What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Hypothetical Scenario - Trump Refuses To Step Down After A Loss (1 Viewer)

In the scenario below, what percent chance do you think Trump accepts the ruling of the Supreme Cour

  • 100% Chance He Concedes

    Votes: 41 42.7%

  • 90% Chance He Concedes

    Votes: 4 4.2%

  • 80% Chance He Concedes

    Votes: 6 6.3%

  • 70% Chance He Concedes

    Votes: 1 1.0%

  • 60% Chance He Concedes

    Votes: 1 1.0%

  • 50% Chance He Concedes

    Votes: 8 8.3%

  • 40% Chance He Concedes

    Votes: 2 2.1%

  • 30% Chance He Concedes

    Votes: 4 4.2%

  • 20% Chance He Concedes

    Votes: 3 3.1%

  • 10% Chance He Concedes

    Votes: 6 6.3%

  • 0% Chance He Concedes

    Votes: 20 20.8%
  • Total voters
    96
Maurile Tremblay said:
Trump did not accept the 2016 results. When he expected to lose, he preemptively spoke of rigging. Even after he'd won, he made up a story about millions of illegal votes being cast against him.

Win or lose, he will not accept the 2020 results, either.

But it's not up to him. If he loses, he will have no choice but to step down. Even if he personally wishes to nullify the election, he is powerless to do so. It is vaguely possible that Lindsey Graham, Sarah Sanders, and Sean Hannity would go along with Trump in denying the outcome, but the courts and the military generals will not. I don't think I'm being overoptimistic in thinking that this is not worth worrying about at all.

(What is worth worrying about is preserving the integrity of the election beforehand.)
Click to expand...
It's not just the integrity of the election beforehand that we need to worry about, IMO. The process after the election is almost as vulnerable. And with the President having the most loyal Supreme Court since maybe ever, it seems like the chances of a crazy lawsuit affecting the outcome have risen to be greater than zero.

But I totally agree that if Congress certifies his opponent as the winner, Trump will step down.

 
lardonastick said:
[scooter] said:
And with the President having the most loyal Supreme Court since maybe ever
Click to expand...
Can you pretend like I don't pay much attention and give me your reasoning for this?
Click to expand...
Trump is the first president in modern times whose primary hiring philosophy is based on a person's personal loyalty to him. He wouldn't have nominated Gorsuch and Kavanaugh if he didn't think that they would be his personal protectors. Now, it's certainly possible that they could rule against him if a sketchy election case came before the court. But my confidence of that happening is significantly lower now than when Scalia and Kennedy were on the court.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
It depends on what you mean by "concedes." I think there is roughly a 0% chance that he'll say, "I concede that I lost the election fair and square." But I also think there is about a 0% chance that he'll take concrete, effective steps to remain in power.
Click to expand...
I generally agree, but I think Trump and Fox will take the opportunity to undermine and politicize the Supreme Court, the election process, and whoever is in charge of the election in states that were a close call. I think that absent an overwhelming defeat it's going to be a nightmare.

 
[scooter] said:
Trump is the first president in modern times whose primary hiring philosophy is based on a person's personal loyalty to him. He wouldn't have nominated Gorsuch and Kavanaugh if he didn't think that they would be his personal protectors. Now, it's certainly possible that they could rule against him if a sketchy election case came before the court. But my confidence of that happening is significantly lower now than when Scalia and Kennedy were on the court.
Click to expand...
You seriously think two of the most credentialed Supreme Court justices who spent many years in the federal judiciary are Trump lackeys?   

 
jon_mx said:
You seriously think two of the most credentialed Supreme Court justices who spent many years in the federal judiciary are Trump lackeys?   
Click to expand...
Seems like he's saying that's what Trump probably thinks and he's probably right :shrug:  

ETA:  It probably applies more to Kavanaugh than Gorsuch.  I'm willing to bet he didn't know the names of either of the men until someone else brought them as options to his desk.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
He is not only saying Trump believes it, but he believes it too.

"And with the President having the most loyal Supreme Court since maybe ever"
Click to expand...
Sorry....I read the comment he made that you quoted and based my comment on that.  :thumbup:  

Quoting the words you're actually commenting on while commenting helps too.

 
jon_mx said:
[scooter] said:
Trump is the first president in modern times whose primary hiring philosophy is based on a person's personal loyalty to him. He wouldn't have nominated Gorsuch and Kavanaugh if he didn't think that they would be his personal protectors. Now, it's certainly possible that they could rule against him if a sketchy election case came before the court. But my confidence of that happening is significantly lower now than when Scalia and Kennedy were on the court.
Click to expand...
You seriously think two of the most credentialed Supreme Court justices who spent many years in the federal judiciary are Trump lackeys?   
Click to expand...
Of course not.

Lackeys take orders.

 
Joe Bryant said:
For the folks voting anything less than 80% chance he concedes in the hypothetical scenario, can you elaborate in detail:

1. Do you really think this? 

2. Why do you think this?

Thanks
Click to expand...
I don't have a percentage, but I don't feel confident about it. 

Do you remember this?  

"I would like to promise and pledge to all of my voters and supporters and to all of the people of the United States that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election, if I win," Trump told supporters here in his first comments since the final debate.

After raising concerns about voter fraud -- instances of which are extremely rare -- Trump also pledged to accept "a clear election result."

"Of course, I would accept a clear election result, but I would also reserve my right to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of a questionable result," Trump said. "And always, I will follow and abide by all of the rules and traditions of all of the many candidates who have come before me. Always."

His running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, echoed Trump's comments while speaking in Reno, Nevada, telling supporters: "Of course, we will accept a clear election result, but we also reserve the right to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of questionable results."

https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/20/politics/donald-trump-i-will-totally-accept-election-results-if-i-win/index.html

He openly said he would fight election results he disagreed with in court before he was in office, and he needs 5 years to avoid being convicted of obstruction of justice. He's also got to worry about SDNY, an attorney general appointed by a Democrat, his tax returns and financial records getting released (if they actually do show fraud or other crimes), and the possibility of civil lawsuits if he accepts a pardon. 

There's a lot of reason for him to fight close election results.  I think it's also a question of whether his party would continue to support him if he did.  

 
jomar said:
what if I remember him telling everyone in 2015/16 that our elections are rigged and how he might not accept it if he lost in 2016, because the only way he could lose was if it was rigged?  should I ignore that or just rationalize it by saying he was joking?  I wouldn't put anything past this guy, any norms that used to exist have been erased, nothing is 100% anymore.
Click to expand...
A million times this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FreeBaGeL said:
So naive it's almost cute.

The Republicans will do the same thing they've done during this whole debacle.  Condemn him out of the gate, and then hop on board when the public outcry dies down.
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear you think it's naive. Certainly not cute. If Trump were to do what he did before last year's election saying he wasn't sure if he'd accept the results of the election, I'd expect the Republicans to respond as they did in 2016. 

Aside from the obvious reason of it's the wrong thing to do, suggesting a coup or overthrowing the government if you lose is a poor campaign strategy. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
Sorry to hear you think it's naive. Certainly not cute. If Trump were to do what he did before last year's election saying he wasn't sure if he'd accept the results of the election, I'd expect the Republicans to respond as they did in 2016. 

Aside from the obvious reason of it's the wrong thing to do, suggesting a coup or overthrowing the government if you lose is a poor campaign strategy. 
Click to expand...
Nevermind...I read the earlier posts. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
Sorry to hear you think it's naive. Certainly not cute. If Trump were to do what he did before last year's election saying he wasn't sure if he'd accept the results of the election, I'd expect the Republicans to respond as they did in 2016. 

Aside from the obvious reason of it's the wrong thing to do, suggesting a coup or overthrowing the government if you lose is a poor campaign strategy. 
Click to expand...
It's not just naive, it's so naive it's frustrating.

I mean how many times do we have to see the same damn thing?  Like @jomar said, any norms that used to exist have been erased.  It's like scope creep.  We've crept so far into absurdity at this point that things that once seemed impossible get closer and closer to the line of normalcy every day.  We've seen it over and over again.  Republicans come out staunchly against something he says/does, and then as time goes by and they realize the voting public isn't nearly as turned off by it as they thought, they slowly line up their support as Trump gets more and more of the public onboard with it.

Trump has already done/said a million things that would have been the absolute end of the road for any president/candidate 4 years ago.  Republican lawmakers have already hopped on board with a million things they never would have even considered 4 years ago.  Every month we creep further and further into that absurdity, and by the time January of 2020 rolls around we will have crept that normalcy line another 1.5 years closer to what we once thought was absurd.

 
FreeBaGeL said:
It's not just naive, it's so naive it's frustrating.

I mean how many times do we have to see the same damn thing?  Like @jomar said, any norms that used to exist have been erased.  It's like scope creep.  We've crept so far into absurdity at this point that things that once seemed impossible get closer and closer to the line of normalcy every day.  We've seen it over and over again.  Republicans come out staunchly against something he says/does, and then as time goes by and they realize the voting public isn't nearly as turned off by it as they thought, they slowly line up their support as Trump gets more and more of the public onboard with it.

Trump has already done/said a million things that would have been the absolute end of the road for any president/candidate 4 years ago.  Republican lawmakers have already hopped on board with a million things they never would have even considered 4 years ago.  Every month we creep further and further into that absurdity, and by the time January of 2020 rolls around we will have crept that normalcy line another 1.5 years closer to what we once thought was absurd.
Click to expand...
Thanks. We'll just disagree. If Trump does what he did in 2016 and says he isn't sure if he'll accept the results of the election, I would expect the Republicans to respond the same way as they did in 2016. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bradyfan said:
Did you ever hear Hillary say, donate to the Clinton Foundation because I may or may not win?  Everyone wants to back a winner.  It’s not like the Kentucky Derby where you win more by betting a cold horse.
Click to expand...
Do you disagree with "I think it's good for voter turnout if people feel it's a close race."?

 
bradyfan said:
Up.   But saying that will not make the race closer.
Click to expand...
I agree. So do these writers in the Washington Post.

Americans just set a turnout record for the midterms, voting at the highest rate since 1914. This explains why.

We find that while voting is indeed costly, abstaining can impose costs as well. Many people suffer subjective and psychological costs if they don’t vote, which we call costs of abstention. These costs are in the form of a psychic tension, or dissonance, when people fail (or think they’ll fail) to take part — but that’s true only when they care a lot about the outcome. When they care a lot and also see the race as close, these moods intensify, pushing them still more strongly to go to the polls. This same logic applies to other forms of collective political participation, like protesting, as we found in major protests in Brazil, Turkey and Ukraine.
Click to expand...
That's why I said, "I think it's good for voter turnout if people feel it's a close race."

:shrug:

And I still I don't disagree it's a good thing I'm not running a campaign. ;)  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anything can happen.

I mean, who would have believed that the ultra-liberal 9th Circus Court would have felt justified to count a dead judge's vote....after he had died.
Luckily, our Supreme Court is in the majority of those who know the Constitution and try to follow it.

As the Court aptly pointed out, judges “are appointed for life, not for eternity.”
It amazes me that the 9th Circus had to be reminded of this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bostonfred said:
I think it's also a question of whether his party would continue to support him if he did.  
Click to expand...
What would give you any indication they wouldn’t. They’ve folded like a cheap tent and chosen Trump over all time and time again.  

 
Joe Bryant said:
Thanks. We'll just disagree. If Trump does what he did in 2016 and says he isn't sure if he'll accept the results of the election, I would expect the Republicans to respond the same way as they did in 2016. 
Click to expand...
I think you're right.  They'll throw out the shock and awe, might even wag a finger or two.  They'll wait a cycle or two and resume SOP,  just like they did in 2016.

 
Joe Bryant said:
Thanks. We'll just disagree. If Trump does what he did in 2016 and says he isn't sure if he'll accept the results of the election, I would expect the Republicans to respond the same way as they did in 2016. 
Click to expand...
I do appreciate your rationality and optimism, I have seen nothing in the GOP in the last couple of years to echo it.  I certainly hope you are proven correct should the time come, my faith in the party would begin to be restored.  

 
dkp993 said:
I do appreciate your rationality and optimism, I have seen nothing in the GOP in the last couple of years to echo it.  I certainly hope you are proven correct should the time come, my faith in the party would begin to be restored.  
Click to expand...
We'll see of course. It's not my party so I'm just speaking as an observer.

From a campaign strategy viewpoint, it would be fantastic for the Democratic candidate if Trump were to say he may not accept the results of the election and if the Republicans in DC said nothing. Even better for the Democrats if some Republicans in DC were to agree with Trump. That would be :moneybag:   :moneybag:   :moneybag:   for the Democratic candidate. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
We'll see of course. It's not my party so I'm just speaking as an observer.

From a campaign strategy viewpoint, it would be fantastic for the Democratic candidate if Trump were to say he may not accept the results of the election and if the Republicans in DC said nothing. Even better for the Democrats if some Republicans in DC were to agree with Trump. That would be :moneybag:   :moneybag:   :moneybag:   for the Democratic candidate. 
Click to expand...
Agreed.  Would love to see a record turnout, like you I believe this works against Trump.  

 
Joe Bryant said:
From a campaign strategy viewpoint, it would be fantastic for the Democratic candidate if Trump were to say he may not accept the results of the election and if the Republicans in DC said nothing. Even better for the Democrats if some Republicans in DC were to agree with Trump. That would be :moneybag:   :moneybag:   :moneybag:   for the Democratic candidate. 
Click to expand...
Joe, this is almost exactly what happened. It's true that a few Republicans spoke up in 2016 when Trump threatened not to accept the election results, but it was far from a unified message of condemnation from the Republican party. Many prominent Republicans were conspicuously silent.

And just look at what happened to the people who did speak up:

  • John McCain (attacked by Trump, ostracized by Republicans)
  • Jeff Flake (forced into retirement)
  • Lindsay Graham (gave a milquetoast critique and is currently Trump's #1 lapdog in Congress)
  • Kelly Ayotte (Trump turned on her and she ended up losing her re-election campaign)
  • Carlos Curbelo (lost re-election)
The lesson learned is that if you speak out against Trump, you will be abandoned by your own party. I won't be surprised if fewer Republicans speak up the next time Trump threatens not to accept the results of an election.

I do think it's good for Democrats to call out Trump for dabbling with unconstitutionality. It didn't do much good for Hillary, but I think it helped in 2018 and it will continue to help in 2020.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Republican National Committee: "Over 150 Examples Of Democrats Denying Election Results" (10/22/22 11:14 PST)
Replies
15
Views
878
JIslander
J
E
What are Your Thoughts on Democrats Calling Supreme Court Illegitimate, and State AG’s Vowing not to Enforce Abortion Bans?
7 8 9
Replies
401
Views
8K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
GordonGekko
Biden:“I Don’t Think That A Woman Has The Sole Right To Say What Should Happen To Her Body.” (5/4/22 17:30PST)
Replies
40
Views
1K
jm192
jm192

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top