4 ms·

> Also, it’s not like Clinton didn’t spend four years “disputing ... democracy.” See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum https://www.w

> Also, it’s not like Clinton didn’t spend four years “disputing ... democracy.” See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trum... I don't believe Clinton ever attacked the integrity of the election process itself. She did claim (and as far as I'm aware the investigations more or less supported the claims) that the Trump campaign colluded with foreign governments to influence the election.

nostromo 6y ago
“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances, because I think this is going to drag out” - Hillary Clinton Seems like Trump has taken her advice. At this point she really should just retire from politics and spend her hundreds of millions of dollars living the good life. She doesn’t do Democrats any favors.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  So are you claiming that Clinton's suggestion that we wait until absentee ballots are included before letting someone claim victory is "disputing ... democracy", or are you trying to change the subject to something else?
  - nostromo 6y ago
    Nobody is “disputing democracy” at this point. Bush vs Gore took an entire month to sort out. Hillary said this might drag out for a while... and she was right, it is. That’s fine. We have a process for this; no need to be melodramatic. Biden has almost assuredly won, but first there will be some court cases and recounts simply because it was extremely close. That’s a good thing for Democracy.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      > Nobody is “disputing democracy” at this point. Bush vs Gore took an entire month to sort out. The trump campaign is literally putting forth the unfounded conspiracy theory that Democratic-party-affiliated groups some how placed fraudulent ballots, and that this is the only reason Trump lost. > Biden has very likely won, but first there will be some court cases and recounts simply because it was extremely close. There aren't actually. Biden doesn't need to carry any states with recounts to win. Pennsylvania isn't going to a recount, nor is Arizona. Even if GA and Wisconsin flip on a recount, Biden has carried the electoral college. All of the court cases so far have have been thrown out or withdrawn. Despite this, Trump continues to claim that there was election fraud (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1327750127679889409 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/13277501276798894...), even after his own lawyers have dropped suits in Arizona and Pennsylvania, and have yet to, in any suit in any state, provide an example of fraud. There's no substance to his claims, and when in front of a judge, the lawyers admit that. And yet.
    - JamesBarney 6y ago
      This election wasn't extremely close. It was a clear Biden win, it just took a week to count all the mail in ballots and figure that out. There've been 6 elections over the last ~20 years. Popular vote count 1. Obama-08 7.27% 2. Obama-12 3.86% 3. Biden-20 3.4% 4. Bush-04 2.46% 5. Bush-00 −0.51% 6. Trump-16 −2.09% By Elector College 1. Obama-12 365 2. Obama-16 332 3. Biden-20 306 4. Trump-16 302 5. Bush-04 286 6. Bush-00 271
      - leetcrew 6y ago
        comparing margins for EC and popular vote does not really capture how close a US presidential election was. you can easily have a blowout in the EC that was determined by a <1% lead in a few key states. popular vote is an interesting stat, but not very meaningful under the current rules.
    - tzs 6y ago
      > Bush vs Gore took an entire month to sort out. That was a difference of around 500 votes out of nearly 6 million, which was around 0.009%. That's well within the range you can get with just the ordinary counting error. It is not at all uncommon for a recount to reverse a lead that small. In addition, Florida at the time was using a lousy ballot marking system that caused many ballots to fail to register that the voter had tried to vote in the Presidential race. Neither side disputed this. The dispute was over how to address it. Are you really comparing that to trying to challenge in several states where the difference is well outside ordinary counting error and there is no evidence of sufficient voting irregularities to come anywhere near changing the winner in those states?
      - rayiner 6y ago
        There is a lot more to it than that. There had already been a machine recount in Florida, and Bush won that one as well. What Gore did was use a loophole in Florida law to pursue a dubious recount strategy. He demanded hand recounts only in four counties he had won by large margins. That tilted the recount in his favor: hand recounts will find more discernible votes than machine counting, and by only requesting recounts in counties that where the base rate of Gore votes was very high, most of those newly-counted votes would be for Gore. Even WaPo called out this strategy as obviously unfair: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2000/11/18/on-hold/90cd95be-dd09-445d-896b-d7ac4cc0952a/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2000/11/18/o... > But there's a danger to Mr. Gore's eventual legitimacy too, if this extraordinary story eventually results in his election. The recounts will now go forward in three counties--Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade. That at least was the situation as of last night. All three of those jurisdictions are heavily Democratic and voted heavily for Mr. Gore; the recount is thus tilted in his favor. Gore’s tactics got very ugly including objecting to counting military ballots: https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817928820_55.pdf https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents... > The Gore campaign, however, viewed the absentee mili- tary ballots received between Election Day and November 17 as a lethal threat. Bob Dole, the 1996 Republican candi- date, who had lost Florida, nonetheless had received a hefty majority of the military absentee vote. Bush would likely top 60 percent at a time when he already enjoyed a 300-vote margin, which Gore was seeking to erase with selective recounts.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    Oh c’mon. “Don’t concede under any circumstances” is a lot stronger of a statement than “wait for absentee ballots to be counted.” She was reinforcing accusations that she and folks like Jerry Nadler made that Trump would try to “rig” the election.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      In context it really isn't. I think it was misguided, but her entire concern was that trump would attempt to mess with absentee ballots and get the race called before they were counted. By any account, he's done both. He hasn't really succeeded, in the "popular" sphere (although he's still delaying the Biden transition from starting, which is bad for the entire country), but if the race had been a bit closer his claims of "well overturn the results on a recount" might ring truer, especially if news organizations weren't able to call the races. Also worth mentioning that, while I can't find the full clip of the quote anywhere, some of the reporting on it seems to imply that the question she was responding to was if Biden should concede on election night, and the answer was under no circumstances. That really strains the whole "disputing democracy" thing.
wernercd 6y ago
"colluded with foreign governments" Russia Collusion itself is an attack on the legitimacy of Trumps presidency - just like election fraud is an attack on the legitimacy of a Biden presidency.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  This is actually true (god I hate agreeing with Trump/the GOP). Collusion was not proven, and the left-wing media went completely overboard on this. Did Russia want Hillary Clinton to lose? Yes. Did the Trump campaign meet with Russian operatives? Yes. Did they collude with Russians? No, not in a legal sense. Was the determining factor in the election Russian interference? No, it was almost certainly the NYT covering the James Comey investigation into Hillary's emails in the last week. Mind you, if I were a Russian disinformation specialist, I would be very proud of how the American people took up my insanities (on both sides) and ran with them.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > Was the determining factor in the election Russian interference? No, it was almost certainly the NYT covering the James Comey investigation into Hillary's emails in the last week. Keep in mind the entire Hillary's emails thing may have stemmed from Russian foreign intelligence work.
    - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
      Again, lots of speculation around this, no reasonable evidence in favour. Like, I'm not American (and I would have voted for Sanders twice if I was), but the core issue here is that people are focusing on conspiracy-like theories to explain their loss in elections, rather than trying to understand where the other side is coming from.
      - entropea 6y ago
        >but the core issue here is that people are focusing on conspiracy-like theories to explain their loss in elections Yeah liberals did with Russiagate in 2016, then Trump supporters will probably run with something into 2020. It's a convenient distraction from material policies.

nostromo 6y ago

“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances, because I think this is going to drag out” - Hillary Clinton Seems like Trump has taken her advice. At this point she really should just retire from politics and spend her hundreds of millions of dollars living the good life. She doesn’t do Democrats any favors.

joshuamorton 6y ago
So are you claiming that Clinton's suggestion that we wait until absentee ballots are included before letting someone claim victory is "disputing ... democracy", or are you trying to change the subject to something else?
- nostromo 6y ago
  Nobody is “disputing democracy” at this point. Bush vs Gore took an entire month to sort out. Hillary said this might drag out for a while... and she was right, it is. That’s fine. We have a process for this; no need to be melodramatic. Biden has almost assuredly won, but first there will be some court cases and recounts simply because it was extremely close. That’s a good thing for Democracy.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > Nobody is “disputing democracy” at this point. Bush vs Gore took an entire month to sort out. The trump campaign is literally putting forth the unfounded conspiracy theory that Democratic-party-affiliated groups some how placed fraudulent ballots, and that this is the only reason Trump lost. > Biden has very likely won, but first there will be some court cases and recounts simply because it was extremely close. There aren't actually. Biden doesn't need to carry any states with recounts to win. Pennsylvania isn't going to a recount, nor is Arizona. Even if GA and Wisconsin flip on a recount, Biden has carried the electoral college. All of the court cases so far have have been thrown out or withdrawn. Despite this, Trump continues to claim that there was election fraud (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1327750127679889409 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/13277501276798894...), even after his own lawyers have dropped suits in Arizona and Pennsylvania, and have yet to, in any suit in any state, provide an example of fraud. There's no substance to his claims, and when in front of a judge, the lawyers admit that. And yet.
  - JamesBarney 6y ago
    This election wasn't extremely close. It was a clear Biden win, it just took a week to count all the mail in ballots and figure that out. There've been 6 elections over the last ~20 years. Popular vote count 1. Obama-08 7.27% 2. Obama-12 3.86% 3. Biden-20 3.4% 4. Bush-04 2.46% 5. Bush-00 −0.51% 6. Trump-16 −2.09% By Elector College 1. Obama-12 365 2. Obama-16 332 3. Biden-20 306 4. Trump-16 302 5. Bush-04 286 6. Bush-00 271
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      comparing margins for EC and popular vote does not really capture how close a US presidential election was. you can easily have a blowout in the EC that was determined by a <1% lead in a few key states. popular vote is an interesting stat, but not very meaningful under the current rules.
  - tzs 6y ago
    > Bush vs Gore took an entire month to sort out. That was a difference of around 500 votes out of nearly 6 million, which was around 0.009%. That's well within the range you can get with just the ordinary counting error. It is not at all uncommon for a recount to reverse a lead that small. In addition, Florida at the time was using a lousy ballot marking system that caused many ballots to fail to register that the voter had tried to vote in the Presidential race. Neither side disputed this. The dispute was over how to address it. Are you really comparing that to trying to challenge in several states where the difference is well outside ordinary counting error and there is no evidence of sufficient voting irregularities to come anywhere near changing the winner in those states?
    - rayiner 6y ago
      There is a lot more to it than that. There had already been a machine recount in Florida, and Bush won that one as well. What Gore did was use a loophole in Florida law to pursue a dubious recount strategy. He demanded hand recounts only in four counties he had won by large margins. That tilted the recount in his favor: hand recounts will find more discernible votes than machine counting, and by only requesting recounts in counties that where the base rate of Gore votes was very high, most of those newly-counted votes would be for Gore. Even WaPo called out this strategy as obviously unfair: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2000/11/18/on-hold/90cd95be-dd09-445d-896b-d7ac4cc0952a/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2000/11/18/o... > But there's a danger to Mr. Gore's eventual legitimacy too, if this extraordinary story eventually results in his election. The recounts will now go forward in three counties--Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade. That at least was the situation as of last night. All three of those jurisdictions are heavily Democratic and voted heavily for Mr. Gore; the recount is thus tilted in his favor. Gore’s tactics got very ugly including objecting to counting military ballots: https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817928820_55.pdf https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents... > The Gore campaign, however, viewed the absentee mili- tary ballots received between Election Day and November 17 as a lethal threat. Bob Dole, the 1996 Republican candi- date, who had lost Florida, nonetheless had received a hefty majority of the military absentee vote. Bush would likely top 60 percent at a time when he already enjoyed a 300-vote margin, which Gore was seeking to erase with selective recounts.
- rayiner 6y ago
  Oh c’mon. “Don’t concede under any circumstances” is a lot stronger of a statement than “wait for absentee ballots to be counted.” She was reinforcing accusations that she and folks like Jerry Nadler made that Trump would try to “rig” the election.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    In context it really isn't. I think it was misguided, but her entire concern was that trump would attempt to mess with absentee ballots and get the race called before they were counted. By any account, he's done both. He hasn't really succeeded, in the "popular" sphere (although he's still delaying the Biden transition from starting, which is bad for the entire country), but if the race had been a bit closer his claims of "well overturn the results on a recount" might ring truer, especially if news organizations weren't able to call the races. Also worth mentioning that, while I can't find the full clip of the quote anywhere, some of the reporting on it seems to imply that the question she was responding to was if Biden should concede on election night, and the answer was under no circumstances. That really strains the whole "disputing democracy" thing.

wernercd 6y ago

"colluded with foreign governments" Russia Collusion itself is an attack on the legitimacy of Trumps presidency - just like election fraud is an attack on the legitimacy of a Biden presidency.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
This is actually true (god I hate agreeing with Trump/the GOP). Collusion was not proven, and the left-wing media went completely overboard on this. Did Russia want Hillary Clinton to lose? Yes. Did the Trump campaign meet with Russian operatives? Yes. Did they collude with Russians? No, not in a legal sense. Was the determining factor in the election Russian interference? No, it was almost certainly the NYT covering the James Comey investigation into Hillary's emails in the last week. Mind you, if I were a Russian disinformation specialist, I would be very proud of how the American people took up my insanities (on both sides) and ran with them.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > Was the determining factor in the election Russian interference? No, it was almost certainly the NYT covering the James Comey investigation into Hillary's emails in the last week. Keep in mind the entire Hillary's emails thing may have stemmed from Russian foreign intelligence work.
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
    Again, lots of speculation around this, no reasonable evidence in favour. Like, I'm not American (and I would have voted for Sanders twice if I was), but the core issue here is that people are focusing on conspiracy-like theories to explain their loss in elections, rather than trying to understand where the other side is coming from.
    - entropea 6y ago
      >but the core issue here is that people are focusing on conspiracy-like theories to explain their loss in elections Yeah liberals did with Russiagate in 2016, then Trump supporters will probably run with something into 2020. It's a convenient distraction from material policies.