Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

unblock

(52,247 posts)
Fri Jan 13, 2017, 11:17 AM Jan 2017

i think there's a difference between shrub's and donnie's electoral victories

the election in 2000 was a circus, especially given the recounts and legal challenges leading up to the notorious bush v. gore selection of shrub as the winner.

but basically, people felt the election was a close, relatively fair contest and the winner was a coin toss. the morning of election day, people were prepared for it going either way. we certainly can have a beef with how it was ultimately decided, but in the end, people were prepared for either to win, however that happened.


in 2016, though, hillary led virtually the entire campaign and by the morning of the election, the media and the people (and apparently even donnie himself) were widely expecting hillary to win. so donnie's win based on an electoral victory really feels much more like a win "on a technicality" than shrub's win felt in 2000.

add onto that comey's and russian dirty tricks and criminal acts and donnie's win feels even less legitimate.


in 2000 we had a sense that we lost a close contest. unfairly in the end, but it was a close contest.

in 2016 there's a sense that we had a win stolen from us.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»i think there's a differe...