Op-Ed About Recent American Elections And Legitimacy Claims By Jim Geraghty Of National Review (1 Viewer)

[rockaction]

National Review, no friends of Trump, really, printed this recently. Nick Gillespie of Reason re-tweeted on Twitter, which is a bit surprising since Gillespie oversaw more of a left-libertarian fusion than others in Reason's past.

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/how-our-political-parties-stopped-accepting-each-others-victories/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

 

[timschochet]

It’s an interesting article, but my main disagreement with it is this: I think President Trump’s reaction to his defeat, and those of his supporters that agree with him, is unique in our history. I don’t think that any of the other “legitimacy” questions from Republicans or Democrats come anywhere close to what is happening today. 
The main reason is Trump himself: we’ve never had a candidate for President (or any major political office for that matter) claim he won when he didn’t, refuse to concede, and continue to claim he won months later. The concession speech is one of the most important parts of our system of free government, because it guarantees a peaceful transition. Trump never gave one- the first Presidential candidate in over 200 years not to offer congratulations to his opponent. 
Nothing else compares. 

 

[Sand]

It’s an interesting article, but my main disagreement with it is this: I think President Trump’s reaction to his defeat, and those of his supporters that agree with him, is unique in our history. I don’t think that any of the other “legitimacy” questions from Republicans or Democrats come anywhere close to what is happening today. 

Maybe my old brain is hallucinating the memory of those droves of Gore lawyers descending on Florida...

 

[rockaction]

I thought the most interesting thing I pulled from the article were the feelings Democrats held about the 9/11 attack and whether Bush either knew or had something to do with it. I remember at the time thinking that our democracy was fractured, but shrugged it off when more pressing issues came to the fore. From the article:

"Back in 2006, Scripps-Howard asked in a survey, “How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?” More than half of the Democratic respondents said yes — 22.6 percent of Democrats said it was “very likely” and another 28.2 percent called it “somewhat likely.” A year later, a Rasmussen survey found that “Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know and 26% are not sure.”

I think that should show us that Democrats have the capacity to be as, if not more, off the rocker as today's Republicans and their thoughts about the election.

 

[The Z Machine]

Maybe my old brain is hallucinating the memory of those droves of Gore lawyers descending on Florida...

That was before state certification and before SCOTUS ruling.  After that?  Gore conceded and didn't continue ranting about a stolen election.

 

[rockaction]

That was before state certification and before SCOTUS ruling.  After that?  Gore conceded and didn't continue ranting about a stolen election.

Actually, the article points out how many Democrats did indeed continue to not concede. "Selected, not elected," the slogan referring to Bush and the 2000 election is a big part of the article linked.

 

[The Z Machine]

I think that should show us that Democrats have the capacity to be as, if not more, off the rocker as today's Republicans and their thoughts about the election.

I certainly didn't think that was ever in doubt.  It's not a left/right thing, it's a tribal thing amped up by social media. 

In any case, this does give me hope that the the people that believe the 2020 election was illegitimate will slowly turn away from that opinion, just as those that believed in 9/11 conspiracy stuff did.

 

[Amused to Death]

By November 2018, 67 percent of Democrats believed it was “definitely true” or “probably true” that “Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected.” 

Was the bolded ever a widespread belief among Democrats?

 

[rockaction]

I certainly didn't think that was ever in doubt.  It's not a left/right thing, it's a tribal thing amped up by social media. 

In any case, this does give me hope that the the people that believe the 2020 election was illegitimate will slowly turn away from that opinion, just as those that believed in 9/11 conspiracy stuff did.

This is exactly the hope I took away from the article.

 

[The Z Machine]

Actually, the article points out how many Democrats did indeed continue to not concede. "Selected, not elected," the slogan referring to Bush and the 2000 election is a big part of the article linked.

And that election was far, far closer than anything going on now.  If the margin is razor thin, the claims have more basis IMO.  

 

[rockaction]

By November 2018, 67 percent of Democrats believed it was “definitely true” or “probably true” that “Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected.” 

Was the bolded ever a widespread belief among Democrats?

Yes, IIRC. There were stories that came to light about it. I'm not sure 67 percent agreed with it, but that story had its definite moments. 

 

[timschochet]

Maybe my old brain is hallucinating the memory of those droves of Gore lawyers descending on Florida...

Nope you’re not hallucinating. But the difference is that at the end of the day Gore conceded and congratulated Bush. He didn’t refuse to concede, refuse to go to the inauguration, and give rallies 6 months later demanding further recounts. 

 

[timschochet]

I certainly didn't think that was ever in doubt.  It's not a left/right thing, it's a tribal thing amped up by social media. 

In any case, this does give me hope that the the people that believe the 2020 election was illegitimate will slowly turn away from that opinion, just as those that believed in 9/11 conspiracy stuff did.

Again the problem with your hope is that Trump has never conceded, refuses to concede. Without that this will never go away; it will continue to fester. I fear it will get worse not better. 

 

[rockaction]

Again the problem with your hope is that Trump has never conceded, refuses to concede. Without that this will never go away; it will continue to fester. I fear it will get worse not better. 

I don't think so. I think the hope is that people will come to their senses despite his demagoguery. The people's opinion is what holds the most importance for democracy, IMO. If the people still believe in the small "d" and small "r" democratic/republican project, then the democratic project will continue. That's what I worry about. Not whether some blowhard concedes an election. If nobody follows, what value or threat are his agitations?

 

[sho nuff]

I don't think so. I think the hope is that people will come to their senses despite his demagoguery. The people's opinion is what holds the most importance for democracy, IMO. If the people still believe in the small "d" and small "r" democratic/republican project, then the democratic project will continue. That's what I worry about. Not whether some blowhard concedes an election. If nobody follows, what value or threat are his agitations?

What is your confidence level in people “coming to their senses”?  IMO, those who haven’t by now, may never do so.

 

[timschochet]

I don't think so. I think the hope is that people will come to their senses despite his demagoguery. The people's opinion is what holds the most importance for democracy, IMO. If the people still believe in the small "d" and small "r" democratic/republican project, then the democratic project will continue. That's what I worry about. Not whether some blowhard concedes an election. If nobody follows, what value or threat are his agitations?

You’re correct theoretically. But they ARE following. I’m not going to get into how many because I got in trouble in another thread for offering my thoughts on that subject. But you can read the polls for yourself- they’re worse than they were in January. 
Again I don’t believe any of the other examples are applicable here. Trump’s direct involvement makes all the difference in the world. To use @Sand’s example, if Gore had never conceded, if he was still encouraging recounts in June of 2001, holding rallies and declaring himself the real President, telling his followers he would be in the Oval in a few months- we would have had a huge problem on our hands. The way we do now. 

 

[rockaction]

What is your confidence level in people “coming to their senses”?  IMO, those who haven’t by now, may never do so.

Jeez. Over fifty percent of Democrats in 2006 believed Bush knew abetter or knew beforehand about the 9/11 attacks. I'll bet that number has changed.

 

[Stealthycat]

great article that reminds us all of just how politically led citizens are in terms of what / when / how to believe 

 

[Amused to Death]

What is your confidence level in people “coming to their senses”?  IMO, those who haven’t by now, may never do so.

Jeez. Over fifty percent of Democrats in 2006 believed Bush knew or abetted the 9/11 attacks. I'll bet that number has changed.

How common was that belief among Dem Senators, Congressmen, and Governors?

 

[rockaction]

You’re correct theoretically. But they ARE following. I’m not going to get into how many because I got in trouble in another thread for offering my thoughts on that subject. But you can read the polls for yourself- they’re worse than they were in January. 
Again I don’t believe any of the other examples are applicable here. Trump’s direct involvement makes all the difference in the world. To use @Sand’s example, if Gore had never conceded, if he was still encouraging recounts in June of 2001, holding rallies and declaring himself the real President, telling his followers he would be in the Oval in a few months- we would have had a huge problem on our hands. The way we do now.

I think you're putting too much weight on the beliefs of a blowhard. One thing about those polls. They aren't counting the people that have left the Republican Party or are too embarrassed to state that they are registered Republicans.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/536113-tens-of-thousands-of-voters-drop-republican-affiliation-after-capitol

 

[The Commish]

I certainly didn't think that was ever in doubt.  It's not a left/right thing, it's a tribal thing amped up by social media. 

In any case, this does give me hope that the the people that believe the 2020 election was illegitimate will slowly turn away from that opinion, just as those that believed in 9/11 conspiracy stuff did.

It goes away if the fuel for the fire dissipates.  If Trump and his crew continue to fuel the fire, it's not going anywhere soon.

 

[rockaction]

How common was that belief among Dem Senators, Congressmen, and Governors?

Probably not very many, if at all. I see your implied point -- all I'm saying is my hope is that the people don't follow Trump and his sycophants down the wormhole.

Now, I'm also on record as being disgruntled with Republican voters because they are indeed following him down the rabbit hole, so I'm not sure if my optimism isn't contradictory to what I've said before.

 

[timschochet]

I think you're putting too much weight on the beliefs of a blowhard. One thing about those polls. They aren't counting the people that have left the Republican Party or are too embarrassed to state that they are registered Republicans.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/536113-tens-of-thousands-of-voters-drop-republican-affiliation-after-capitol

I want you to be right. I hope you’re right. 

 

[zoonation]

Maybe my old brain is hallucinating the memory of those droves of Gore lawyers descending on Florida...

You honestly believe what happened in Florida in 2000 is comparable to 2020?  Wow. 

And, Gore conceded.  It was a great and unifying speech, actually. 

 

[rockaction]

I want you to be right. I hope you’re right. 

Really, let's hope. That seems to be what we've got.

I think what we also have is the hope that we can begin anew, and I hope that we start to understand that a fair process that winds up with a result one dislikes doesn't make it "illegitimate." To the extent that democracy is about procedures guaranteeing substantive rights, that would seem to be extra important. I get hardball politics, but slipping in claims of illegitimacy has led to some pretty bad results. I think Geraghty nails it when he says that. Despite it being in National Review and being an opinion piece, I think he does get at something deeper there.

 

[The Z Machine]

What if laws, though fairly enacted and applied are unjust?  Are they legitimate?  What about laws and policies that are under review by the courts and have been stayed?  Legitimate or illegitimate?

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

I'm not following the "it doesn't matter if a blowhard concedes or not" logic.

Conceding elections and the peaceful transfer of power is everything. The fact that Trump never conceded is the problem. It doesn't matter what polls of people think. What the actual candidate does is what's important in that process. 

People are pointing out Gore conceded and the argument to that is "well Dems polled at 30% blah blah". Seriously? Conceding is done by the candidate. If Trump said "I lost, we need to do better" that means everything. I can't believe that even needs to be explained. 

 

[sho nuff]

Jeez. Over fifty percent of Democrats in 2006 believed Bush knew abetter or knew beforehand about the 9/11 attacks. I'll bet that number has changed.

So…no real answer to the question.  I don’t care what democrats polled in 2006 believe about W.  Its a nice whatabout…but care to answer what was asked?

 

[dkp993]

I thought the most interesting thing I pulled from the article were the feelings Democrats held about the 9/11 attack and whether Bush either knew or had something to do with it. I remember at the time thinking that our democracy was fractured, but shrugged it off when more pressing issues came to the fore. From the article:

"Back in 2006, Scripps-Howard asked in a survey, “How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?” More than half of the Democratic respondents said yes — 22.6 percent of Democrats said it was “very likely” and another 28.2 percent called it “somewhat likely.” A year later, a Rasmussen survey found that “Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know and 26% are not sure.”

I think that should show us that Democrats have the capacity to be as, if not more, off the rocker as today's Republicans and their thoughts about the election.

This is exactly why the “my side good, your side bad” thing has never made any sense to me.  This division is a human condition, we’re tribal by nature.  Despite what conservatives republicans want to believe liberal Democrats are human, and despite what liberal Democrats want to believe conservatives Republicans are human.  Divisiveness, stupidly, stubbornness, righteous indignation and arrogance are not a political condition they are a human one.  Unfortunately these qualities seem to be more rewarded and encouraged as the years pass.  Tools “Right in two” has never been more prophetic.  

 

[rockaction]

So…no real answer to the question.  I don’t care what democrats polled in 2006 believe about W.  Its a nice whatabout…but care to answer what was asked?

Yeah, it's indicative that people can believe one thing pretty fervently and then in the next four years hold a very different opinion about what happened. It's not a whatabout at all. It's proof positive of a derangement syndrome in a party that was rectified.

 

[Rich Conway]

I think you're putting too much weight on the beliefs of a blowhard. One thing about those polls. They aren't counting the people that have left the Republican Party or are too embarrassed to state that they are registered Republicans.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/536113-tens-of-thousands-of-voters-drop-republican-affiliation-after-capitol

We saw GOP officials (McConnell, McCarthy, et.al.) do the same thing; denounce Trumpism, then go right back to it.  We saw a bunch of posters here denounce the actions of Jan 6, then go right back in line with Trumpism.  We can see from polls that Republican support for "the election was stolen" has increased rather than the other way around.  It would be nice if the GOP came to its senses, but it seems like they are actively expelling those who refuse to get in line for Trump.

 

[rockaction]

We saw GOP officials (McConnell, McCarthy, et.al.) do the same thing; denounce Trumpism, then go right back to it.  We saw a bunch of posters here denounce the actions of Jan 6, then go right back in line with Trumpism.  We can see from polls that Republican support for "the election was stolen" has increased rather than the other way around.  It would be nice if the GOP came to its senses, but it seems like they are actively expelling those who refuse to get in line for Trump.

And my point would be is that the more we see of this, the more their numbers will decline. Pretty soon they'll be looking with a magnifying glass and Sherlock Holmes's hat to find a registered Republican that can think.

 

[Rich Conway]

And my point would be is that the more we see of this, the more their numbers will decline. Pretty soon they'll be looking with a magnifying glass and Sherlock Holmes's hat to find a registered Republican that can think.

Hope you're right.  I suspect you won't be.  I think the party leaders pulling one way and tribalism will be enough to keep people in line.

 

[sho nuff]

Yeah, it's indicative that people can believe one thing pretty fervently and then in the next four years hold a very different opinion about what happened. It's not a whatabout at all. It's proof positive of a derangement syndrome in a party that was rectified.

Don't think any of it is "derangement syndrome".

Just wondering your confidence that those that are still out claiming the election was stolen and believing in Trump will ever really change their mind.

 

[rockaction]

Don't think any of it is "derangement syndrome".

Just wondering your confidence that those that are still out claiming the election was stolen and believing in Trump will ever really change their mind.

I'm not sure, actually. You'd have to ask them. I think that not believing in election results that saw uncertain circumstances attendant to it is likely more to stick than the idea of a sitting President overseeing a terrorist act on his own soil, I'll give somebody that. Also, a firm concession would go a long way, but we know what Trump is and who he is. He should have conceded like Nixon did in 1960 -- under much more dubious circumstances -- which shows you how far off the deep end President Trump is/was.

I don't personally know. If I knew what would change these people's minds, I'd figure it out and save the Republic, but as it stands all I can offer is an "I don't know." That's not hostile or combative, I just don't.

 

[da_budman]

I thought the most interesting thing I pulled from the article were the feelings Democrats held about the 9/11 attack and whether Bush either knew or had something to do with it. I remember at the time thinking that our democracy was fractured, but shrugged it off when more pressing issues came to the fore. From the article:

"Back in 2006, Scripps-


Howard


asked in a survey, “How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?” More than half of the Democratic respondents said yes — 22.6 percent of Democrats said it was “very likely” and another 28.2 percent called it “somewhat likely.” A year later, a Rasmussen survey found that “Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know and 26% are not sure.”

I think that should show us that Democrats have the capacity to be as, if not more, off the rocker as today's Republicans and their thoughts about the election.

, “How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?”  Is a loaded question intended to get the desired answer.  Asking if the US knew about the 9/11 attacks ahead of time would have given a much (albeit still too conspiracy theory high)  lower number.  Atatching the question to a war that had become VERY unpopular with democrats at the time the question was asked  inflated the number of people willing to answer the question yes.  If you want an honest answer as to how many democrats believed that the US knew about the attack and that George Bush did nothing this was the wrong way to do it.  

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Probably not very many, if at all. I see your implied point -- all I'm saying is my hope is that the people don't follow Trump and his sycophants down the wormhole.

Now, I'm also on record as being disgruntled with Republican voters because they are indeed following him down the rabbit hole, so I'm not sure if my optimism isn't contradictory to what I've said before.

Its contradictory on its face, as you're dealing with two different holes and I think you have to pick one.  What will it be, worm or rabbit?

 

[rockaction]

Its contradictory on its face, as you're dealing with two different holes and I think you have to pick one.  What will it be, worm or rabbit?

Lol. I'll go with "sink," please. Probably should have just used the word "maelstrom" twice and been done with it.

 

[rockaction]

, “How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?”  Is a loaded question intended to get the desired answer.  Asking if the US knew about the 9/11 attacks ahead of time would have given a much (albeit still too conspiracy theory high)  lower number.  Atatching the question to a war that had become VERY unpopular with democrats at the time the question was asked  inflated the number of people willing to answer the question yes.  If you want an honest answer as to how many democrats believed that the US knew about the attack and that George Bush did nothing this was the wrong way to do it.  

Mmm...fair enough, I guess. Rasmussen isn't exactly a ringing endorsement as the back-up cite, either, but how many places were willing to even ask the question? I wonder. Perhaps I'll do some digging.

Or perhaps not. Depends how much time I get.

 

[da_budman]

Mmm...fair enough, I guess. Rasmussen isn't exactly a ringing endorsement as the back-up cite, either, but how many places were willing to even ask the question? I wonder. Perhaps I'll do some digging.

Or perhaps not. Depends how much time I get.

Well the digging I did found this from 2006:  https://news.gallup.com/poll/24760/republicans-democrats-disagree-iraq-war-support-troops.aspx     If accurate only 12% of democrats had any favorable opinion of the Iraq war.....  when the question starts with a 88% bias loaded into it it HAS to inflate the number of people answering yes to the question.  

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

It’s an interesting article, but my main disagreement with it is this: I think President Trump’s reaction to his defeat, and those of his supporters that agree with him, is unique in our history.

Article was pretty terrible if you ask me.

However, Trump and his supporters are just a small incremental step over what Ellen Sauerbrey and her supporters in 1994.  I'll pick a rather version similar to the NR op ed of the story for my link.  Notice it was written just prior to the election.

 

[rockaction]

Well the digging I did found this from 2006:  https://news.gallup.com/poll/24760/republicans-democrats-disagree-iraq-war-support-troops.aspx     If accurate only 12% of democrats had any favorable opinion of the Iraq war.....  when the question starts with a 88% bias loaded into it it HAS to inflate the number of people answering yes to the question.  

I understand that context matters, but how to keep that sort of benign question from being prejudicial in your book? It seems like if you're trying to suss out the public's attitudes towards our gov't policy in the Middle East you have to ask that question. And it would seem that responsible pollsters do that all the time. They're trying to get you and keep you on the phone, after all. I don't know.

 

[Rich Conway]

I understand that context matters, but how to keep that sort of benign question from being prejudicial in your book? It seems like if you're trying to suss out the public's attitudes towards our gov't policy in the Middle East you have to ask that question. And it would seem that responsible pollsters do that all the time. They're trying to get you and keep you on the phone, after all. I don't know.

But isn't there a tremendous difference between these two questions, in terms of "leading the witness"?

How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?

How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or knew in advance and took no action to stop the attacks?

I added the italicized to the second question to make it make more sense.

 

[da_budman]

I understand that context matters, but how to keep that sort of benign question from being prejudicial in your book? It seems like if you're trying to suss out the public's attitudes towards our gov't policy in the Middle East you have to ask that question. And it would seem that responsible pollsters do that all the time. They're trying to get you and keep you on the phone, after all. I don't know.

Oh I dont disagree.....BUT  the whole point of the article was (or at least what I took from it)  was that people on both sides believe things that arent true......using a question about 9/11  and attatching to it something a pollster should already know will skew the results isnt a fair example.  If the question was simply  "did the US know ahead of time about the attacks on 9/11 and did nothing abouty it"  it removes the  Iraq war bias from the question.  The answer to THAT question would be useful for the purposes of the article.  I dont think comparing the 2000 election that was very very close with legitimate voting irregularities (hope I never heard the words hanging chads again)     to the 2020 election which was the most scrutinized  election in US history and a full 6 months later 70% of republicans have been convinced STILL  that it wasnt a free and fair election isnt a particularly presuasive comparison to me.  I do hope you are right and the Trump supporters come around because our democracy depends on it..... I just think after 6 months they still think the election was stolen they probably always will.  p.s. thanks for responding.  Though I mostly disagree with your politics I learn something when you post.  Without seeing the other side (or sides) of issues is the only true way to figure out if your views should change   

 

[rockaction]

Thanks for the compliment. I appreciate that. As for the substance of the post, what you say seems like a fair observation, I'm just not sure really what to do with it. If you're saying the elections are incomparable, they really were. I wouldn't begrudge that point at all. I still don't know about the questions about 9/11. When presented with a question that has the subtlety and nuance of  "Did Mary run down the street while on fire yesterday?" when, in fact, she clearly had because it was all over the news and I witnessed it personally, one needn't know my thoughts about Mary's proclivities in other aspects of her life to get an accurate response to that question.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I saw this article earlier this morning -- also from Gillespie, which got my attention because he's not an NRO type.  Upon seeing the thread here, I figured it would get mired in the "both sides" aspect with a bunch of people quibbling over which tribe is worse and/or which tribe started it, and of course that's exactly how what happened.

Rather than focus on that stuff, which is all water under the bridge, it would be better to focus instead on the fact that neither party exhibits any real attachment to liberal democratic norms.  If the Democrats had the votes to pack four more justices on the supreme court, they would do it.  If the GOP has the votes to not certify the next presidential election, they'll do it.  Whether Gore was as much of a tool as Trump is kind of beside the point.

 

[da_budman]

I saw this article earlier this morning -- also from Gillespie, which got my attention because he's not an NRO type.  Upon seeing the thread here, I figured it would get mired in the "both sides" aspect with a bunch of people quibbling over which tribe is worse and/or which tribe started it, and of course that's exactly how what happened.

Rather than focus on that stuff, which is all water under the bridge, it would be better to focus instead on the fact that neither party exhibits any real attachment to liberal democratic norms.  If the Democrats had the votes to pack four more justices on the supreme court, they would do it.  If the GOP has the votes to not certify the next presidential election, they'll do it.  Whether


Gore


was as much of a tool as Trump is kind of beside the point.

That wasnt the point at all and If you think that I think you massively underestimate the harm Trump and his rhetoric did and continues to do to our country.  Gore realized what harm it would do and ended up conceding once the court procedure  played out.  

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Gore realized what harm it would do and ended up conceding once the court procedure  played out.  

He should have stuck with his original concession.  Even Nixon managed to play this one correctly.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

When Richard Nixon handles a potential constitutional crisis better than you did, it's time to admit that you screwed up and quit looking around for some other nimrod who screwed up even worse.  

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If the Democrats had the votes to pack four more justices on the supreme court, they would do it.  If the GOP has the votes to not certify the next presidential election, they'll do it.

That seems like a tautology.

The important empirical point, I think, is that Democrats don't have the votes to do that. Republicans ... we'll see.