Last night, when I heard Donald Trump decline to pledge to accept the result of the election, I understood him to mean that in the event we have an outcome like 2000 he reserved the right to file a challenge like Al Gore did in Florida. Reading the papers this morning, one would think that he threatened a violent overthrow of the government.
Al Gore did not "accept" the "result" announced by Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris. He took the case to the Florida courts. George Bush did not "accept" the "result" of the Florida Supreme Court decision. He took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Two presidential elections in living memory have been close enough to be within what John Fund called the "margin of litigation": 1960 and 2000. Richard Nixon chose not to litigate; Al Gore chose to. I consider it extremely unlikely that 2016 will be anywhere near that close, but this year has provided multiple examples of the wisdom of Yogi Berra's admonition against predictions.
I have no reason to believe that Donald Trump reads my advice, and he certainly doesn't take it, but for the record I recommend that he come out promptly with a clarification that all that he reserves is an Al Gore type challenge.
Al Gore did not "accept" the "result" announced by Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris. He took the case to the Florida courts. George Bush did not "accept" the "result" of the Florida Supreme Court decision. He took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Two presidential elections in living memory have been close enough to be within what John Fund called the "margin of litigation": 1960 and 2000. Richard Nixon chose not to litigate; Al Gore chose to. I consider it extremely unlikely that 2016 will be anywhere near that close, but this year has provided multiple examples of the wisdom of Yogi Berra's admonition against predictions.
I have no reason to believe that Donald Trump reads my advice, and he certainly doesn't take it, but for the record I recommend that he come out promptly with a clarification that all that he reserves is an Al Gore type challenge.
When Trump loses, he will not "accept" the result, regardless of Clinton's margin of victory. He will do what he he has always done when he doesn't get what he wants: He will say the "system" was "rigged".against him.
He views everything in terms of "winners" and "losers." And, in his mind, he has never been, and will never be, a loser. So he will claim that his loss was not because of anything that he said or did, but was because of a corrupt "system," a biased media, a crooked opponent, loser republicans who didn't enthusiastically back him, etc.
Then he will try and parlay his defeat into a financial windfall by, among other things, tryingt to convince/trick/swindle his millions of "followers" into signing up for Trump TV at $9.99/month.
P.S. The odds of Trump following the noble course that you recommend is, well, zero and none. That's what a "loser" would do.
I must have missed the part where Al Gore refused to agree to accept the election results weeks before election day.
Anyway, today Trump said "I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election, if I win." Do you understand that to mean "I reserve the right to file a challenge if we have an outcome like 2000"? Because it sounds more like he's saying he will only accept the results if he wins. Did Gore ever say something like that before Election Day?
- Victor
Was Gore ever asked the question before election day? Not to my knowledge.
Haven't followed what Trump said today, but as I said, I don't expect him to read or heed my advice. What I think he should say and what he actually says have not been congruent to date, to put it mildly.
If you are looking for a Trump fan to argue with, you came to the wrong place.
--- Besides Gore in 2000 (through 2008), Kerry 2004 Democrats refused to accept the legitimacy of the results, (perhaps every time they lose now?) e.g.notables
(1) Rep. D. Kucinich, & (2) Jesse Jackson:
(1) "I have been vigilant in monitoring Ohio's election in 2004. Attorneys
from my party closely monitored the election. .. Serious problems surfaced in
this election that must be addressed at the state and national level. .. Attempts
to subvert our right to fair elections must be investigated and prosecuted when possible. ..
I believe we must pursue every lead which raises questions about the
integrity of the electoral process. Our work may not change the outcome ...
With passion running so high in this country and specter of Florida 2000 still
hanging over the presidential voting process, it is important to gather hard evidence prior to disputing the legitimacy of the election."
(2) Jesse Jackson: 2004 Election 'Ain't Over' – CNS News 12/08/04
Former Presidential Candidate Jackson said Americans "must not adjust to tyranny" and told Judiciary Committee Democrats that he was on hand "to make a moral appeal" for a "thorough investigation" of the election." Jackson aso said the "Electoral College should be abolished,".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7422-2004Oct28.html, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_election_voting_controversies, http://www.michaelparenti.org/stolenelections.html
With respect to this issue, Trump is simply following the HRC standard. She called Bush "selected."
Given that Clinton advisers have been touting the voting rights of "those who assert" citizenship and that Dem operatives have been fomenting violence at Trump rallies, the criticism of Trump here seems akin to fly-specking--amazing as that is.