Pin the Hanging Chad on the Donkey

In 1960 the country witnessed an incredibly close Presidential election between Richard Nixon, who lost, and John F. Kennedy, who won. Kennedy won by only 113,000 votes out of the 68 million ballots cast. He won the Electoral College vote 303-219, but that tally hides the fact that multiple states were extremely close. Nixon, for example, won California’s 32 Electoral votes only after absentee ballots were counted. The Republican Party Chairman at the time launched challenges in 11 states, and many analysts still believe that both Illinois and Texas were only won through fraud, although others dispute that. Nixon accepted the results, but it is without doubt that he considered not doing so. He later claimed that he resisted calls to contest the election out of fear that it would “tear the country apart.”

Fast forward to 2000, George W. Bush versus Al Gore. Once again the nation witnessed an incredibly close election, with Bush winning the Electoral College vote 271 to 255 (270 needed to win). Neither candidate exceeded 50% of the popular vote, with Gore winning that count by only 543,895 votes out of over 105 million cast. Many states were extremely close, but it was Florida, with its 25 electoral votes, that put Bush over the top. The certified results held that Bush won Florida by only 537 votes, but of course that meant all 25 Electoral College votes went to him, and that made him the winner overall. Al Gore and the Democrats did not accept the results in Florida, and instead the nation was torn apart for weeks while they tried legal challenge after challenge to change the results. The challenges turned to farce, and the term “hanging chad” became a thing. Finally, on December 12th, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5–4 vote that the Florida re-recounts could not be completed before the deadline, and that the previously certified total should stand, sealing the victory for Bush.

Even today many Democrats refuse to accept the results of the 2000 election, speaking openly and plainly of their belief that “Bush stole the election” and that his presidency was illegitimate.

Hillary Clinton, herself, is one of those who promulgate this lie, although in her twisty, spinning way. On a trip to Africa in 2009 she said “In 2000, our presidential election came down to one state where the brother of the man running for President was the governor of the state. So we have our problems too.” She was comparing our electoral system to that of Nigeria, where fraud is ever-present. Everyone knows what she meant.

Look, anyone who is paying attention knows that Donald Trump is inarticulate. He has trouble saying things in the careful way of the modern politician, and certainly cannot spin things as cleverly as Hillary Clinton. When asked if he would commit to accepting the results of the election, he said this:

“I will look at it at the time. I’m not looking at anything now, I’ll look at it at the time. What I’ve seen, what I’ve seen, is so bad.”

And this:

“If you look at your voter rolls, you will see millions of people that are registered to vote. Millions. This isn’t coming from me. This is coming from Pew report and other places. Millions of people that are registered to vote that shouldn’t be registered to vote. So let me just give you one other thing. I talk about the corrupt media. I talk about the millions of people.”

True, that’s not very clear, even for Trump. But if you honestly dissect what he is saying, he means that he will “look at it at the time” to see if there is fraud, and if there is fraud, he reserves his right to reject the results. Just like Al Gore.

So spare me the outrage.

Election fraud exists. There is irrefutable proof, and people have been convicted. There are thousands of voters on the rolls who are not eligible to vote, maybe millions. Should this election turn out like 1960 or 2000, there is the very real possibility of legal challenges in the closest states. We do not elect our president in a popular vote. The Electoral College guarantees that close state elections can have a huge impact on the final result, regardless of the total votes cast nationwide.

Hillary Clinton is a corrupt politician and her campaign is as sleazy and dishonest as they come – just look at the recent videos released by Project Veritas. Corrupt people (yes, yes, yes both sides!) will do corrupt things to gain an advantage. Trump has been the victim of this corrupt campaign, he knows it, and so do we. If his team feels that corruption has skewed the results, he will take legal action. If the election is close (which, by the way, it may not be) than we are likely to see challenges. That is the system we have. If he challenges the results in court and loses, you can bet that there will be Republicans who will refuse, forever, to accept the courts findings. If he wins in court, there will be Democrats who will refuse, forever, to accept the result. Just like Al Gore and Democrats in 2000.

The difference between 1960 and 2000 is that Nixon decided, for whatever reason, to not “tear the country apart.” Gore went a different way, and his supporters cling to that to this day. It is rank hypocrisy that many of those same people are decrying Trump’s assertion to the same privilege.

Eventually, win or lose, Trump will have to accept the results. The American people will make him accept them. There will not be a violent uprising, but there will be anger and suspicion, and our nation will be fighting over this ugly election for years to come.

Thanks Al.