Tim Scott refuses to say whether he'll accept the results of the 2024 election

[Landslide Lyndon]

https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1787167295288008745

[President Johnson]

"Moderate Republican"

[Joe Biden 2024]

He knows if he says he'll accept it, he'll be out of the running for VP.

[wnwnwn]

"Moderate Republican"

Who thinks of Scott as moderate?
He is a better fit for his state than Trump and can appeal better to the "swing voters / moderates" of his state (which includes rigth leaning blacks that don´t trust much the republicans) but that doesn´t make him a moderate.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

"Moderate Republican"

Who thinks of Scott as moderate?
He is a better fit for his state than Trump and can appeal better to the "swing voters / moderates" of his state (which includes rigth leaning blacks that don´t trust much the republicans) but that doesn´t make him a moderate.

There was once a time, before Trump arrived and dumped all over this country, that Scott was seen as the future of the Republican Party. A future that was younger, more racially diverse, more socially moderate, etc. South Carolina oddly had several of these politicians. Scott, Haley, Gowdy, and Graham to name a few.

Those days are done.

MAGA destroys everything it touches. It is a political movement that is toxic, unhinged and unattractive to anyone mentally stable under the age of 60.

On that imminent, blessed day when Donny boy chokes on his last Big Mac, Tim Scott will be left holding the empty bag and vying to be the king of the sh**t heap: flagbearer for a party that's mostly unviable outside of the great American emptiness.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

It would have been perfectly reasonable to say something like, "As long as the elections are free and fair, of course I'll accept them". That would have given him plenty of room to fall back to the next version of the GOP's "Big Lie". But instead we get this:

Kristen Welker: “Will you commit to accepting the election results of 2024?

Tim Scott: “At the end of the day, the 47th president of the will be Donald Trump”

[Fuzzy Bear]

The 2024 election has not been conducted.

Every aspect of the conduct of an election has the right to be inspected.  Every candidate has the right to challenge election results and to present areas where there are unequal standards applied, lack of access and transparency in conducting the collection and counting of ballots, and then some.  Neither Donald Trump NOR Joe Biden should be agreeing not to contest the outcome of an election any more than Coke Stevenson should have agreed to not contest the outcome of the 1948 Texas Democratic Primary for Senate.

No candidate for ANY office is required to concede defeat or congratulate the victor.  No candidate for ANY office is required to state that an election was conducted fairly, because not every election in American History has been conducted fairly.  It's simply not required, and the electorate can judge for themselves what they think of the candidate not accepting an election result.

Every candidate has the right to institute legal challenges to the result, and every challenge deserves an honest hearing on the merits.  Presidential candidates do, indeed, have a right to challenge the naming of slates of electors; 2024 was hardly the first time it has been done.

These are RIGHTS that extend not only to candidates, but to voters.  No candidate should be elected with the votes of dead people, non-citizens, persons voting twice, stuffed ballot boxes (by any method), etc.  Indeed, I believe that any candidate has a moral duty to its voters to challenge, by all means at his/her disposal, an election that they have reason to believe has not been conducted fairly, honestly, and/or lawfully.  Stolen Elections are a part of our history, and controversies as to the Electoral votes are part of our history (1824 and 1876).  No one is obliged to roll over and be hosed.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

"Moderate Republican"

Who thinks of Scott as moderate?
He is a better fit for his state than Trump and can appeal better to the "swing voters / moderates" of his state (which includes rigth leaning blacks that don´t trust much the republicans) but that doesn´t make him a moderate.

There was once a time, before Trump arrived and dumped all over this country, that Scott was seen as the future of the Republican Party. A future that was younger, more racially diverse, more socially moderate, etc. South Carolina oddly had several of these politicians. Scott, Haley, Gowdy, and Graham to name a few.

Those days are done.

MAGA destroys everything it touches. It is a political movement that is toxic, unhinged and unattractive to anyone mentally stable under the age of 60.

On that imminent, blessed day when Donny boy chokes on his last Big Mac, Tim Scott will be left holding the empty bag and vying to be the king of the sh**t heap: flagbearer for a party that's mostly unviable outside of the great American emptiness.

Really, though? The first time I heard about Tim Scott was during his first run for Congress in 2010, when he beat Strom Thurmond's son in the GOP runoff. Like most new Republican candidates running in safe House seat that year, Scott ran as a "Tea Party" Republican. Nikki Haley also ran in a competitive primary that she probably would have lost without the support of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party (and the blog Red State, whose influence has declined so much from that era it's laughable). Trey Gowdy was a Tea Party Republican who unseated the "moderate" Bob Inglis in a landslide. And the Tea Party hasn't been relevant in years now since the GOP has moved so far to the right that most of those same people who ran as Tea Party supporters are hailed as moderates today.

The only person in that group who wasn't considered "Tea Party" is Graham, and he still moved further right so that enough Republican voters would at least tolerate him come primary day.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

"Moderate Republican"

Who thinks of Scott as moderate?
He is a better fit for his state than Trump and can appeal better to the "swing voters / moderates" of his state (which includes rigth leaning blacks that don´t trust much the republicans) but that doesn´t make him a moderate.

There was once a time, before Trump arrived and dumped all over this country, that Scott was seen as the future of the Republican Party. A future that was younger, more racially diverse, more socially moderate, etc. South Carolina oddly had several of these politicians. Scott, Haley, Gowdy, and Graham to name a few.

Those days are done.

MAGA destroys everything it touches. It is a political movement that is toxic, unhinged and unattractive to anyone mentally stable under the age of 60.

On that imminent, blessed day when Donny boy chokes on his last Big Mac, Tim Scott will be left holding the empty bag and vying to be the king of the sh**t heap: flagbearer for a party that's mostly unviable outside of the great American emptiness.

Really, though? The first time I heard about Tim Scott was during his first run for Congress in 2010, when he beat Strom Thurmond's son in the GOP runoff. Like most new Republican candidates running in safe House seat that year, Scott ran as a "Tea Party" Republican. Nikki Haley also ran in a competitive primary that she probably would have lost without the support of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party (and the blog Red State, whose influence has declined so much from that era it's laughable). Trey Gowdy was a Tea Party Republican who unseated the "moderate" Bob Inglis in a landslide. And the Tea Party hasn't been relevant in years now since the GOP has moved so far to the right that most of those same people who ran as Tea Party supporters are hailed as moderates today.

The only person in that group who wasn't considered "Tea Party" is Graham, and he still moved further right so that enough Republican voters would at least tolerate him come primary day.

Oh yeah, politically they really weren't moderate. People just associate young Republicans with being more moderate. Even Graham's "maverick" image was a facade. But there was once hope that these people would put a more attractive face on conservativism.

[Electric Circus]

This bumbling coward is what passes for a leader among many Americans today. It's terrifying to imagine where men like this might lead us.

[Ferguson97]

-snip-

Christ, this is so pathetic.

I would respect you more if you were just honest and said but you will never accept an outcome of Joe Biden winning as legitimate, instead of this pearl clutching perforative nonsense about how denying election results makes you a true patriot or whatever.

No matter what else happens, you will proclaim a Biden victory as illegitimate and a Trump victory as legitimate.

Hostility to democracy is vile. Shrouding that hostility under the guise of patriotism is even worse.

This is particularly awful given the fact that you are supporting a man for President who tried to overturn the results of an election.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

The 2024 election has not been conducted.

Every aspect of the conduct of an election has the right to be inspected.  Every candidate has the right to challenge election results and to present areas where there are unequal standards applied, lack of access and transparency in conducting the collection and counting of ballots, and then some.  Neither Donald Trump NOR Joe Biden should be agreeing not to contest the outcome of an election any more than Coke Stevenson should have agreed to not contest the outcome of the 1948 Texas Democratic Primary for Senate.

No candidate for ANY office is required to concede defeat or congratulate the victor.  No candidate for ANY office is required to state that an election was conducted fairly, because not every election in American History has been conducted fairly.  It's simply not required, and the electorate can judge for themselves what they think of the candidate not accepting an election result.

Every candidate has the right to institute legal challenges to the result, and every challenge deserves an honest hearing on the merits.  Presidential candidates do, indeed, have a right to challenge the naming of slates of electors; 2024 was hardly the first time it has been done.

These are RIGHTS that extend not only to candidates, but to voters.  No candidate should be elected with the votes of dead people, non-citizens, persons voting twice, stuffed ballot boxes (by any method), etc.  Indeed, I believe that any candidate has a moral duty to its voters to challenge, by all means at his/her disposal, an election that they have reason to believe has not been conducted fairly, honestly, and/or lawfully.  Stolen Elections are a part of our history, and controversies as to the Electoral votes are part of our history (1824 and 1876).  No one is obliged to roll over and be hosed.

All of which is beside the point.

If the 2024 Presidential election is free and fair, but does not result in a win for the Republican nominee, will Republicans accept the result, or attempt to seize power by fraud and force?

I don't expect them to, and Senator Scott's answer strongly implies he, at least, will not.

[Ferguson97]

All of which is beside the point.

If the 2024 Presidential election is free and fair, but does not result in a win for the Republican nominee, will Republicans accept the result, or attempt to seize power by fraud and force?

I don't expect them to, and Senator Scott's answer strongly implies he, at least, will not.

Republicans will never accept, under any circumstances, a Joe Biden victory, as legitimate.

They didn't accept it in 2020, so why would they in 2024?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

All of which is beside the point.

If the 2024 Presidential election is free and fair, but does not result in a win for the Republican nominee, will Republicans accept the result, or attempt to seize power by fraud and force?

I don't expect them to, and Senator Scott's answer strongly implies he, at least, will not.

Republicans will never accept, under any circumstances, a Joe Biden victory, as legitimate.

They didn't accept it in 2020, so why would they in 2024?

If Biden does win the election, they will accept it... only if they believe they cannot successfully overturn the results. If they think they have a chance of stealing the election the way they've stolen a Supreme Court seat, they'll certainly try.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It won't matter they changed the Law where the Beep has to accept the results

All Ds need is 1 H of Congress to control to block the other one

[President Johnson]

"Moderate Republican"

Who thinks of Scott as moderate?
He is a better fit for his state than Trump and can appeal better to the "swing voters / moderates" of his state (which includes rigth leaning blacks that don´t trust much the republicans) but that doesn´t make him a moderate.

The mainstream media - and not just in the US - frequently comes up with this talking point anyone not 100% in Trump's cult is somehow a "moderate" or "sane Republican", even when they largely support his policies and never speak out against Trump's worst instincts. The same was true with regard to DeSantis and even in 2016, when they described Rubio as a moderate. Even though the term is just vague and not clearly defined, I'd only consider Charlie Baker types as actual moderates. Maybe a Spencer Cox or Joe Lombardo might fit the bill to a degree, but Scott, Haley, Rubio or DeSantis clearly aren't. It's like saying Tammy Baldwin is a moderate Democrat.

[OSR stands with Israel]

"Moderate Republican"

Who thinks of Scott as moderate?
He is a better fit for his state than Trump and can appeal better to the "swing voters / moderates" of his state (which includes rigth leaning blacks that don´t trust much the republicans) but that doesn´t make him a moderate.

The mainstream media - and not just in the US - frequently comes up with this talking point anyone not 100% in Trump's cult is somehow a "moderate" or "sane Republican", even when they largely support his policies and never speak out against Trump's worst instincts. The same was true with regard to DeSantis and even in 2016, when they described Rubio as a moderate. Even though the term is just vague and not clearly defined, I'd only consider Charlie Baker types as actual moderates. Maybe a Spencer Cox or Joe Lombardo might fit the bill to a degree, but Scott, Haley, Rubio or DeSantis clearly aren't. It's like saying Tammy Baldwin is a moderate Democrat.

I probably would say Moderates given it’s a relative term should be regarded for only a  quarter of senators per party .

This is actually a good bill to test who fits or not as 15 republicans voted for it and 11 are still in the senate :

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/06/23/politics/republican-senators-break-filibuster-gun-safety-bill


Neither Scott or Rubio are on here

[Del Tachi]

All of which is beside the point.

If the 2024 Presidential election is free and fair, but does not result in a win for the Republican nominee, will Republicans accept the result, or attempt to seize power by fraud and force?

I don't expect them to, and Senator Scott's answer strongly implies he, at least, will not.

Republicans will never accept, under any circumstances, a Joe Biden victory, as legitimate.

They didn't accept it in 2020, so why would they in 2024?

Democrats have not accepted a Republican victory since 1988.  Democrats objected to the electoral college results in 2000, 2004 and 2016 lol   

[Landslide Lyndon]

Democrats have not accepted a Republican victory since 1988.  Democrats objected to the electoral college results in 2000, 2004 and 2016 lol   

[VBM]

This guy is just straight up admitting that he’ll support a coup to install Trump as president even if he loses. Why am I not allowed to call him Uncle Tim?

[Del Tachi]

It would have been perfectly reasonable to say something like, "As long as the elections are free and fair, of course I'll accept them". That would have given him plenty of room to fall back to the next version of the GOP's "Big Lie". But instead we get this:

Kristen Welker: “Will you commit to accepting the election results of 2024?

Tim Scott: “At the end of the day, the 47th president of the will be Donald Trump”

Welker's question is like asking a football team/defense attorney what they'll do if they lose.  When engaged in a competition of wits, you don't acknowledge the possibility of losing until it's already been handed to you.  Anything else smacks of defeatism, which is not a very good trait to have as a presidential candidate.  Campaigns in the past have given similar non-answers to these types of questions.

By being so on the nose about it, Scott is also appealing to Trump's braggadocio. He's trying to keep himself ahead in the veepstakes. 

[Del Tachi]

"Moderate Republican"

Who thinks of Scott as moderate?
He is a better fit for his state than Trump and can appeal better to the "swing voters / moderates" of his state (which includes rigth leaning blacks that don´t trust much the republicans) but that doesn´t make him a moderate.

The mainstream media - and not just in the US - frequently comes up with this talking point anyone not 100% in Trump's cult is somehow a "moderate" or "sane Republican", even when they largely support his policies and never speak out against Trump's worst instincts. The same was true with regard to DeSantis and even in 2016, when they described Rubio as a moderate. Even though the term is just vague and not clearly defined, I'd only consider Charlie Baker types as actual moderates. Maybe a Spencer Cox or Joe Lombardo might fit the bill to a degree, but Scott, Haley, Rubio or DeSantis clearly aren't. It's like saying Tammy Baldwin is a moderate Democrat.

The "mainstream media" (read: liberals) do this because everything is always in service to painting their current opposition, Trump at this moment, as unseriously as possible.  Elevating the sensibility of other Republicans can only makes Trump look worse.  This has the effect of somehow making every national GOP politician worse than the last; the liberal media played a similar game with McCain and Romney before it became useful to rehab them as a way to bring down Trump.

No one thinks Tim Scott is a moderate.  He has one of the most conservative voting records in the Senate!  What you're trying to allude to is that Scott is a member of the establishment - he's well-liked by his Senate GOP colleagues and doesn't tend to rock the boat.  That's why he's likely Trump's #1 choice. 

[Schiff for Senate]

The 2024 election has not been conducted.

Every aspect of the conduct of an election has the right to be inspected.  Every candidate has the right to challenge election results and to present areas where there are unequal standards applied, lack of access and transparency in conducting the collection and counting of ballots, and then some.  Neither Donald Trump NOR Joe Biden should be agreeing not to contest the outcome of an election any more than Coke Stevenson should have agreed to not contest the outcome of the 1948 Texas Democratic Primary for Senate.

No candidate for ANY office is required to concede defeat or congratulate the victor.  No candidate for ANY office is required to state that an election was conducted fairly, because not every election in American History has been conducted fairly.  It's simply not required, and the electorate can judge for themselves what they think of the candidate not accepting an election result.

Every candidate has the right to institute legal challenges to the result, and every challenge deserves an honest hearing on the merits.  Presidential candidates do, indeed, have a right to challenge the naming of slates of electors; 2024 was hardly the first time it has been done.

These are RIGHTS that extend not only to candidates, but to voters.  No candidate should be elected with the votes of dead people, non-citizens, persons voting twice, stuffed ballot boxes (by any method), etc.  Indeed, I believe that any candidate has a moral duty to its voters to challenge, by all means at his/her disposal, an election that they have reason to believe has not been conducted fairly, honestly, and/or lawfully.  Stolen Elections are a part of our history, and controversies as to the Electoral votes are part of our history (1824 and 1876).  No one is obliged to roll over and be hosed.

Then he could, as Runeghost said, have simply said he would accept the result IF it was free or fair. A Biden victory does not preclude a legitimate outcome; I'm sure even you are rational enough to accept that it's very much a possible outcome for Biden to win, fair and square.

For Scott to dismiss the possibility ALTOGETHER and refuse to honor the results right now (before there's any reason to believe there will be fraud or irregularities of any kind) is a major red flag. Biden can win, and win legitimately, and that's a possibility that you, Tim Scott, and all other Republicans should probably come to terms with (just as I and many Democrats have come to terms with the possibility that Trump is, in fact, our 47th president - our dreading it doesn't change the fact that it's a possible outcome of the election).

[Schiff for Senate]

The "mainstream media" (read: liberals) do this because everything is always in service to painting their current opposition, Trump at this moment, as unseriously as possible.  Elevating the sensibility of other Republicans can only makes Trump look worse.  This has the effect of somehow making every national GOP politician worse than the last; the liberal media played a similar game with McCain and Romney before it became useful to rehab them as a way to bring down Trump.

No one thinks Tim Scott is a moderate.  He has one of the most conservative voting records in the Senate!  What you're trying to allude to is that Scott is a member of the establishment - he's well-liked by his Senate GOP colleagues and doesn't tend to rock the boat.  That's why he's likely Trump's #1 choice.  

Wb Stefanik? I for one still believe Stefanik is a stronger choice than Scott; Scott's too devoid of personal charm/charisma. Of course, Trump more than makes up for it, so having a  bland running mate may be a good thing in this case, but I think Stefanik provides a good balance and has a decent personality without there being a possibility of her overshadowing Trump (that, as much as the whole shooting her dog controversy, is arguably what ruined Kristi Noem's chances).

[Schiff for Senate]

All of which is beside the point.

If the 2024 Presidential election is free and fair, but does not result in a win for the Republican nominee, will Republicans accept the result, or attempt to seize power by fraud and force?

I don't expect them to, and Senator Scott's answer strongly implies he, at least, will not.

Republicans will never accept, under any circumstances, a Joe Biden victory, as legitimate.

They didn't accept it in 2020, so why would they in 2024?

Democrats have not accepted a Republican victory since 1988.  Democrats objected to the electoral college results in 2000, 2004 and 2016 lol   

Not that I'm justifying 2004 or 2016 (2000 was genuinely rife with irregularities, for obvious reasons, and I'm disappointed no senator had the courage to join in the objections to FL's result), but this is a false equivalence and you know it. While Trump refused, and still refuses, to accept his loss, Gore, Kerry and Clinton all graciously conceded instead of creating an atmosphere of distrust in the democratic process.