Dac10
Rookie
Posts: 181
|
 |
« on: April 10, 2020, 09:55:37 PM » |
|
|
« edited: April 10, 2020, 10:06:32 PM by Dac10 »
|
Ones I agree with
1876 - Straight up stolen from Tilden obviously. Giving all the contested states to Haye sto make him win by one elector. It’s just straight up ludicrous, and the deal with the Siuth was the only reason he was ever elected
1888- Block of Five scandal, even by the (low) standards of the times, should obviously make the results totally illegitimate in any seriously democratic country.
2000 - Supreme Court obviously gave it to Bush. Also Jeb Bush straight up removing minority votes from the count as Governor that would almost certainly have flipped Florida to Gore.
Ones here I disagree with
1824 - The bargain obviously happened, and any attempt to deny it is just Adams and Clay saving their political careers, and later saving face. But it was still a legitimate win within the confines of American political system. If anything this type of negotiation between candidates is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended. (Whether or not the system itself is ridiculous is another issue. That idea I’d agree with. But then every election should have some degree of qualification on it (which I’d also agree with, but that’s not what the post it talking about lol)).
1884 - Obviously the results from the South were illegitimate, and Republicans would peel away some Southern states without Jim Crow. But that was the political game that all parties were aware of. It was true for every election, from the end of Reconstruction to 1965 and the Voting Rights Act (1880 - 1968). This is more a general disclaimer over that entire period of American history, instead of a particular election.
1916 - Same as above.
1960 - Kennedy obviously cheated. But just like with 1968, the idea of Nixon “acknowledging Kennedy’s win for the good of the of country” and to “preserve the sanctity of the electoral process” are completely fake. Nixon didn’t contest it because he didn’t want to reveal the Republican been doing the same, just less effectively as Kennedy.
1968 - Obviously Nixon should be in prison for sabotaging the negotiations like he did (alongside many many other thing lol). And he only won because Johnson kept it secret. But like I said above, the idea of LBJ keeping it secret to preserve the “sanctity of the electoral process” and keep “the faith in America’s democractic parties” is just a lie. He didn’t realize it because he knew that the Republicans would air all of his and the Democrats deity dealing if he did. And while they’d have won 1968 probably, they’d tank themselves. The public would turn on the traditional parties and at the absolute least, call for a purge of both and entirely new leadership.
1980 - While I’m sure they would have if they could, Reagan’s campaign didn’t have the capacity to negotiate with Iran. Iran just released the hostages on Inauguration Day as a parting “screw you” to Carter.
2008 - Those “reports” of illegal immigrants voters are totally unsubstantiated by any biased source, and are very clearly Republican partisans trying to lie to themselves, or (more likely) gritting by appealing to the Republican base. IpEven the large majority of Republicans don’t legitimately believe this.
2012 - Same as above.
2016 - Russia certainly did try to interfere, but 1. this is nothing new. This has been going on for every world power to any other world power for decades. It’s just social media made it slightly more effective in 2016 2. It’s really not as impactful as many people would like to say it was. The largest impact it’s had has legitimately just been to increases Russia and the FSB’s reputation when it comes to international intrigue, without actually having to do much. This is obviously just a way for partisan liberals and American establishment figures to explain to themselves how they were completely blindsided by Trump. Every American neoliberal establishment entity expected Hillary to win. If there wasn’t an outside forced responsible, then they’d have to look inward and acknowledge their own ideology is legitimately that undesirable to the average American. Average Democratic Party loyal liberals don’t want to do that, and establishment figures can do it fine, but are paid to pretend they haven’t.
|
