4 ms·

For decades now, there has been a significant chuck of the nation's fringe (10-20%) who simply CANNOT accept a member of the opposite political party as a legit

For decades now, there has been a significant chuck of the nation's fringe (10-20%) who simply CANNOT accept a member of the opposite political party as a legitimate President. All through the 90's, the talk radio fringe used the same argument that Bill Clinton's victory wasn't truly legitimate because he didn't win a majority of the popular vote. And they had a special prosecutor follow him around for his entire Presidency, pretty much on a fishing expedition (younger people might not remember this, but Ken Starr stumbled across the Monica Lewinsky thing years into the process). All through the 2000's, the fringe left rejected George W. Bush's legitimacy, because they felt that it was decided by a Supreme Court with a thin majority of Republican appointees. President Obama spent 8 years assuring people that he isn't a Muslim, and wasn't really born in Kenya. It sounds like parody, but roughly 1/3 of partisan Republicans seriously believe in this conspiracy theory (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-persistent-partisan-divide-over-birther-question-n627446 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-persiste...). Today, partisan Democrats just can't let go of the "Russia hacked the election!" conspiracy theory... even though, from an independant's perspective, they sound flatly insane. At BEST, someone with ties to Russia leaked some embarrassing emails from a criminally insecure mail server. If HRC hadn't been the worst Democratic nominee in decades, then it wouldn't have mattered regardless. I don't know what's going to happen with the next inevitable handover in 4-12 years. But it's a pretty safe bet that the next Democrat will be seen as "illegitimate" by roughly one-fifth to one-quarter of the nation as well. This is just the not-so-new normal.

hsod 9y ago
I think Russia interfered in the election, but I don't think Trump is an "illegitimate president". There's no such thing, constitutionally speaking. He won, that's a simple fact. He is the President. Just wanted to push back on your smearing of anyone who believes Russia interfered as a partisan nutjob. Lots of people, including the IC, the military, and most GOP members of congress believe that Russia interfered. Skepticism is understandable but your inverted confidence seems misplaced.
dTal 9y ago
I feel that, while you're not wrong about the ongoing de-legitimization of the presidency, there's a danger of drawing a false equivalence here. The 2000 election really was decided by a Supreme Court with a thin majority of Republican appointees (in a state governed by the winning candidate's brother, under circumstances of serious, fraudulent voter disenfranchisement). And there really was foreign interference in our last election, in favour of the winning candidate - it's not really a "conspiracy theory" when President Obama literally called Putin on the red phone to ask him to stop. Whether you think it was effective or not (and there's no possible way you can know), there's no doubt at all they tried. Conversely, Obama was definitely not in any shape or form born in Kenya, and Clinton's lack of popular vote was as immaterial as Trump's. Only one of these sides looks "fringe" to me.

hsod 9y ago

I think Russia interfered in the election, but I don't think Trump is an "illegitimate president". There's no such thing, constitutionally speaking. He won, that's a simple fact. He is the President. Just wanted to push back on your smearing of anyone who believes Russia interfered as a partisan nutjob. Lots of people, including the IC, the military, and most GOP members of congress believe that Russia interfered. Skepticism is understandable but your inverted confidence seems misplaced.

dTal 9y ago

I feel that, while you're not wrong about the ongoing de-legitimization of the presidency, there's a danger of drawing a false equivalence here. The 2000 election really was decided by a Supreme Court with a thin majority of Republican appointees (in a state governed by the winning candidate's brother, under circumstances of serious, fraudulent voter disenfranchisement). And there really was foreign interference in our last election, in favour of the winning candidate - it's not really a "conspiracy theory" when President Obama literally called Putin on the red phone to ask him to stop. Whether you think it was effective or not (and there's no possible way you can know), there's no doubt at all they tried. Conversely, Obama was definitely not in any shape or form born in Kenya, and Clinton's lack of popular vote was as immaterial as Trump's. Only one of these sides looks "fringe" to me.