4 ms·

That was years later, after more details of Russian interference had become public. The salient point is that Hillary conceded the election within hours after t

That was years later, after more details of Russian interference had become public. The salient point is that Hillary conceded the election within hours after the polls closed — and Obama (the then-incumbent) didn't try to sabotage the Electoral College's vote to keep Trump from taking office.

skissane 3y ago
Yes, everyone acknowledges there is a huge difference in how Clinton reacted in the immediate aftermath of her election loss, compared to how Trump behaved in the same situation. The opinion piece I linked argues that Democrats pushing the "2016 election was stolen" narrative provided normalization and encouragement for Republicans to push a similar narrative in 2020 - even though the actions taken in response to that narrative were very different. In turn, I think the 2020 Republican claims have been encouraging pre-emptive 2024 Democratic claims - see below examples - and if Democrats lose in 2024, they've already got these pre-planned narratives at hand to invoke https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-push-steal-2024-election-takeaways-1234921974/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-pu... https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/27/opinions/gop-blueprint-to-steal-the-2024-election-luttig/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/27/opinions/gop-blueprint-to... https://progressive.org/op-eds/gop-plan-steal-2024-election-benbow-220210/ https://progressive.org/op-eds/gop-plan-steal-2024-election-... https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/democracy-could-die-2024/619390/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/democracy-...
rayiner 3y ago
I don't think that’s the only salient point. The point being made above is about escalation. If we are talking about eroding our norms, the whole course of conduct matters. Clinton conceded, but spent years calling Trump illegitimate and spreading falsehoods about Russian interference. At one point, half of democrats believed Russia manipulated vote tallies: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trumps-denial-second-big-lie-ask-hillary-clinton-rcna55764 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trumps-denial-second-b... (“a 2016 Economist/YouGov poll found that half of Clinton voters thought a foreign power tampered with voting results”). So what’s the next step in the escalation after that? The stuff about “sabotaging the electoral college’s vote” is an escalation of what Gore did in 2000–pushing the law to its limit to win the case. What’s the next step after that? If it’s okay to request partial hand recounts only in counties you won (to unfairly get more votes), because it’s technically legal, why is it impermissible to lobby the state legislator to select alternate electors? (Which is technically constitutional.) Why shouldn’t we do it first, before you do?
- dctoedt 3y ago
  > Why shouldn’t we do it first, before you do? We? > why is it impermissible to lobby the state legislator to select alternate electors? (Which is technically constitutional.) Evidently you've drunk the Kool-Aid of the ... worthies who push the "independent state legislature" doctrine. Oh, and: You don't regard Trump's sending a mob to the Capitol (he knew they were armed, the Secret Service had told him), telling them they had to "fight like hell," egging them on via Twitter, and then waiting hours to half-heartedly call them off, doesn't count as trying to sabotage the Electoral College vote count?
  - skissane 3y ago
    > Evidently you've drunk the Kool-Aid of the ... worthies who push the "independent state legislature" doctrine. What rayiner is talking about here has nothing to do with that doctrine. I explained in another comment 2-3 months back, so I'll just link to that rather than repeat myself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37541248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37541248
    - rayiner 3y ago
      Yes, correct.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    > Evidently you've drunk the Kool-Aid of the ... worthies who push the "independent state legislature" doctrine. It’s more well-founded in the constitution than some precedents near-and-dear to democrats… But actually, I don’t think the standard for litigating elections should be whether you can come up with a colorable legal theory to support your position.[1] Thats why I cited the Gore example. Just because there’s a legal theory that supports trying to game manual recounts doesn’t mean you should do it. Because once that becomes the standard (and unfortunately it has) the other side will do it too. [1] I don’t think you should be able to litigate elections at all. The rules should be set in stone a year ahead and not subject to challenge, and everything should be done in one day with public counting the way the Taiwanese do it. > Oh, and: You don't regard Trump's sending a mob to the Capitol (he knew they were armed, the Secret Service had told him), telling them they had to "fight like hell," egging them on via Twitter, and then waiting hours to half-heartedly call them off, doesn't count as trying to sabotage the Electoral College vote count? Is “fight like hell” categorically different than “get in their face” https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters-trump-officials/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters-trump-.... Is lighting cities on fire for months categorically different? It’s ugly, low-brow politics, like Democrats pioneered. I’d love to ban all of it. But I’m not impressed by efforts to draw categorical distinctions between different events. Either egging on rioting and political violence is acceptable or it’s not. Democrats have apparently decided it’s acceptable.

skissane 3y ago

Yes, everyone acknowledges there is a huge difference in how Clinton reacted in the immediate aftermath of her election loss, compared to how Trump behaved in the same situation. The opinion piece I linked argues that Democrats pushing the "2016 election was stolen" narrative provided normalization and encouragement for Republicans to push a similar narrative in 2020 - even though the actions taken in response to that narrative were very different. In turn, I think the 2020 Republican claims have been encouraging pre-emptive 2024 Democratic claims - see below examples - and if Democrats lose in 2024, they've already got these pre-planned narratives at hand to invoke https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-push-steal-2024-election-takeaways-1234921974/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-pu... https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/27/opinions/gop-blueprint-to-steal-the-2024-election-luttig/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/27/opinions/gop-blueprint-to... https://progressive.org/op-eds/gop-plan-steal-2024-election-benbow-220210/ https://progressive.org/op-eds/gop-plan-steal-2024-election-... https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/democracy-could-die-2024/619390/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/07/democracy-...

rayiner 3y ago

I don't think that’s the only salient point. The point being made above is about escalation. If we are talking about eroding our norms, the whole course of conduct matters. Clinton conceded, but spent years calling Trump illegitimate and spreading falsehoods about Russian interference. At one point, half of democrats believed Russia manipulated vote tallies: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trumps-denial-second-big-lie-ask-hillary-clinton-rcna55764 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trumps-denial-second-b... (“a 2016 Economist/YouGov poll found that half of Clinton voters thought a foreign power tampered with voting results”). So what’s the next step in the escalation after that? The stuff about “sabotaging the electoral college’s vote” is an escalation of what Gore did in 2000–pushing the law to its limit to win the case. What’s the next step after that? If it’s okay to request partial hand recounts only in counties you won (to unfairly get more votes), because it’s technically legal, why is it impermissible to lobby the state legislator to select alternate electors? (Which is technically constitutional.) Why shouldn’t we do it first, before you do?

dctoedt 3y ago
> Why shouldn’t we do it first, before you do? We? > why is it impermissible to lobby the state legislator to select alternate electors? (Which is technically constitutional.) Evidently you've drunk the Kool-Aid of the ... worthies who push the "independent state legislature" doctrine. Oh, and: You don't regard Trump's sending a mob to the Capitol (he knew they were armed, the Secret Service had told him), telling them they had to "fight like hell," egging them on via Twitter, and then waiting hours to half-heartedly call them off, doesn't count as trying to sabotage the Electoral College vote count?
- skissane 3y ago
  > Evidently you've drunk the Kool-Aid of the ... worthies who push the "independent state legislature" doctrine. What rayiner is talking about here has nothing to do with that doctrine. I explained in another comment 2-3 months back, so I'll just link to that rather than repeat myself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37541248 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37541248
  - rayiner 3y ago
    Yes, correct.
- rayiner 3y ago
  > Evidently you've drunk the Kool-Aid of the ... worthies who push the "independent state legislature" doctrine. It’s more well-founded in the constitution than some precedents near-and-dear to democrats… But actually, I don’t think the standard for litigating elections should be whether you can come up with a colorable legal theory to support your position.[1] Thats why I cited the Gore example. Just because there’s a legal theory that supports trying to game manual recounts doesn’t mean you should do it. Because once that becomes the standard (and unfortunately it has) the other side will do it too. [1] I don’t think you should be able to litigate elections at all. The rules should be set in stone a year ahead and not subject to challenge, and everything should be done in one day with public counting the way the Taiwanese do it. > Oh, and: You don't regard Trump's sending a mob to the Capitol (he knew they were armed, the Secret Service had told him), telling them they had to "fight like hell," egging them on via Twitter, and then waiting hours to half-heartedly call them off, doesn't count as trying to sabotage the Electoral College vote count? Is “fight like hell” categorically different than “get in their face” https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters-trump-officials/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/maxine-waters-trump-.... Is lighting cities on fire for months categorically different? It’s ugly, low-brow politics, like Democrats pioneered. I’d love to ban all of it. But I’m not impressed by efforts to draw categorical distinctions between different events. Either egging on rioting and political violence is acceptable or it’s not. Democrats have apparently decided it’s acceptable.