 1 and section
    17 of title 3, the United States Code, when two Houses withdraw from
    the joint session to count the electoral vote for separate
    consideration of objection, a Representative may speak to the objection
    for 5 minutes and not more than once. Debate shall not exceed 2 hours,
    after which the Chair will put the question, “Shall the objection be
    agreed to?”
    The Clerk will report the objection made in the joint session.
    The Clerk read the objection as follows:

    We, a Member of the House of Representatives and a United
    States Senator, object to the counting of the electoral here votes of the State of Ohio on the ground that they were not, under all of the known circumstances, regularly given.
    Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Representative, State of Ohio.
    Barbara Boxer, Senator, State of California.

    This was the argument: (no argument was made that they had hopes of overturning the election, only that people had a hard time voting – standing in line etc)

    …..Unfortunately, objecting to the electoral votes from Ohio is the only immediate avenue to bring these issues to light. While some have called our cause foolish, I can assure you that my parents, Mary and Andrew Tubbs, did not raise any fools. They raised a lawyer, they raised a former judge, they raised a prosecutor; and thank God they live to see me serve as a Member of the House of Representatives.

    I am duty bound to follow the law and apply the law to the facts as I find them, and it is on behalf of those millions of Americans who believe in and value our democratic process and the right to vote that I put forth this objection today. If they are willing to stand at polls for countless hours in the rain, as many did in Ohio, then I should surely stand up for them here in the halls of Congress.

    This objection does not have at its root the hope or even the hint of overturning the victory of the President; but it is a necessary, timely, and appropriate opportunity to review and remedy the most precious process in our democracy. I raise this objection neither to put the Nation in the turmoil of a proposed overturned election nor to provide cannon fodder or partisan demagoguery for my fellow Members of Congress. I raise this objection because I am convinced that we as a body must conduct a formal and legitimate debate about election irregularities. I raise this objection to debate the process and protect the integrity of the true will of the people.

    Again, I thank Senator Boxer.

    There are serious allegations in two lawsuits pending in Ohio that debate the constitutionality of the denial of provisional ballots to voters: One, the Sandusky County Democratic Party v. J. Kenneth Blackwell and Ohio’s vote recount, Yost v. David Cobb, et al. These legitimate questions brought forward by the lawsuits, which go to the core of our voting and democratic process, should be resolved before Ohio’s electoral votes are certified.

    Moreover, as you are aware, advancing legislative initiatives is more challenging when you are in the minority party in the Congress.

    However, this challenge is multiplied when you are in the minority in the House of Representatives because of the House rules compared to the Senate rules.

    Voting irregularities were an issue after the 2000 Presidential election when the House initiatives relating to election reform were not considered. Therefore, in order to prevent our voices from being kept silent, it is imperative that we object to the counting of Ohio’s electoral votes.

    What happened in Ohio in Cuyahoga County. There are just over 1
    million registered voters in Cuyahoga County which, of course, includes my congressional district. Registration increased approximately 10 percent. The beauty of the 2004 election was that more people were fully prepared to exercise their right to vote; however, on election day, hundreds and even thousands of individuals went to the voting polls and were denied the opportunity. In my own county where citizen volunteers put forth a Herculean effort to register, educate, mobilize and protect, there were long lines, 4- to 5-hour waits.

    Election Protection Coalition testified that more than half of the complaints about long lines they received came from Columbus and Cleveland where a huge proportion of the State’s Democratic voters live. One entire polling place in Cuyahoga County had to shut down at 9:25 a.m. on election day because there were no working machines. On provisional balloting, Cuyahoga County had over-all provisional ballot rejection of 32 percent. Rejection rates for provisional ballots in African American precincts and wards in Cleveland averaged 37 percent and in some as high as 51 percent.

    Sammy Finkelman (1d215a)

Leave a Reply


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1602 secs.