Or rather, conservatives believe, deep down, that the *possibility* of electoral losses is legitimate, & the Left does not. It is not a coincidence that the original democratic transfer of power was away from a party of the Right (the Federalists). https://twitter.com/Vermeullarmine/status/1289971635311669248 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
The whole idea of a constitutional democratic republic is that sometimes you lose elections, & then you get to convince the voters to give you back the same powers they just gave to the other guy.
6 replies 19 retweets 95 likesShow this thread -
The constitutional methodology of progressivism assumes that no electoral loss can legitimately transfer the same powers that a prior victory delivered; each win is supposed to be permanent "progress" reducing the number of questions left undecided to the voters.
9 replies 23 retweets 105 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @baseballcrank
Ah. And that must be why the right does everything it can to limit the voting cohort from the start of democratic polities going forward. And the left—from non property holding white men to women to non white people—has sought to expand the right to vote.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @yeselson
One, non sequitur re accepting outcomes. Two, expanding the electorate is what you do when you don't accept the current electorate. Three, who won the 1868, 1920, 1968, & 1972 elections?
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
You realize how profoundly undemocratic your second remark is? So your view is that advocating for women’s suffrage was...what exactly? The wrong thing to do because a bunch of losers were trying to expand the electorate?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @yeselson
My point is, the only relationship it has to accepting outcomes is to try to overturn them by means other than persuading the existing voters.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
But your point about the left not excepting election outcomes in the US made no sense at all. Yuu just contrived a facilely tweeted theory without any empirical support for it.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @yeselson
And this is *before* 2016 https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/rigged-election-democrats-arent-preparing-their-voters-hillary-lse/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank
We had this discussion about 2000! When it was the GOP making these noises. Now we have a candidate is isn’t even pretending he has any chance to get the most votes.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
If Biden wins, outlets such as NR will accept the outcome & argue about his mandate. If Trump wins, outlets such as the NYT will launch scorched-earth efforts (again) against his legitimacy & American democracy. We both know this. https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/paul-krugman-rejects-american-elections-again/ …
-
-
Replying to @baseballcrank
Oh please. You guys have been vote suppressing for a decade and hyper gerrymandering and now you’re getting pious about democracy!?! Tell that to the Wisconsin legislature who curved the Dem guvs powers before he took office.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @yeselson
The past decade in Wisconsin is not, shall we say, the best example of Democrats accepting the outcomes of elections.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.