Who Will Refuse to Concede?

[Elixir]

An open question for anyone who cares to venture a guess:
What percentage of Democrat and Republican candidates who lose the 11/8 election will refuse to concede and claim fraud?

My own guess is that at least 2/3 of losing Republicans and fewer than 10% of losing Democrats will refuse to concede and will claim electoral fraud.
I'm not sure of the depth of corruption within the SCOTUS, but the resolution to these coming claims will either constitute the final nail in the coffin of American democracy, or mark the the beginning of what will be a decades-long effort to climb out of the cesspool that Trump has created.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There aren't enough contested seats for less than half to concede. Honestly, I would be shock if anyone contested the results unless it was 0.1% close, because as a reminder, 0.1% is close, but not close enough. Florida in 2000 was much closer than 0.1%.

Been "praying" for a tsunami to make it clear who won and provide a mandate, and every election we haven't got it, closest being 2008 when that was a mandate, but then power of the minority party became a priority for the right-wing.

 

[Jayjay]

Most seats (~80% of house and ~70% of senate) are not competitive, and it's unlikely that losers in such districts will refuse to concede. And not all of the competitive ones will do so either. So the number of election-deniers among the losing candidates will be in single digits more likely than anywhere near or past the 50% mark.

 

[Elixir]

There aren't enough contested seats for less than half to concede.

I don't understand that contention. How "uncontested" do you suppose a Republican needs it to be in order to accept their loss?
Remember the >7,000,000 vote margin of 2020.

Been "praying" for a tsunami to make it clear who won and provide a mandate

Yeh, I was sending up that "prayer" when I started the thread "what margin of defeat would make Trump concede" in 2020.
But I knew in my heart that he would NEVER concede, regardless of the margin of his defeat. RW forum members had a field day ridiculing me for that. Now I expect them to refrain from this one.
The number of "contested" seats will be shown to be irrelevant this year. I expect almost every Republican loser to contest their loss. There may be one or two who accept it without loud complaint but without formal concession. This goes double if Republicans fail to control one or both houses of Congress. The GQP hath proclaimed that elections are bad. They're going to make sure to impress everyone with this "fact", which is really a self fulfilling prophecy.

ETA, Jimmy, didn't you just say (elsewhere) "I try hard to be reasonable about claims and social media accusations, and the Trumps always seem to manage to take advantage of the benefits of doubt I allow for... " ? Don't be surprised when the rest of the GQP tries to one-up them.

 

[TLK Valentine]

There aren't enough contested seats for less than half to concede.

Certainly not rationally, honestly, or intelligently... But that wasn't the question.

 

[Elixir]

There aren't enough contested seats for less than half to concede.

Certainly not rationally, honestly, or intelligently... But that wasn't the question.

Right

When asked, six Trump-backed Republican nominees for governor and the Senate in midterm battlegrounds would not commit to accepting this year’s election results, and another six Republicans ignored or declined to answer a question about embracing the November outcome.

^ And this is BEFORE the election, when truthin' about it could hurt them. AFTER then election I won't be a bit surprised if, like Trump, they not only allege fraud when they lose, but also when they win. Because in the new GQP paradigm, ELECTIONS ARE BAD.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There aren't enough contested seats for less than half to concede.

Certainly not rationally, honestly, or intelligently... But that wasn't the question.

There are three or so dozen US House seats that have been gerrymandered to be the only ones that are close. I can't imagine Democrats winning a seat in a D +40 district and the Republicans complaining the election was stolen. The US Senate, while not gerrymandered, only has so many seats that are competitive, assuming Dobbs doesn't completely break the models.

There is a scenario though. If the Democrats hold onto the House/Senate or even gain a little something and there are a couple "discrepancies" like Mike Lee losing in Utah, and Hofmeister winning in Oklahoma, then there could be a meal made of "something smells funny". I think making an argument that any particular event was stolen is hard because that requires actual evidence. But the Dems maintaining status quo and a couple "funny" results, that provides enough cover for bullshit claims that don't require any legal backing because it is all just accusation. But I don't see anyone refusing to concede unless it is 0.1% or 0.5% close.

It is more possible that the GOP and alt-right claim the election was fraud and continue passing legislation (if they still hold State Legislatures) to protect against the fraud in 2024.

 

[Elixir]

I can't imagine Democrats winning a seat in a D +40 district and the Republicans complaining the election was stolen.

Rather than "Republicans complaining" it's easier to imagine A republican losing in a D+40 district, claiming fraud and refusing to concede. While that happens, Republicans hem and haw, say he is within his rights and this should be looked into.
In fact, I could see that x100.
Of course if the Republican landslide actually comes to pass, complaints by the few R losers will be a bit more muted.

 

[Swammerdami]

Very few will refuse to concede unless their election is very close. But although the absolute numbers may be small, it does seem like a good bet that R's refusing to concede will outnumber D's refusing to concede: Lying is a major part of the GOP agenda, and lies about election fraud a big part of that.

There probably will be much fraud and voter intimidation, almost exclusively by R's.

There aren't enough contested seats for less than half to concede.

I don't understand that contention. How "uncontested" do you suppose a Republican needs it to be in order to accept their loss?
Remember the >7,000,000 vote margin of 2020.

Hunh? The 2020 Election of which you speak was a Presidential election where the popular vote is irrelevant. And despite the 302-236 final EV margin, that election was one of the closest in history. 43,000 votes in three states — less than 0.028% of the total vote — would have make Trump the winner.

 

[Elixir]

Very few will refuse to concede unless their election is very close. But although the absolute numbers may be small,

I disagree. There will be no recovery for any Republican from losing and NOT claiming fraud, regardless of the margin of defeat.

it does seem like a good bet that R's refusing to concede will outnumber D's refusing to concede: Lying is a major part of the GOP agenda, and lies about election fraud a big part of that.

That part, I'd bet my life on.

There probably will be much fraud and voter intimidation, almost exclusively by R's.

I don't think there will be a lot of fraud (what there is will be by the Rs) and there may be limits to the amount of intimidation that benefits them. But the CLAIMS will be epic.

There aren't enough contested seats for less than half to concede.

I don't understand that contention. How "uncontested" do you suppose a Republican needs it to be in order to accept their loss?
Remember the >7,000,000 vote margin of 2020.

Hunh? The 2020 Election of which you speak was a Presidential election where the popular vote is irrelevant. And despite the 302-236 final EV margin, that election was one of the closest in history. 43,000 votes in three states — less than 0.028% of the total vote — would have make Trump the winner.

Yeah, the "landslide" of 2016 was close that way too.
I keep bringing it up because Trump's unprecedented success-by-lies,-threats-and-intimidation created the model for the current GOP.
It worked for Trump, and now every god damned Republican (except a handful) has adopted it as their own. In fact they are REQUIRED to do so, under penalty of censure (or the even more dreaded mockery) by mango-man.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hunh? The 2020 Election of which you speak was a Presidential election where the popular vote is irrelevant. And despite the 302-236 final EV margin, that election was one of the closest in history. 43,000 votes in three states — less than 0.028% of the total vote — would have make Trump the winner.

Yeah, the "landslide" of 2016 was close that way too.

But the 2016 election wasn't a landslide. Biden won safely, but it was close in several states. Obama won by a good margin. HW Bush won by a very good margin.

It is amazing... the two largest landslides in the last 60 years... Reagan and Nixon in their re-elections.

I keep bringing it up because Trump's unprecedented success-by-lies,-threats-and-intimidation created the model for the current GOP.

I disagree. He is still a symptom of the cancer in the party that began in the 60s with Nixon. It wasn't his embrace of right-wing populism that became the bigger issue... it was the GOP that enabled it. And that GOP has been transforming into a massive malignant tumor for so long, it is hard to remember when the Republicans weren't a bunch of twats.

Look, if I end up being wrong and our government collapses, I'll openly admit it.

 

[Elixir]

Look, if I end up being wrong and our government collapses, I'll openly admit it.

Best if you don’t. That might be risky.

Trump didn’t create the cancer, he just made it metastatic.

 

[Gun Nut]

100% of the GqP losers will claim fraud was the cause of their loss. 100%
0% of the democratic losers will claim fraud was the cause of their loss. 0%
furthermore, 51% or more of identified Fraud (the guy that votes for his dead wife, for example) will be on the Republican side.

To wear the R is to say you are anti-American, anti-Democratic, and anti-Human
You have to be a retard, an animal, or a criminal to vote republican... unfortunately, that makes up 30% of the country.

 

[TLK Valentine]

There aren't enough contested seats for less than half to concede.

Certainly not rationally, honestly, or intelligently... But that wasn't the question.

There are three or so dozen US House seats that have been gerrymandered to be the only ones that are close. I can't imagine Democrats winning a seat in a D +40 district and the Republicans complaining the election was stolen.

I can. Any time the GOP doesn't howl fraud, they give legitimacy to the electoral process... that can't help them.

The US Senate, while not gerrymandered, only has so many seats that are competitive, assuming Dobbs doesn't completely break the models.

There is a scenario though. If the Democrats hold onto the House/Senate or even gain a little something and there are a couple "discrepancies" like Mike Lee losing in Utah, and Hofmeister winning in Oklahoma, then there could be a meal made of "something smells funny". I think making an argument that any particular event was stolen is hard because that requires actual evidence.

The 2020 election was a particular event -- actually a series of particular events in multiple states... and Donald's demented disciples still claim they were stolen.

The complete absence of anything even impersonating actual evidence has not discouraged them in the slightest.

But the Dems maintaining status quo and a couple "funny" results, that provides enough cover for bullshit claims that don't require any legal backing because it is all just accusation. But I don't see anyone refusing to concede unless it is 0.1% or 0.5% close.

It is more possible that the GOP and alt-right claim the election was fraud and continue passing legislation (if they still hold State Legislatures) to protect against the fraud in 2024.

It's not fraud they want to protect themselves from... it's defeat.

 

[Elixir]

It's not fraud they want to protect themselves from... it's defeat.

Nailed it. I’d say “loss of power” rather than defeat. And it goes far beyond any currently contested race. As you point out, every loss is now an opportunity to cast doubt on the validity of elections, and the fascists are unlikely to pass up any such opportunity. Today, after decades of Reagan, Nixon and Trump, a strong majority of Republicans already think elections are corrupt and Trump should be President because … no reason. So why should a Republican politician EVER concede an election or admit defeat?

 

[TLK Valentine]

It's not fraud they want to protect themselves from... it's defeat.

Nailed it. I’d say “loss of power” rather than defeat. And it goes far beyond any currently contested race. As you point out, every loss is now an opportunity to cast doubt on the validity of elections, and the fascists are unlikely to pass up any such opportunity. Today, after decades of Reagan, Nixon and Trump, a strong majority of Republicans already think elections are corrupt and Trump should be President because … no reason. So why should a Republican politician EVER concede an election or admit defeat?

Well, for now, political defeat means "loss of power," but only because their 1/6 coup failed due to poor intelligence (as in a complete lack thereof)...

To be expected when Great Leader resents and rejects anyone smarter than himself... sadly, the bottom of the barrel is quite wide.

 

[senor boogie woogie]

Why does the loser need to "concede"? Do coaches of losing football teams make an announcement that they lost?

 

[Patooka]

Why does the loser need to "concede"? Do coaches of losing football teams make an announcement that they lost?

Typically, yes. What they generally don't do is engage in domestic terrorism or plan coups if they lose.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why does the loser need to "concede"?

Because, as part of the experiment that has been Democracy, we have found losers conceding helps Democracy remain alive. It is a politico-sociological thing.

Do coaches of losing football teams make an announcement that they lost?

Revolutions and murder aren't common after a disputed football game.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There aren't enough contested seats for less than half to concede.

Certainly not rationally, honestly, or intelligently... But that wasn't the question.

There are three or so dozen US House seats that have been gerrymandered to be the only ones that are close. I can't imagine Democrats winning a seat in a D +40 district and the Republicans complaining the election was stolen. The US Senate, while not gerrymandered, only has so many seats that are competitive, assuming Dobbs doesn't completely break the models.

There is a scenario though. If the Democrats hold onto the House/Senate or even gain a little something and there are a couple "discrepancies" like Mike Lee losing in Utah, and Hofmeister winning in Oklahoma, then there could be a meal made of "something smells funny". I think making an argument that any particular event was stolen is hard because that requires actual evidence. But the Dems maintaining status quo and a couple "funny" results, that provides enough cover for bullshit claims that don't require any legal backing because it is all just accusation. But I don't see anyone refusing to concede unless it is 0.1% or 0.5% close.

What he said.