"1. The first reason I think is overstated, considering such behavior is not uncommon for the loser. I took 60 seconds for an Internet search, and it's easy to find stories--even on CNN and NPR--of Democrats questioning and challenging the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections. Yes, Trump's complaints were louder and longer--in part because he planned to run again, unlike Gore, Kerry, and Hillary--but I don't see how that translates to permanently damaging the country."
Here's why that "Dems did it too:" argument comes across to me as incredibly weak.
In 2000, Al Gore believed that with a proper recount of FL, he would have won. He said as much, he took that claim to court, I think he won some legal victories in Florida but eventually lost when the US Supreme Court ruled against him in Bush v Gore. The VERY NEXT DAY, he gave a very gracious speech in which he acknowledged that he was giving up his legal challenges and acknowledging Bush as the next President. On Jan 6, 2001, the date of the electoral vote certification, a few Democratic House members made objections to counting the electoral vote count, and Al Gore himself, presiding over the electoral vote count as the sitting VP, ruled all of the objections out of order so that Bush could be certified the winner.
Other than the fact that both Trump in 2020 and Gore in 2016 filed lawsuits, absolutely no part of what Gore did in 2000 has even the slightest resemblance to what Trump did 2 decades later. No attempts to break Florida law by producing an "alternate" slate of electors, no attempts to bring a huge mob to Washington to strom the Capitol, and even though Gore was literally the guy who presided over the electoral vote count, no attempts to monkey with that.
In 2004, Bush defeated Kerry, and Kerry conceded. A smattering of Dem lawmakers protested, including one Senator who actually did object to the electoral vote count, but that objection was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 74-1 (8 Dems and 17 Republucans did not bother to vote). Kerry himself filed no lawsuits and made no efforts to scheme or foment violence in order to steal the election.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton called Trump and congratulated him on his victory on election night and gave a concession speech the next day. No lawsuits, no mobs, no "alternate" slates of electors. On Jan 6th, 2017, the then VP presided over the counting of electoral votes and overruled all objections from the floor. No mob stormed the Capitol that day in an effort to change the result.
Good points, Michael. "Dems did it too" is not to say their behavior matched Trump's precisely; it's mentioned only because there seems to be a large contingent who think the very thought of questioning the election (no matter the method) is dangerous and unpatriotic, etc.
My main point was this: in each case (2000, 2004, 2017, 2021) the RESULT was the same: a peaceful transition to the next president on the appointed day. In other words, mostly a lot of hot air. I think it's naive to assume other presidential candidates (and governors, mayors, senators, etc) don't work hard to "find" votes, and ask (in private conversation) for help finding such votes. Bush and Gore probably both did it in Florida. Politics is dirty business, yet the country abides. You can say Trump went overboard, that he worked dirtier than Gore and Hillary, but he still left office on the appointed day, and the country is still here. The aftermath of each election was the same. The outrage over Trump seems to be largely over what MIGHT have happened. But to repeat my earlier comment: if Trump actually wanted to "take over the country" in an unlawful manner (i.e. not through the courts)--with tens of millions of brainwashed, gun-toting followers at his disposal--don't you think he could have done more damage than a few broken windows, some trespassing arrests, and five deaths (only one--a Trump supporter--killed by another human)?
I don't think there is any reasonable characterization of what happened in 2021 as a peaceful transition. Moree than 1,000 police engaged in hand to hand fighting for several hours is "peaceful." Nope.
It is true Trump give up his fight after losing that battle, but there was still a physical battle fought, and it could have turned out differently than it did.
I would say there are a lot of meaningful differences between 2021 and 2001, 2005, and 2017, but the largest of these is this: in each of the prior years, the losing candidate accepted the outcome of the election and made abundantly clear long before it mattered they had done so. Outside of Gore's lawsuit, none made any effort, through the courts or outside them, to change the result. When Gore lost he abided by the decision. Trump did not accept his defeat until after his attempt to subvert the election failed.
"1. The first reason I think is overstated, considering such behavior is not uncommon for the loser. I took 60 seconds for an Internet search, and it's easy to find stories--even on CNN and NPR--of Democrats questioning and challenging the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections. Yes, Trump's complaints were louder and longer--in part because he planned to run again, unlike Gore, Kerry, and Hillary--but I don't see how that translates to permanently damaging the country."
Here's why that "Dems did it too:" argument comes across to me as incredibly weak.
In 2000, Al Gore believed that with a proper recount of FL, he would have won. He said as much, he took that claim to court, I think he won some legal victories in Florida but eventually lost when the US Supreme Court ruled against him in Bush v Gore. The VERY NEXT DAY, he gave a very gracious speech in which he acknowledged that he was giving up his legal challenges and acknowledging Bush as the next President. On Jan 6, 2001, the date of the electoral vote certification, a few Democratic House members made objections to counting the electoral vote count, and Al Gore himself, presiding over the electoral vote count as the sitting VP, ruled all of the objections out of order so that Bush could be certified the winner.
Other than the fact that both Trump in 2020 and Gore in 2016 filed lawsuits, absolutely no part of what Gore did in 2000 has even the slightest resemblance to what Trump did 2 decades later. No attempts to break Florida law by producing an "alternate" slate of electors, no attempts to bring a huge mob to Washington to strom the Capitol, and even though Gore was literally the guy who presided over the electoral vote count, no attempts to monkey with that.
In 2004, Bush defeated Kerry, and Kerry conceded. A smattering of Dem lawmakers protested, including one Senator who actually did object to the electoral vote count, but that objection was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 74-1 (8 Dems and 17 Republucans did not bother to vote). Kerry himself filed no lawsuits and made no efforts to scheme or foment violence in order to steal the election.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton called Trump and congratulated him on his victory on election night and gave a concession speech the next day. No lawsuits, no mobs, no "alternate" slates of electors. On Jan 6th, 2017, the then VP presided over the counting of electoral votes and overruled all objections from the floor. No mob stormed the Capitol that day in an effort to change the result.
Good points, Michael. "Dems did it too" is not to say their behavior matched Trump's precisely; it's mentioned only because there seems to be a large contingent who think the very thought of questioning the election (no matter the method) is dangerous and unpatriotic, etc.
My main point was this: in each case (2000, 2004, 2017, 2021) the RESULT was the same: a peaceful transition to the next president on the appointed day. In other words, mostly a lot of hot air. I think it's naive to assume other presidential candidates (and governors, mayors, senators, etc) don't work hard to "find" votes, and ask (in private conversation) for help finding such votes. Bush and Gore probably both did it in Florida. Politics is dirty business, yet the country abides. You can say Trump went overboard, that he worked dirtier than Gore and Hillary, but he still left office on the appointed day, and the country is still here. The aftermath of each election was the same. The outrage over Trump seems to be largely over what MIGHT have happened. But to repeat my earlier comment: if Trump actually wanted to "take over the country" in an unlawful manner (i.e. not through the courts)--with tens of millions of brainwashed, gun-toting followers at his disposal--don't you think he could have done more damage than a few broken windows, some trespassing arrests, and five deaths (only one--a Trump supporter--killed by another human)?
I don't think there is any reasonable characterization of what happened in 2021 as a peaceful transition. Moree than 1,000 police engaged in hand to hand fighting for several hours is "peaceful." Nope.
It is true Trump give up his fight after losing that battle, but there was still a physical battle fought, and it could have turned out differently than it did.
I would say there are a lot of meaningful differences between 2021 and 2001, 2005, and 2017, but the largest of these is this: in each of the prior years, the losing candidate accepted the outcome of the election and made abundantly clear long before it mattered they had done so. Outside of Gore's lawsuit, none made any effort, through the courts or outside them, to change the result. When Gore lost he abided by the decision. Trump did not accept his defeat until after his attempt to subvert the election failed.