Yes, Democrats were not happy about the 2000 election results. Nor were they happy with the election results in 2004 and 2016. But let's get something straight. The response from the Democratic side in those elections pales in comparison to what we've seen from Republicans in this election. To suggest otherwise is deeply offensive.
In 2000, the majority of the ire from Democrats was directed at the Supreme Court and Ralph Nader. The former's decision to stay the Florida recount ostensibly dashed any hopes of a Democratic win. The latter's decision to remain on the ballot in Florida was the primary reason the Supreme Court got involved in the first place. There is little doubt that had Nader decided to drop out of the race, as so many Democrats were begging him to do, Al Gore would've won the state and the presidency. Then again, had Gore won his home state of Tennessee, the matter would've been rendered moot, so I guess in hindsight, some of that ire should've been directed at Gore for running a lousy campaign.
In 2004, there were some voting "irregularities" in Ohio that prompted then California senator Barbara Boxer and then Ohio representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones to file a written objection when the electoral votes were counted on January 6, 2005. At most, the objection delayed the inevitable by a couple of hours. In the end, George Bush received all 20 of Ohio's electoral votes and was sworn in two weeks later to begin serving his second term in office.
In 2016, there were questions about possible Russian interference in the presidential election and a few House Democrats verbally objected to the votes being counted. Then Vice President Joe Biden ended the debate and the counting proceeded according to plan. Trump received a total of 306 electoral votes and took office officially on January 20, 2017 without a hitch.
In each and every one of the aforementioned elections, the loser conceded graciously and, with the exception of '04 where there was no transition, the outgoing administration cooperated fully with the incoming administration. Though to be fair, there was some delay in 2000 owing to the litigation at the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, there was a peaceful transfer of power in both instances.
Now let's compare those elections to what's taken place so far this year. To date, there have been more than 60 lawsuits filed in multiple state and federal courts looking to overturn the election. Two made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where they were unanimously denied on both standing and the merits. One of those Supreme Court cases, brought by Texas and later joined by 17 states' attorneys general and 126 House Republicans, was seeking to disenfranchise 20 million voters in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia. If it hadn't been so reckless, it would've been hysterical.
But wait, it gets better. Several lawyers representing the Trump campaign met with Republican lawmakers in several states and actually encouraged them to ignore the popular votes in their states and appoint Trump electors. When they refused to do so, they were threatened by both the lead attorney - Rudy Giuliani - and this president.
When Republican election officials and two Republican governors certified Biden's win in their respective states, they too were the recipients of threats, so much so that one such official called out Trump and pleaded with him to stop, to no avail. Even now, both governors are likely to face a primary challenge in 2022 for their refusal to betray their oath to the Constitution.
On December 14, the day that the electoral college met to cast its votes, a threat on a radio station from a Republican lawmaker in Michigan necessitated a police escort for that state's electors. Additionally, two other states had to make arrangements for their electors to meet in an undisclosed location due to concerns over their safety.
To underscore the absurdity of what Trump is attempting to do here, in order to prevail, he would have to overturn the election results in at least three states, all of which were decided from as few as 10,000 votes (Arizona) to as many as 154,000 votes (Michigan). By contrast, in 2000, the entire election hinged on the outcome of a single state (Florida) which was decided by a paltry 537 votes. Now you understand why I've had it up to here.
Even now, with just over a week to go until Congress meets to count the electoral votes, there are reports circulating that at least one Republican senator might join with a Republican representative to formally object to Biden's win. Despite the urging of Mitch McConnell, it seems some in his caucus are determined to humiliate themselves trying to undo what every thinking person knows is a done deal.
Not only has Trump refused to concede defeat, he continues to peddle baseless conspiracy theories about election fraud that have been thoroughly debunked by virtually every court in the country and even by his own former attorney general. His rantings on Twitter have only emboldened his supporters, so much so that some officials are concerned there could be violence next month when Biden is sworn in.
What is happening here is unprecedented in American politics. A sitting president actively looking to overturn the results of an election he clearly lost, his party spinelessly enabling him, and a conservative media spinning an alternative reality that even Rod Serling would've rolled his eyes at. Had it not been for the resiliency of a few dozen judges, nine Supreme Court justices and a handful of Republicans, he would've been successful in his coup attempt. Think about that.
If you can still look at all the facts of this election and maintain with a straight face that there is a direct correlation to past elections, that says more about you than it does about me. But more than that, it says that Trump's greatest accomplishment, and the one that will take years to undo, was his ability to convince millions of people that going a hundred miles over the speed limit was no different than going five miles over.
Comments