Accepting Results When You Lose
I turned 65 almost five weeks ago. Thank you and all of you for providing me with guaranteed health insurance coverage through Medicare. Not sure if I am a net winner or loser, and we should ALL have access to affordable health care. Not what I am here about today, but thanks anyway.
I mention my age because people even younger than I am grew up with bromides from our mothers and fathers. One, of course, was Nobody likes a sore loser. Turns out, I am sorry to say, that Mom and Dad – mine, at least – got it wrong. About 40% of Americans like, and I mean, Really Like, the sorest of sore losers.
Of course, I refer to Former Guy. Someone who lost the popular vote to a woman in 2016 but got elected and inaugurated because his voters voted in the right places. Someone who lost even more badly to a lesser in his mind: inferior schools; no wealth; no style; a wife who, are you ready for this, teaches at a community college. A man – Former Guy, that is – who helped coordinate an attack on democracy and said nothing while minions murdered and mauled.
Today, as the next national election awaits us in three weeks, the media asks Former Guy acolytes about an election outcome that has them coming up short. Kari Lake, an all-in Trumper who wants to be Arizona’s next governor, will not agree to accept a loss. Her answer gets gussied up with “I will not lose” statements, but she’s of a piece with the Sore Loser Brigade.
Earlier in the primary season, Mesa (CO) County Clerk Tina Peters, under indictment for actions taken in 2021 that relate to voting systems, lost the R primary for Secretary of State. (In Colorado, the Secretary of State does oversee elections.) She got 29% of the vote, while the winning candidate received 43%. Gee, that 29% seems high for a candidate, under indictment for activities that relate directly to the office she seeks. Is Ms. Peters happy? Nope. Recount. The third place candidate believes she really won a race when the winning candidate received 81,000 more votes than she did. Unbelievable!
Back in Arizona, we also have Blake Masters. He wants to be a Senator. If he loses, he’s got his explanation at the ready: they stole it. This whiny little piece of work claims his Daddy told him not to run. Why? Because, per the wannabe, If you win by 30,000, they’ll find 40,000 votes for Mark Kelly.
Election fraud has always existed. Landslide Lyndon aka Lyndon B. Johnson picked up the appellation because he found the votes he needed to win his 1948 Senate election, after having a prior election to the Senate stolen from him. In 1960, Illinois went for Kennedy. Many thought Nixon should challenge the Cook County (Chicago) count, and some believe he opted not to because his people stole as many, or more, Downstate votes.
Both examples – well, really, the three of them – involved close elections, paper ballots, and not much transparency. Today, we have machines. Those who scream fraud want paper ballots, as if they’re the Gold Standard. Not so much, and large scale machine-based fraud requires a large number of bad actors, working in concert, with no one ratting them out. Implausible in the extreme!
A pox on those who question election results without credible facts. Show me a close election – like, say, I dunno, the Florida presidential election in 2000 – and let’s talk. Otherwise, we ought to find a place for those who force us to deal with the fact that they will not accept the moniker they deserve: Loser!