Why do Democrat’s always cry foul when they lose elections?
- Jerry SLv 71 month ago
delete Democrat and insert Republican.
- Anonymous1 month ago
They don't. In fact, in many ways it's been the opposite.
There are two main elections where Democrats have "cried foul" and with good reason. The first was the 2000 election. In that case, George W Bush got half a million fewer votes than Vice President Al Gore but won the election anyway. And he did so via a tainted Supreme Court decision where the Republican appointed majority appeared to many to rule based on their personal political preferences rather than the law. The legal theory they invented was wholly novel at the time and, in a bizarre instance, they tried to limit it's applicability to just the case of Bush v Gore alone. There were conflicts of interest abundant. William Rehnquists son was indirectly employed by the Bush campaign. Rehnquist and O'Connor had privately expressed a preference for Bush to win before the election. Clarence Thomas' wife had been a pro-Bush political operative. They all voted to shut down the Florida recount while Bush still held a narrow lead of 500 votes. Enough to give him the state's electoral votes and the presidency. It's hard to escape the conclusion that the election was effectively stolen. Sandra Day O'Connor seemed to endorse this vision herself when, after her retirement she admitted that it was a mistake for the court to get involved in the election.
The other controversial election, of course, is 2016. There, Trump lost even worse than Bush did. He got three million fewer votes than Clinton did but still won. This time we didn't have a dubious Supreme Court decision but we did have foreign interference which Trump welcomed and supported even if he didn't conspire criminally with the Russians.
These are both elections where Democrats were right to "cry foul", because in both of them the wrong thing happened. And by "wrong thing" I don't mean that a Republican was elected. In both cases, the will of the people was thwarted. To argue that Democrats are wrong to "cry foul" at such elections is to reject the notion of elections altogether. Democrats are upset at these elections because the people's choice didn't get to take power. That's a good reason to "cry foul". If you don't think so then you're essentially saying that elections are irrelevant. If the will of the people doesn't matter then we might as well save us all a lot of time and money and just flip a coin to decide who wins.
OTOH, Republicans routinely "cry foul" when elections don't go their way. And usually without good cause. The most recent example is Matt Bevin, the Republican Governor of Kentucky (who just recently pardoned a couple of murderers and child molesters). He narrowly lost his reelection bid to a Democrat. Rather than simply accept that he, the least popular Governor in the country, had lost an off year election to a charismatic Democrat who benefited from name association with his father, a popular former Governor, Bevin insisted that there must have been fraud. Let's be clear: he had zero evidence for this. All it was based on was his belief that he was destined to win.
Of course, the biggest instance of crying foul has to be Trump. Obviously, Trump won, but he's gone on to invent something truly new: a sore winner. Trump continues to insist, falsely and without evidence, that there are widespread conspiracies against him. In the 2016 election, for instance, he insists that there was massive fraud by the Democrats and that he actually won the popular vote. Again, this based on absolutely nothing other than Trump's inability to accept the reality that the American people rejected him at the polls.
But this "crying foul" without evidence isn't limited to Trump. It's been a longstanding aspect of conservative political thought. Take, for example, the idea of voter fraud, which has been cited as the animating motive behind a host of reforms which make it more difficult for people to vote, including voter ID laws. Whatever the validity of these laws, all studies have shown that voter fraud is very rare. But the issue comes up frequently among conservatives. For years its been used as a way for them to explain away Democratic electoral success without having to admit that maybe people actually like Democratic candidates and ideas. Again, as with Bevin and Trump, these accusations of widespread and significant fraud aren't supported by evidence and are mainly based on Republicans psychological need to reconcile their belief that their ideas are correct and popular with the reality that Democrats keep winning elections. I guarantee you that if Trump and Republicans lose the 2020 election they're not going to accept the result in a spirit of cameraderie. Instead they're going to peddle conspiracy theories, probably baseless, that it was stolen from them.
- Warren TLv 71 month ago
THEY THINK THEY SHOULD ALWAYS BE IN CHARGE
- k wLv 71 month ago
get them some viagra..........
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Justin ThymeLv 71 month ago
It all started with participation trophies for the losers in children's sports.
- rustbucketLv 61 month ago
Something comes to mind, "sore losers."
- Anonymous1 month ago
If you paid as much as they do to rig elections, you too would be upset when the people overrule you - - - - look at Hitlery.
- 1 month ago
Is that really always the case?
- 1 month ago
Because nobody likes losing elections, right?
- Russ in NOVALv 71 month ago
Why do you put apostrophes where they shouldn't be? Because it is a fake question that's why.