Trump and the election results

Re: “Trump won’t say if he’ll accept results,” Oct. 20 news story.

Donald Trump’s surrogates are likening Trump’s refusal to accept the upcoming election results to Al Gore’s delayed concession in the 2000 election. The comparison is a false one. The key differences: 1) Gore’s challenge was after the fact, while Trump’s is before the election even occurs; 2) Gore challenged a discrete, limited situation (the vote count in Florida), while Trump challenges “this election” as a nationwide whole; and 3) Gore’s challenge was based on actual evidence (remember the “hanging chads”), while Trump’s is devoid of any basis in fact. Gore made a legitimate challenge to a specific, legitimate problem. By contrast, Trump is challenging the country’s entire electoral process and tradition of graceful transfer of power — in advance, without factual basis, and for the selfserving purpose of generating his excuse for his upcoming cataclysmic defeat. Chris Toll, Englewood

BBB Why the surprise at Donald Trump’s unwillingness to accept the election results? He didn’t accept the results of the last two presidential elections. Why change now? Part of Trump’s appeal has been that he says out loud what the rest of the GOP say under their breath. The only surprise is that the rest of the Republicans who have done their best to deny Obama his presidency, aren’t on board with this sentiment. Andrew R. Lewis, Englewood

BBB Of all the questions asked by debate moderator Chris Wallace (good job, by the way) Wednesday night, why didn’t he ask the most obvious question? If this is a rigged election, then wouldn’t that also be the case if by some horrendous twist of fate, Donald Trump were elected? Or is it only rigged if Hillary Clinton wins? And if it’s rigged now, then isn’t he, after a fashion, not already conceding defeat? Denis Gessing, Castle Rock