One more time, what if Trump loses but won’t leave?
Pardon me if I repeatmyself but, sometimes, I repeatmyself.
I realized that as Iwasweb surfing for a possible column on whatwould happen if President Donald Trump loses reelection inNovember but doesn’twant to leave.
A search quickly showedme that, in a way, I already wrote that column early last year. Call this Part Two.
That headline topped a column Iwrote inMay of last year after Jerry Falwell Jr., president of LibertyUniversity in what were happier days for him, proposed that his presidential friend receive two additional years on his term to make up for the work time he allegedly lost in the Russia investigation.
The president thought thatwas a dandy idea, as he tweeted with glee. By contrast, House SpeakerNancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, warned in an interview that the party should “inoculate against that” by voting him out with numbers too big to resist.
After all, Trump himself had promised as early as his final presidential debate in 2016 to “totally accept” the election results before adding, after a pregnant pause, “… if Iwin.”
And he did. He lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College, which holds the only votes that count in the presidential election under our Constitution.
But nowthe question has returned, along with lagging poll numbers for Trump in the battleground states, this time behind formerVice President Joe Biden.
And so has an oldTrump target: allegations of voter fraud. Just as he blamed his popular vote loss on “millions” of illegal ghost voters, a charge that a bipartisan commission he appointed found to be a hoax, he nowis alleging “fraud” in mail-in ballots.
AlthoughTrump has argued that absentee ballots, like the ones he has used, are safer fromfraud than the mail-in ballots that have been expanded during the coronavirus pandemic, fact-checkers have found both forms of mailed-in voting use the same verification and certification process.
Still, Trump raised the old questions anew with his responseWednesday to a question fromBrian Karem, self-described “loudmouth” senior WhiteHouse reporter for Playboy and analyst forCNN: “Win, lose or drawin this election, will you commit here today for a peaceful transferral of power after the election?”
“We’re going to have to see what happens,” the president responded. “You knowthat. I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots, and the ballots are a disaster.”
Very strongly? Yes. A disaster? Hardly. “Get rid of the ballots,” Trump continued, “and you’ll have a very peaceful— therewon’t be a transfer, frankly. There will be a continuation,” Trump said, continuing his answer to Karem.
Get rid of the ballots? There will be a “continuation?” Meaning hewould keep on being president?
This time, Trump’s foe isn’t just liberals or antifa. It’s our trust in our electoral system.
Press secretary KayleighMcEnany later clarified that, “The president will accept the results of a free and fair election,” but for the skeptics among us that only raised the question of who decides what’s “free” and “fair” and how.
Itwas somewhat comforting to hear SenateMajority Leader MitchMcConnell, Sen. Mitt Romney ofUtah and other lawmakers chime in with assurances that there will be a peaceful and orderly transfer of power.
But considering howMcConnell and Graham, among other Republicans, flipped easily on earlier vows to “honor the calendar” in denying even a hearing to President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nomineeMerrick Garland, only to ignore that principle to rush a replacement for the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, well, you can’t blame us bystanders forwanting to see their promises in writing.
Neither party has amonopoly on such shenanigans, of course. But in this moment a startling new report in The Atlantic has caused unusual concern. It claims that theTrump campaign and someGOPallies are considering possible ways to dance around the Electoral College, should Biden beatTrump.
First, allege rampant fraud, the story says, then ask legislators in battleground states with a GOPmajority to bypass the state’s popular vote and choose electors loyal to the party and current president.
A similar planwas considered to break the 2000 election deadlock in Florida, before the Supreme Court intervened. Trumpwas strikingly candid in citing a close election this year as a good reason to rush through appointment of his candidate to fill Ginsburg’s seat.
But, of course, therewon’t be a need for such ploys if either side can get a big enough landslide to the polls. For now, Democrats are left with the same song by Dan Hicks and HisHot Licks that I suggested last year for their campaign against Trump: “HowCan I Miss You When You Won’tGo Away?”