Trump was always going to scream Stolen Election if he lost. It is the inevitable outcome of his personality. Nothing bad is ever his fault and he never makes mistakes and is not a loser (in what passes for his mind).
He would have screamed stolen election if HC had won in 2016. He would have been riding that pony until 2020 and beyond, just like he is riding it now to 2024. He will ride it into the ground.
He played the "rigged election" theme leading up to 2016 election too,, just not as heavily as in 2020. I think in 2016 he didn't necessarily want to be president; he just wanted a way to claim that he didn't actually lose a fair contest. And IIRC he subsequently claimed that he would have won the popular vote in 2016 if not for cheating.
My general sense is that Trump rn as a promotional gig to revitalize his brand. He did not really expect to win and probably (if he thought about it honestly) did not want to win.
There was no real upside for Trump in actually winning... as we ended up seeing. It brought to light many things he would have preferred not be seen and is probably going to cost him a lot of money and maybe even his company in the end.
After it all plays out, I seriously doubt the bit of graft he got out of it will make up for what he loses. He could have made more money and had all the adoration if he had lost (and the loss would not have been his fault because it was "rigged.").
He seems to have lost money by being president, much as he tried to monetize the presidency, but he gained a bigger, more fanatical cult following than he could have dreamed of, and even the fawning praise of some "intellectuals" who should know better. If there's one thing that Trump cares about more than wealth, or being perceived as very wealthy, it's adulation. And he got it without having to put much actual work into presidential duties, since he had other people to do that.
Balanced against that adulation is the awareness that even more people than his followers have come to hate and despise him. The thing is, he could have probably had the adulation if he had stuck to the media end after a losing run at President... and would probably be less hated.
Well, actually, as far as a democratic election goes, HRC did win in 2016. The EC is not a democratic institution and was never meant to be so we truly have never had a really democratic presidential election (or Al Gore and HRC would have taken office after winning the popular vote).
But I think he believes in the Big Lie of the Steal because he thought his own stealing of the election was set up and because it worked in 2016 when much more loosely organized by Russia and the Republican Party. I thought he thought it could not fail in 2020 with both Putin and the GOP behind it. So of course he must assume that Biden just had a better rigging system in place. Hence, the Steal.
We do have a Democratic presidential election. It's just 50 separate State elections. Those are the rules that everyone knows going in. If you don't win the majority of electoral votes you don't win the election. Doesn't make the election non-democratic
Interesting POV but the EC is in itself an undemocratic institution as it was created to ensure the "wrong" person was never elevated to office despite winning a democratically held election (one person one vote all persons). When the person who wins the most votes is not allowed to take the office, that is undemocratic by definition imho. (But I appreciate hearing your justification for it; I just will never agree. The EC manipulates results deliberately. It may be legal. It isn't democratic.)
I think liberals are overly focused on the state by state nature of the EC that could mean a candidate who doesn't receive a national majority wins the election. A much, much bigger concern is the clunky and easily exploited process associated with counting and certifying electoral votes. That's something Trump tried to exploit in 2020. Here's a related concern. What if the D narrowly wins a sufficient number of states for an electoral majority in 2024 and Trump bribes a few electors to cross over to vote for him so he can win the EC vote for President? That didn't happen in 2000 b/c Bush and Gore were decent moral men who cared about the country. Trump is not decent nor moral and he sure doesn't care about the country.
I am focused on the popular vote electing the winner. So I would support eliminating the EC as it has proven to be easily manipulated by those neither decent nor moral. Twice in 20 years. But then, democracy only works if those working it abide by a social contract. Both parties must do so.
Do you remember the piece on the Trump Re-elect's finances in the NYT? It was low on cash. Parscale was briefly accused of stealing money; then of lavishly spending money. He was removed as campaign chair. There was a quarter billion dollars in money that had been paid for "consulting," to a post box. I've wondered whether Trump's high dudgeon about losing was partly due to the fact that he had paid a lot of money to rig the election himself and still didn't win--or got ripped off.
PS: It was also about the amount of money he would have needed for the loan that was coming due... .
I do vaguely remember that but I always assume he's putting the cash into his own account somewhere, like he did with his "nonprofits." But I do think in his own head he cannot fathom that he didn't rig it well enough...
OTOH, his campaign's internal polling, along with nearly every other poll, was consistently showing him likely to lose, which IMO is why he harped on the "rigged election" theme so heavily.
If he didn't know or strongly he was going to lose going in, he wasn't listening to his people with the data. As early as several months before the election, any time he was asked about what he would do if he lost, he never indicated that he would willingly leave... in fact, kind of the reverse.
o people like Trump and Putin and Xi, elections are these orchestrated things that return the desired results--because if you don't get the result you want, something is obviously crooked, right?
Just like I am absolutely sure that the referendum in Belarus about letting Russia permanently station troops and have nukes there is 100% legit. Uh huh.
True. It's why narcissism is a personality defect. Still, without QAnon, he would not have gotten as far as he did with it. It's emerging that QAnon was well represented in the series of meetings at which the plan for !/6 was crafted.
He is operating in an intellectual and media environment that makes doing what he is doing easier, because people see a chance to capitalize on it. Yay for the internet, where every tinfoil cap wearer can self-publish. :P
The informal fallacy of the decade seems to be "Everybody's saying it." When there are literal armies of trolls, bots, and cyborgs, it seems like everybody IS saying it.
The dots are few between Putin and "The Steal." 1) the DNC hack, 2) Pizzagate, 3) QAnon (Pizzagate sans basement)...
Trump was always going to scream Stolen Election if he lost. It is the inevitable outcome of his personality. Nothing bad is ever his fault and he never makes mistakes and is not a loser (in what passes for his mind).
He would have screamed stolen election if HC had won in 2016. He would have been riding that pony until 2020 and beyond, just like he is riding it now to 2024. He will ride it into the ground.
He played the "rigged election" theme leading up to 2016 election too,, just not as heavily as in 2020. I think in 2016 he didn't necessarily want to be president; he just wanted a way to claim that he didn't actually lose a fair contest. And IIRC he subsequently claimed that he would have won the popular vote in 2016 if not for cheating.
My general sense is that Trump rn as a promotional gig to revitalize his brand. He did not really expect to win and probably (if he thought about it honestly) did not want to win.
There was no real upside for Trump in actually winning... as we ended up seeing. It brought to light many things he would have preferred not be seen and is probably going to cost him a lot of money and maybe even his company in the end.
After it all plays out, I seriously doubt the bit of graft he got out of it will make up for what he loses. He could have made more money and had all the adoration if he had lost (and the loss would not have been his fault because it was "rigged.").
He seems to have lost money by being president, much as he tried to monetize the presidency, but he gained a bigger, more fanatical cult following than he could have dreamed of, and even the fawning praise of some "intellectuals" who should know better. If there's one thing that Trump cares about more than wealth, or being perceived as very wealthy, it's adulation. And he got it without having to put much actual work into presidential duties, since he had other people to do that.
Balanced against that adulation is the awareness that even more people than his followers have come to hate and despise him. The thing is, he could have probably had the adulation if he had stuck to the media end after a losing run at President... and would probably be less hated.
Well, actually, as far as a democratic election goes, HRC did win in 2016. The EC is not a democratic institution and was never meant to be so we truly have never had a really democratic presidential election (or Al Gore and HRC would have taken office after winning the popular vote).
But I think he believes in the Big Lie of the Steal because he thought his own stealing of the election was set up and because it worked in 2016 when much more loosely organized by Russia and the Republican Party. I thought he thought it could not fail in 2020 with both Putin and the GOP behind it. So of course he must assume that Biden just had a better rigging system in place. Hence, the Steal.
We do have a Democratic presidential election. It's just 50 separate State elections. Those are the rules that everyone knows going in. If you don't win the majority of electoral votes you don't win the election. Doesn't make the election non-democratic
Interesting POV but the EC is in itself an undemocratic institution as it was created to ensure the "wrong" person was never elevated to office despite winning a democratically held election (one person one vote all persons). When the person who wins the most votes is not allowed to take the office, that is undemocratic by definition imho. (But I appreciate hearing your justification for it; I just will never agree. The EC manipulates results deliberately. It may be legal. It isn't democratic.)
I think liberals are overly focused on the state by state nature of the EC that could mean a candidate who doesn't receive a national majority wins the election. A much, much bigger concern is the clunky and easily exploited process associated with counting and certifying electoral votes. That's something Trump tried to exploit in 2020. Here's a related concern. What if the D narrowly wins a sufficient number of states for an electoral majority in 2024 and Trump bribes a few electors to cross over to vote for him so he can win the EC vote for President? That didn't happen in 2000 b/c Bush and Gore were decent moral men who cared about the country. Trump is not decent nor moral and he sure doesn't care about the country.
I am focused on the popular vote electing the winner. So I would support eliminating the EC as it has proven to be easily manipulated by those neither decent nor moral. Twice in 20 years. But then, democracy only works if those working it abide by a social contract. Both parties must do so.
Do you remember the piece on the Trump Re-elect's finances in the NYT? It was low on cash. Parscale was briefly accused of stealing money; then of lavishly spending money. He was removed as campaign chair. There was a quarter billion dollars in money that had been paid for "consulting," to a post box. I've wondered whether Trump's high dudgeon about losing was partly due to the fact that he had paid a lot of money to rig the election himself and still didn't win--or got ripped off.
PS: It was also about the amount of money he would have needed for the loan that was coming due... .
I do vaguely remember that but I always assume he's putting the cash into his own account somewhere, like he did with his "nonprofits." But I do think in his own head he cannot fathom that he didn't rig it well enough...
OTOH, his campaign's internal polling, along with nearly every other poll, was consistently showing him likely to lose, which IMO is why he harped on the "rigged election" theme so heavily.
If he didn't know or strongly he was going to lose going in, he wasn't listening to his people with the data. As early as several months before the election, any time he was asked about what he would do if he lost, he never indicated that he would willingly leave... in fact, kind of the reverse.
You're right he thought he could just stay office and do away with elections entirely.
o people like Trump and Putin and Xi, elections are these orchestrated things that return the desired results--because if you don't get the result you want, something is obviously crooked, right?
Just like I am absolutely sure that the referendum in Belarus about letting Russia permanently station troops and have nukes there is 100% legit. Uh huh.
True. It's why narcissism is a personality defect. Still, without QAnon, he would not have gotten as far as he did with it. It's emerging that QAnon was well represented in the series of meetings at which the plan for !/6 was crafted.
He is operating in an intellectual and media environment that makes doing what he is doing easier, because people see a chance to capitalize on it. Yay for the internet, where every tinfoil cap wearer can self-publish. :P
The informal fallacy of the decade seems to be "Everybody's saying it." When there are literal armies of trolls, bots, and cyborgs, it seems like everybody IS saying it.