[hn_throwaway_99]

I understand that, and I think it's a fair point, but there is also the issue of leadership.

E.g. there are tons of Republican "elites" who know that the whole "stop the steal" stuff and falsehoods around Trump winning in 2020 are complete, total, and utter bullshit. We know this because they've said it! My favorite example is when Liz Cheney wrote in her book that Republican Rep Mark Green said, as he was signing electoral vote objection sheets on Jan 6, "The things we do for The Orange Jesus." (In transparency, Green later denied this).

My point is its one thing to do what your constituents desire. Its another thing to propagate lies and bullshit because you think that will help you gain power, even if your constituents do love those lies and bullshit. I'd also point out that there have been a number of conservative and Republican leaders (not many, but some) who actually have some honor and have called out these lies, which has usually forced them to retire or leave the party.

[rayiner]

I agree in the abstract, but I think that’s encompassed by my point that the Republican base wants to fight fire with fire: https://youtu.be/iRYB6N8fBKQ?si=-bSwtvosf-o4PE0z.

I think “principled Republicans” don’t know what time it is. Trump’s only mistake was not saying “I formally concede” before spending years saying the election was stolen. That’s the new normal and has been since 2000.

[hn_throwaway_99]

And yet, with all those examples in that video of Democrats saying those things (some of which I think are valid, e.g. that Russian propaganda did help Trump get elected even if there was no collusion, though I don't agree at all that this makes Trump's presidency "illegitimate"), trying to say that is equivalent to what Trump did in 2020/2021 is plain ridiculous.

For one, despite her rhetoric, Hillary Clinton actually conceded the 2016 election. Obama actually sat down with Trump when he was president-elect in the White House. I don't recall Obama egging on an unruly mob to attack the Capitol to prevent certification of Trump's win.

And similarly, I'm having a very difficult time believing that Bush supporters would have conceded as graciously as Gore did in 2000. So spare me with the "both sides"-isms.

[rayiner]

A concession has no legal effect. We have the tradition because it reassures the supporters of the losing candidate that the election system is trustworthy. If you say the word “concede” but then spend the next four years saying “the election was stolen” and “the president is illegitimate” you’re damaging public trust just as much as if you hadn’t conceded.

Gore, more than anyone in recent memory, deserves a special place in hell for helping turn American elections into the circus we have today. Gore exploited a loophole in Florida election law to seek hand recounts only in counties that had gone heavily in his favor. Since hand recounts identify valid votes the machine rejected, hand recounting a Gore-leaning subset of all the ballots would identify disproportionately more new Gore votes. It was blatant cheating, and on top of that the (apparently innumerate) Florida Supreme Court did things like allow the results of partially completed hand recounts to be added to certified election results. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down Gore’s shenanigans twice, once in a per curiam decision, and the other in a 7-2. (The part that everyone remembers, the 5-4 part, was only about whether to give Florida yet another chance to do a valid recount. But it was Gore’s fuckery that put the Supreme Court in the lose-lose position of having to decide that issue.)

There is nobody who hates election denial more than me. We should throw people in prison for saying that duly elected officers are illegitimate or that elections were stolen. We shouldn’t be able to litigate election results for all but the most obvious malfeasance. Seeing America today reminds me of the third world country I’m from, and it sickens me to see Americans behaving like third world people.

[dctoedt]

> If you say the word “concede” but then spend the next four years saying “the election was stolen” and “the president is illegitimate” you’re damaging public trust just as much as if you hadn’t conceded.

False dichotomy.

> Gore exploited a loophole in Florida election law to seek hand recounts only in counties that had gone heavily in his favor.

What you call "exploit[ing] a loophole," others would call "invoking a statutory procedure to exercise a right created for candidates by the legislature." Nothing stopped the Bush campaign from doing the same in counties that went heavily for them — instead, the Bush campaign lawyered up to try to stop the recounts altogether [0]. (And perhaps you've forgotten about the infamous "Brooks Brothers riot" [1] by out-of-state Bush lawyers and staffers.)

And let's not forget: Gore won the popular vote nationwide, which is irrelevant legally but of nontrivial weight morally.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot

[rayiner]

Gore was a cheater, and the only reason he’s not remembered as such is because Americans are bad at math. What he did was as bad as Google exploiting tax law loopholes to make it seem like all their income is earned in Ireland. Except election law is even less of a proper place for creative lawyering than tax law.

But to circle back to my point above, this is why Trump was inevitable and necessary. Republicans must use the Gore standard for litigating elections, the Hilary Clinton standard for talking about elections they lost, and the Alvin Bragg standard for political prosecutions. If Republican presidents aren’t appointing judges who will look for constitutional standards hidden inside “penumbras,” they are committing political malpractice.

(And the “popular vote” has zero weight morally. It tells us nothing, because candidates would campaign differently if the popular vote actually mattered. If field goals counted for 7 points in football, teams would play the game differently.)