2016 Postmortem

BzaDem

(11,142 posts)

22. The impact of the revelations is not relevant to the OP.

Sun Jan 8, 2017, 12:14 AM

Jan 2017

The OP is proposing that we should not accept the results of the election.

Let's imagine a hypothetical world where HRC was 20 points ahead before the WikiLeaks dump, and 5 points behind afterwards. In other words, a world where the evidence showing unambiguously that Russia's exposing of the emails single-handedly turned a sure win into a loss.

Would it then make sense to not accept the election results? What would happen after a hypothetical refusal to accept the results? Would we re-run the election, where voters would have exactly the same information from the emails (about their content and sourcing) that they had before the election? If Hillary lost again, would we re-run the election a third time?

This is absurd. Voters made their choice. A very poor choice, but a free choice nonetheless. Absent evidence that Trump didn't actually win the states he won, it is time to move on.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

53 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Every Dem in the Senate and House should have stood with Rep. Waters in not accepting the results... [View all] brush Jan 2017 OP

Yes, I was pleased to see my new Representative, elleng Jan 2017 #1

At best, Russia leaked some documents mythology Jan 2017 #2

Thanks for the republican perspective. The intel agencies don't agree with your assessment either. brush Jan 2017 #3

The intel agencies did not make an assessment on impact on the elections - that is clearly not their karynnj Jan 2017 #14

The impact of the revelations is not relevant to the OP. BzaDem Jan 2017 #22

'move along, nothing to see here.' n/t susanna Jan 2017 #27

It answers the direct assertion of the post I responded to karynnj Jan 2017 #30

Thanks for the pathetic insults mythology Jan 2017 #49

You're quite welcome. brush Jan 2017 #52

Maybe not directly, but the DNC hack fed into the narrative that Sanders lapucelle Jan 2017 #4

"Democratic leadership decided early on that it would not support efforts to contest the election." CrispyQ Jan 2017 #53

What about cross check where they eliminated voters and all the provisional votes not counted? kimbutgar Jan 2017 #6

Yes, cross check hasn't been mentioned bdamomma Jan 2017 #16

No it is what is, treason kimbutgar Jan 2017 #24

I have posted elsewhere that voter suppression has been karynnj Jan 2017 #31

Please feel free to quantify exactly how many people were affected mythology Jan 2017 #51

What proof do you have that the Russian hack didn't really impact Clinton's doc03 Jan 2017 #7

Yeah, I'm sure half of the Trump voters Mr.Bill Jan 2017 #17

Anyone who believed that was never going to vote for Clinton no matter what. former9thward Jan 2017 #50

they did much more then hack, leak emails elmac Jan 2017 #18

They are all scared little pu$$ies kimbutgar Jan 2017 #5

This may be a feel-good thing to do but we really need to put our energies elsewhere. IphengeniaBlumgarten Jan 2017 #8

A resounding, united protest by the Dems would energize our efforts to fight against trump and . . . brush Jan 2017 #9

Given that we are in post mortem mode, why? jimlup Jan 2017 #10

Express your opinion. It's a discussion board. brush Jan 2017 #11

It's the doctrinal system... jimlup Jan 2017 #21

That's how the senate views itself, gentile and collegial (at least on the Dem side, the repugs, no) brush Jan 2017 #23

Yes jimlup Jan 2017 #32

It would be refreshing to see a Dem pol stand up for something for a change. Binkie The Clown Jan 2017 #12

He didn't stand up either brush Jan 2017 #19

This is not a reason to not accept the results. NCTraveler Jan 2017 #13

the language in the report about "disparaging" clinton. omg. mopinko Jan 2017 #15

Remember when we were horrified when Trump said he wouldn't accept the election results? BzaDem Jan 2017 #20

God! Thanks for the perspective from the other side. Both candidates vowed to accept the results . . brush Jan 2017 #28

Of course Putin's interference is not "all right by me." BzaDem Jan 2017 #34

Nice, a view from the right. brush Jan 2017 #36

Perhaps the concept of the people choosing is now a "view from the right." BzaDem Jan 2017 #38

And I guess the concept of not standing up to interference of a hostile power in our elections... brush Jan 2017 #39

If you define "spinelessness" as "accepting reality", it isn't ever going to end. BzaDem Jan 2017 #40

You have your opinions. brush Jan 2017 #41

Clinton specifically blamed Putin for the wikileaks disclosures during the third debate onenote Jan 2017 #37

Agreed. iluvtennis Jan 2017 #25

Agreed to what? The Russian interference in our election? brush Jan 2017 #29

Absolutely not...I agree that all Dems should have stood with Representative Maxine Waters nt iluvtennis Jan 2017 #33

My problem with Russia's interference BadgerMom Jan 2017 #26

Nixon didn't face arrest until after he resigned. He did face impeachmemt and removal. BzaDem Jan 2017 #35

Thanks BadgerMom Jan 2017 #42

I am having depressing revisions of 2000 run through my mind. Rex Jan 2017 #43

Does anybody here really believe Clinton lost because Podesta's emails were leaked? snowy owl Jan 2017 #44

So no harm no foul, huh? It's ok for Putin to purposely interfere for trump? brush Jan 2017 #45

Actually I agree that some energy on the part of Dems wouldn't hurt. snowy owl Jan 2017 #46

The main hackers of the 2016 election were most likely the GOP nikto Jan 2017 #47

Right! We need to stop just accepting this stuff. We have to figure ways to combat it, and... brush Jan 2017 #48