Left, or Underhanded, Election Denial.

[John D. Brey]

“In our bones, we know democracy is at risk. . . We’re often not faced with questions of whether the vote we cast will preserve democracy, but this year we are.”

President Joe Biden.​

And what will signify the end of democracy, and thus the end of fair elections: victories by the opposing party. In the words of the leaders of the Democratic Party, elections will no longer count, matter, or be fair, if the opposing party wins.

What this test and challenge means was made clear during a rather stunning exchange on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” between Shadi Hamid and Mehdi Hasan over whether it would be “democratic” to accept Donald Trump’s victory in 2024 if he won fair and square. Mehdi Hasan repeatedly rejected the premise, insisting that there could not be a legitimate victory for Donald Trump due to “voting restrictions, changes in process, intimidation, [and] misinformation,” in effect suggesting that even if more people voted for Trump, it would not actually reflect democracy because someone somewhere might have voted against him, or because those who voted for him might have been “misinformed.” Despite being repeatedly pressed by Hamid, who rightly argued that this attitude was dangerous, Hasan rejected the idea that Donald Trump could ever be legitimately elected even if he received a majority of the vote.

Daniel Berman is a frequent commentator and lecturer on foreign policy and political affairs, both nationally and internationally. He holds a Ph.D. in International Relations from the London School of Economics. ​

Daniel Berman goes on to note:

Many Democratic candidates seem to share the Mehdi Hasan understanding of democracy, in which the actual number of votes cast does not endow democratic legitimacy, but rather, how well the views of the winner align with the views of the political and media establishment. In this version of democracy, when voters vote the “wrong” way, the election doesn’t count because they have been duped by “misinformation.”​

John

 

[Subduction Zone]

“In our bones, we know democracy is at risk. . . We’re often not faced with questions of whether the vote we cast will preserve democracy, but this year we are.”

President Joe Biden.​

And what will signify the end of democracy, and thus the end of fair elections: victories by the opposing party. In the words of the leaders of the Democratic Party, elections will no longer count, matter, or be fair, if the opposing party wins.

What this test and challenge means was made clear during a rather stunning exchange on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” between Shadi Hamid and Mehdi Hasan over whether it would be “democratic” to accept Donald Trump’s victory in 2024 if he won fair and square. Mehdi Hasan repeatedly rejected the premise, insisting that there could not be a legitimate victory for Donald Trump due to “voting restrictions, changes in process, intimidation, [and] misinformation,” in effect suggesting that even if more people voted for Trump, it would not actually reflect democracy because someone somewhere might have voted against him, or because those who voted for him might have been “misinformed.” Despite being repeatedly pressed by Hamid, who rightly argued that this attitude was dangerous, Hasan rejected the idea that Donald Trump could ever be legitimately elected even if he received a majority of the vote.

Daniel Berman is a frequent commentator and lecturer on foreign policy and political affairs, both nationally and internationally. He holds a Ph.D. in International Relations from the London School of Economics. ​

Daniel Berman goes on to note:

Many Democratic candidates seem to share the Mehdi Hasan understanding of democracy, in which the actual number of votes cast does not endow democratic legitimacy, but rather, how well the views of the winner align with the views of the political and media establishment. In this version of democracy, when voters vote the “wrong” way, the election doesn’t count because they have been duped by “misinformation.”​

John

I cannot think of a more despicable person that has been a Presidential candidate than Donald Trump. But if he wins, he wins. The probably unconstitutional voting restrictions that are being applied right now could make the win unfair, but it would have to be a very very close race to do that, and in multiple states as well.

Immoral voting restrictions are far more likely to affect state politics than national politics.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The focal point here is whether Mehdi Hasan's views on elections represent the left as a whole or at least a considerable subset thereof. I have seen no evidence that they do, and we certainly didn't witness leftists attempting to scale the walls of the Capitol after Trump's win in 2016—even though he actually lost the popular vote.

The article seems to be an attempt to project the fringe views of one journalist on the Democratic Party, but the evidence doesn't justify this leap.

 

[Hold]

Remember Al Gore conceding after a 'troubled recount' in Florida? I did not vote for "W". I live in a Democratic Republic and the candidate with the most electoral votes gets to be president, period....

 

[dybmh]

In the words of the leaders of the Democratic Party, elections will no longer count, matter, or be fair, if the opposing party wins.

John, the speech you are quoting says 100% the opposite. Your OP is false. The Democratic Party is saying that the nation is at risk from election deniers on the ballot. This is what Biden said:

It’s estimated that there are more than 300 election deniers on the ballot all across America this year.

...

We can’t ignore the impact this is having on our country. It’s damaging, it’s corrosive, and it’s destructive.​

As I stand here today, there are candidates running for every level of office in America — for governor, Congress, attorney general, secretary of state — who won’t commit — they will not commit to accepting the results of elections that they’re running in.

That is a path to chaos in America. It’s unprecedented, it’s unlawful, and it’s un-American. As I’ve said before, you can’t love your country only when you win.

...

I hope you’ll ask a simple question of each candidate you might vote for: Will that person accept the legitimate will of the American people and the people voting in his district or her district? Will that person accept the outcome of the election, win or lose?

The answer to that question is vital. And in my opinion, it should be decisive. On the answer to that question hangs the future of the country we love so much and the fate of the democracy that has made so much possible for us.

Remarks by President Biden on Standing up for Democracy | The White House​

 

[lewisnotmiller]

“In our bones, we know democracy is at risk. . . We’re often not faced with questions of whether the vote we cast will preserve democracy, but this year we are.”

President Joe Biden.​

And what will signify the end of democracy, and thus the end of fair elections: victories by the opposing party. In the words of the leaders of the Democratic Party, elections will no longer count, matter, or be fair, if the opposing party wins.

What this test and challenge means was made clear during a rather stunning exchange on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” between Shadi Hamid and Mehdi Hasan over whether it would be “democratic” to accept Donald Trump’s victory in 2024 if he won fair and square. Mehdi Hasan repeatedly rejected the premise, insisting that there could not be a legitimate victory for Donald Trump due to “voting restrictions, changes in process, intimidation, [and] misinformation,” in effect suggesting that even if more people voted for Trump, it would not actually reflect democracy because someone somewhere might have voted against him, or because those who voted for him might have been “misinformed.” Despite being repeatedly pressed by Hamid, who rightly argued that this attitude was dangerous, Hasan rejected the idea that Donald Trump could ever be legitimately elected even if he received a majority of the vote.

Daniel Berman is a frequent commentator and lecturer on foreign policy and political affairs, both nationally and internationally. He holds a Ph.D. in International Relations from the London School of Economics. ​

Daniel Berman goes on to note:

Many Democratic candidates seem to share the Mehdi Hasan understanding of democracy, in which the actual number of votes cast does not endow democratic legitimacy, but rather, how well the views of the winner align with the views of the political and media establishment. In this version of democracy, when voters vote the “wrong” way, the election doesn’t count because they have been duped by “misinformation.”​

John

With a straight face you're suggesting the biggest chance of election denial is the left?

 

[Left Coast]

The focal point here is whether Mehdi Hasan's views on elections represent the left as a whole or at least a considerable subset thereof. I have seen no evidence that they do, and we certainly didn't witness leftists attempting to scale the walls of the Capitol after Trump's win in 2016—even though he actually lost the popular vote.

The article seems to be an attempt to project the fringe views of one journalist on the Democratic Party, but the evidence doesn't justify this leap.

To be fair, quite a few people on the left did adopt slogans like "Not My President" when Trump was elected the first time. Didn't rise to the level of breaking and entering the Capitol, but the sentiment that Trump's win was illegitimate has been there.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

To be fair, quite a few people on the left did adopt slogans like "Not My President" when Trump was elected the first time. Didn't rise to the level of breaking and entering the Capitol, but the sentiment that Trump's win was illegitimate has been there.

I heard the same "Not My President" political rhetoric from many of the conservatives I knew when Barack Obama was president, and whenever they mentioned him, they would always include his middle name, Hussein. If it were a post online, they would bold Hussein and claim that he is a Muslim. I knew several evangelicals who even feared that former President Obama would enforce Sharia law on America and round up all the Christians and imprison them. Most of them would repeatedly talk about being ready to die for Christ.

 

[Left Coast]

I heard the same "Not My President" political rhetoric from many of the conservatives I knew when Barack Obama was president, and whenever they mentioned him, they would always include his middle name, Hussein. If it were a post online, they would bold Hussein and claim that he is a Muslim. I knew several evangelicals who even feared that former President Obama would enforce Sharia law on America and round up all the Christians and imprison them. Most of them would repeatedly talk about being ready to die for Christ.

It is fascinating when left and right move so far away from each other that they actually start resembling each other.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Many Democratic candidates seem to share the Mehdi Hasan understanding of democracy, in which the actual number of votes cast does not endow democratic legitimacy, ...​

​

Had the Civil Rights Act been put to a popular vote, which brand of democracy would have prevailed? Yours?

 

[Valjean]

Remember Al Gore conceding after a 'troubled recount' in Florida? I did not vote for "W". I live in a Democratic Republic and the candidate with the most electoral votes gets to be president, period....

For that matter, Hillary Clinton won the majority of the popular vote in 2016, as well, but lost the Electoral College vote.
In the US the president is elected by the Electoral College, which does not always reflect the popular vote.

Q: Which party would vote to do away with the Electoral College, and go with the actual vote count? Which would vote to retain it?
So, which party most favors democracy and the popular will? (Hint: it's not the Republicans)

 

[John D. Brey]

John, the speech you are quoting says 100% the opposite. Your OP is false. The Democratic Party is saying that the nation is at risk from election deniers on the ballot. This is what Biden said:

It’s estimated that there are more than 300 election deniers on the ballot all across America this year.

...

We can’t ignore the impact this is having on our country. It’s damaging, it’s corrosive, and it’s destructive.​

As I stand here today, there are candidates running for every level of office in America — for governor, Congress, attorney general, secretary of state — who won’t commit — they will not commit to accepting the results of elections that they’re running in.

That is a path to chaos in America. It’s unprecedented, it’s unlawful, and it’s un-American. As I’ve said before, you can’t love your country only when you win.

...

I hope you’ll ask a simple question of each candidate you might vote for: Will that person accept the legitimate will of the American people and the people voting in his district or her district? Will that person accept the outcome of the election, win or lose?

The answer to that question is vital. And in my opinion, it should be decisive. On the answer to that question hangs the future of the country we love so much and the fate of the democracy that has made so much possible for us.

Remarks by President Biden on Standing up for Democracy | The White House​

If we're defining "election deniers" as people who refuse to accept the results based on who wins and who doesn't, then I think we're in agreement that people like that are not worthy of democracy or holding office. To the degree that that's President Biden's only, or primary point, I'm in agreement with him and you.



John

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To be fair, quite a few people on the left did adopt slogans like "Not My President" when Trump was elected the first time. Didn't rise to the level of breaking and entering the Capitol, but the sentiment that Trump's win was illegitimate has been there.

That's been going on for a long time now, from both sides and the unaffiliated as well, amd is different than rejecting the legitimacy of an election. It's rejecting the legitimacy of authority.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

For that matter, Hillary Clinton won the majority of the popular vote in 2016, as well, but lost the Electoral College vote.
In the US the president is elected by the Electoral College, which does not always reflect the popular vote.

Q: Which party would vote to do away with the Electoral College, and go with the actual vote count? Which would vote to retain it?
So, which party most favors democracy and the popular will? (Hint: it's not the Republicans)

Historically it's been the party opposed to expanding voting and more likely to see voting as a privilege and not a right. Centuries past it was Dems who were often members of the Klan. Today it's Republicans like DeSantis.

 

[Valjean]

Historically it's been the party opposed to expanding voting and more likely to see voting as a privilege and not a right. Centuries past it was Dems who were often members of the Klan. Today it's Republicans like DeSantis.

True, the Republicans used to be the more socially progressive party, but no more. They've been captured by corporate interests. Their popular base has been shrinking, and they've resorted to propaganda, replacement panic, pandering to popular dissatisfaction, and various stratagems designed to restrict voting among demographics likely to vote Democratic.

 

[wellwisher]

True, the Republicans used to be the more socially progressive party, but no more. They've been captured by corporate interests. Their popular base has been shrinking, and they've resorted to propaganda, replacement panic, pandering to popular dissatisfaction, and various stratagems designed to restrict voting among demographics likely to vote Democratic.

When voter laws change everyone is affective. With any rules change to voting, everyone is now required to play by those new rules. Typically if the voter laws get slack and make potential cheating easier, the Republican will be the first to complain. If the voting laws get tighter, so cheating is harder, the Democrats will be the first to complain. Why is it harder for Democrat leaders and voters to function if the rules are not slack? Is this emotional, psychological or chemical?

In a truly Democrat voting process, by any set of rules, each individual would be more independent and able to come to their own conclusions and not just be a herd animal voting by group think. This ideal would require freedom of speech, so everyone can hear all sides. Once there is censorship or omission of data; bury the Hunter Biden laptop story, or disinformation and misinformation; Russian collusion, then voters do not have what it takes to have a Democratic voting process. Falling for a manipulation, due to censorship and poor data is not how a Democratic process can work.

It appears the Democrats, who prefer things be slack, with bending the rules OK, tend to interfere in the Democratic voting process. Tighter and secure elections and free speech with open discussion and good and complete data, is how Democracy is supposed to work.

When the Constitution was written only male land owner could vote. At that time, this was the most self sufficient and independent demographics. Owning and working land is hard work that takes drives and commitment. Such people do not have a free ride which makes them free to be their own person. This is not the case anymore. We have added less independent and objective voter to the math watering down the ideal of a Democratic voting base. The problem could be the two party system pits citizens against each other until the dumb down takers over.

 

[Hold]

For that matter, Hillary Clinton won the majority of the popular vote in 2016, as well, but lost the Electoral College vote.
In the US the president is elected by the Electoral College, which does not always reflect the popular vote.

Q: Which party would vote to do away with the Electoral College, and go with the actual vote count? Which would vote to retain it?
So, which party most favors democracy and the popular will? (Hint: it's not the Republicans)

I would support the change to using the majority vote to decide national elections.....Whatever system we use to select our President, the opposing parties should have the right to challenge the vote count if necessary. If Trump wins, Trump should be respected as our President....If someone else wins, they should be respected as the President..Sometime, it is necessary to state the obvious...

 

[Left Coast]

That's been going on for a long time now, from both sides and the unaffiliated as well, amd is different than rejecting the legitimacy of an election. It's rejecting the legitimacy of authority.

You say tomato, I say tomahto...

 

[wellwisher]

If we're defining "election deniers" as people who refuse to accept the results based on who wins and who doesn't, then I think we're in agreement that people like that are not worthy of democracy or holding office. To the degree that that's President Biden's only, or primary point, I'm in agreement with him and you.
John

But isn't that protect by free speech. Censorship is not how Democracy works. That is how third world dictators stay in power.

Why didn't the Biden Administration set up an independent Federal commission to address voter fraud? This was a very serious charge by lots of people. If you recall the computers went down for a few hours late at night with Trump ahead. When they restarted, Biden was ahead. This was not normal or typical. I can see how this could be confusing.

Such an investigation could have settled this, similar to when Trump agreed to the Mueller investigation with 20 Democrat lawyers, into the serious charges of Russian collusion. Once that investigation was over, all you heard from the accusers was the sound of crickets. A bright light scarred away the thieves.

If Trump had avoided the Mueller investigation, doubt about Russian collusion would still be lingering. Now the Democrats try to avoid the Russian Collusion Coup discussion, since they feel edgy for that scam. Trump allowed his investigation, because he felt he was innocent and was a victim of a Coup. He was right but no justice was done. Would those who ran the Coup try to steal an election, knowing if Trump won, they will now be under investigation for the Coup. There was motive to win then election by any means, based on political and personal survival.

Biden did not even try to silence the critics who claimed voter fraud, with a full scale federal investigation. We could have used Mueller again with 20 Republican Lawyers. Instead, election fraud was deemed refuted without any major tax payer funded investigation.

All the court cases for voter fraud were civil cases payed for by private citizens. There was no federal case that started within the Government, that had more power to dig into classified materials and drag people to court and put then in jail of they perjure Lack of due process by the Democrats have left the door of doubt open. This may need to be addressed in the future, to help lower the political tension.

If the Democrats lose the midterms and claim steal or fraud, they will have to get in line for their due process, since there are already election deniers in front on them, still waiting for their due process.

 

[John D. Brey]

But isn't that protect by free speech. Censorship is not how Democracy works. That is how third world dictators stay in power.

Why didn't the Biden Administration set up an independent Federal commission to address voter fraud? This was a very serious charge by lots of people. If you recall the computers went down for a few hours late at night with Trump ahead. When they restarted, Biden was ahead. This was not normal or typical. I can see how this could be confusing.

Such an investigation could have settled this, similar to when Trump agreed to the Mueller investigation with 20 Democrat lawyers, into the serious charges of Russian collusion. Once that investigation was over, all you heard from the accusers was the sound of crickets. A bright light scarred away the thieves.

If Trump had avoided the Mueller investigation, doubt about Russian collusion would still be lingering. Now the Democrats try to avoid the Russian Collusion Coup discussion, since they feel edgy for that scam. Trump allowed his investigation, because he felt he was innocent and was a victim of a Coup. He was right but no justice was done. Would those who ran the Coup try to steal an election, knowing if Trump won, they will now be under investigation for the Coup. There was motive to win then election by any means, based on political and personal survival.

Biden did not even try to silence the critics who claimed voter fraud, with a full scale federal investigation. We could have used Mueller again with 20 Republican Lawyers. Instead, election fraud was deemed refuted without any major tax payer funded investigation.

All the court cases for voter fraud were civil cases payed for by private citizens. There was no federal case that started within the Government, that had more power to dig into classified materials and drag people to court and put then in jail of they perjure Lack of due process by the Democrats have left the door of doubt open. This may need to be addressed in the future, to help lower the political tension.

If the Democrats lose the midterms and claim steal or fraud, they will have to get in line for their due process, since there are already election deniers in front on them, still waiting for their due process.

I agree with most of what you've said. I was addressing the idea that the term "election denier" is mostly being used to describe people who imply that since they lose an election it must have been stolen.

Ironically, and sadly, there are Republican candidates who have literally said that if they lose, it will be because of cheating. That's pretty messed up.

Former President Trump didn't say that. When asked if he would accept the results of the election, he made a logical statement that yes he would accept it if he won (obviously). On the other hand he implied that if he lost, he wouldn't automatically accept the election results. That's different from saying that if he loses, his stance is that the election was stolen. Former President Trump never implied that if he lost, then the election was stolen; only that if he lost he would suspect chicanery, and look into it.

Those who are truly objective didn't have to look too far to see that the last Presidential election was a terrible sham of biblical proportions. And that's not "election denial." It's accepting the facts whether they further your party or hurt your party. To deny that the last Presidential election was tainted to some degree is about as clear a case of denial as we're ever likely to see.



John