General Question

crazyguy's avatar

Will Biden supporters accept the result of the election?

Asked by crazyguy (1423points) 3 weeks ago

For months, if not years, Trump has been asked repeatedly if he will accept a probable loss in the election. He has (rightly in my opinion) hedged his answer.

Now, I want to ask the same question to Biden supporters. If, in the extremely unlikely event that Trump wins, will you accept the election result?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

70 Answers

si3tech's avatar

You mean like they did in 2016? Yes. Exactly like that!.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
cookieman's avatar

I think reasonable, mature people, while disappointed, certainly will. I would say the same of reasonable, mature people who vote for Trump.

In fact, I would posit that most people who choose to vote in the US, regardless of who they vote for are reasonable and mature. Ya know, like adults are supposed to be.

Unfortunately, the news media, comedians, internet denizens and trolls, and even some folks we all know fucking love to paint in extremes with a wide brush. Focus only on extremist on both sides and completely fucking forgetting about people in the middle who see the world in a little more grey. Folks who can think fir themselves on an issue by issue basis. Do their own research. Understand nuance. Or maybe just don’t subscribe to the bloody spectator sport that politics has become.

So yeah, most Biden and Trump supporters will accept the result of the election.

It’s the vocal minority assholes who will cause trouble, wreak havoc, and draw most of the attention away from the reasonable and mature majority who nobody gives a shit about.

JLeslie's avatar

Most will, although there will be a palpable state of depression and disbelief for many of them.

I told my husband no matter who wins I want him to stop watching politics daily for a while. I can’t take it anymore.

I am looking forward to Tuesday, because I am hoping when it is over we can have a break. I know it might be wishful thinking.

Darth_Algar's avatar

He hasn’t “hedged” his answer, he’s essentially flat out said that he would not. That you feel he has “wisely” done this tells me a lot.

As to the question – yes. Now, will you accept it if Trump loses?

stanleybmanly's avatar

If Trump wins there will be an immediate resumption and intensification of the plethora of legal actions currently confronting him. The Democrats are NOT the party threatening armed insurrection, nor will they accuse this idiot’s party of fraud in the event that he wins. But I believe the vote against the fool this time will be so overwhelming that no sane person will argue it stolen.

Pandora's avatar

If Trump loses will Republicans or even Trump accepts he lost? We all know Trump won’t and neither will his cult. Who by the way try to run Biden and people from his campaign off the road in Texas. And there is an actual video. Not a fake. My bet is Republicans will not accept it and may get violent. White supremacists are looking for a reason to create a civil war and have Trump placed as their new dictator. Not so sure Dems are willing to go that far. By the way this doesn’t look or sound like a man who is willing to accept defeat. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-as-soon-as-that-election-is-over-we-re-going-in-with-our-lawyers/vi-BB1aB8Z8?ocid=ob-fb-enus-280&fbclid=IwAR1AZiHWUpwYqf0FLV_ywxewSvbLKDcD-tuAXCmZPWG8Ce7RRDJzfvaePXg

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Man you fright wingers will spin anything.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated
Demosthenes's avatar

Calling myself a “Biden supporter” makes me want to puke, but yes, I will accept the outcome of the election.

Trump not answering the question of accepting the result is him trolling the media. He isn’t going to do shit if he loses. He just doesn’t like being forced to give an answer. But I think he should answer the question to discourage the nutjobs from taking violent action if he loses. Some nutjobs will do it regardless, but others do care what he says.

kritiper's avatar

Of course they will! They aren’t uncivilized boors!

zenvelo's avatar

Biden supporters will accept a clear and fair win by Trump. We will not peacefully accept another election stolen as 2000 was.

Response moderated (Spam)
crazyguy's avatar

Thanks, all, for superb modulated responses. I am convinced now, more than ever, that we shall have a peaceful transfer, or retention, of power, no matter who wins. I’ll answer a few specific points below.

@JLeslie That is exactly what my wife is hoping for also. More Netflix and Prime, less Fox, CNN and MSNBC.

crazyguy's avatar

@stanleybmanly Lawsuits based on flimsy evidence do not represent any acceptance.

@Pandora Whatever the man says, transition plans are under way – see
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/31/politics/presidential-transition-planning/index.html

@Demosthenes Not sure why it makes you puke. Is he too rightist for you?

@kritiper Thank you!

@zenvelo Aha! You are hedging your answer, just like Trump!

Demosthenes's avatar

@crazyguy Yeah, that must be it.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@crazyguy I’m not talking about Trump’s civil liabilities. I’m talking about the criminal allegations and usurpations of his office, the sort leading to his previous impeachment. The elections and the pandemic have distracted us from the fact that there are several ongoing probes into his machinations, but that will shift after Tuesday regardless of whoever wins. Moreover, if the Democrats acquire the Senate, it won’t matter if Trump is re-elected because he will be impeached and removed faster than you can blink. He’s doomed if he loses, because all the criminal prosecutions that were deemed by Barr prohibited while he’s President resume the day he leaves the White House. There are times when I almost feel sorry for Trump, until I consider the horrific damage he wreaks on the country and the carnage he leaves in his wake.

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated
Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Response moderated (Flame-Bait)
Pandora's avatar

@crazyguy If republicans keep the senate and take Congress there is nothing to stop Trump. Barr works for him, not the Nation and the Supreme court is now 6 republicans and Barrett would not promise that she would uphold whatever the results of the election came to be. So in that scenario, whose going to stop him from doing what he wants?

stanleybmanly's avatar

@crazyguy The conservative mindset that those opposing Trump reject his validity are ABSOLUTELY wrong. The complaints are NOT about process, but the MAN HIMSELF. Those who fault such factors as the electoral college or that he lost the popular vote are merely searching for an explanation as to WHY they must refer to him as “President Trump”. I defy you to name anyone of note who has declared that he is NOT President. The massive complaints and wringing of hands is not over his legitimacy, but exactly the same process which accompanies any great national disaster.

Demosthenes's avatar

I would argue that it’s far more important for a presidential candidate to accept the result of an election than anyone else. Who cares if some loudmouth on the internet doesn’t “accept” the president? The reason Trump is even being asked the question is because only his and Biden’s acceptance truly matters. The question is related to a transfer of power.

seawulf575's avatar

I’m seeing this election going just like 2016 did. The polls all broadcast loud and clear that the Dem would win in a landslide and the Repub would not have a chance. The Dems believed their own press. Then after the election, all those polls were shown to be completely bogus and we got Donald Trump as the POTUS. The Dems did not accept that result and we spent all 4 years watching them try to undo that result by getting him tossed out of office. It started the day after the election when the “Impeach 45!” started. He wasn’t even sworn into office and there was no action he had done that would have been impeachable, yet it started. We suffered through opposition research obtained from foreign agents (and Russian disinformation) being used as a basis for spying on a political candidate and try to be used as an effort to get him thrown out. When that didn’t work, we had to put up with a complete nonsensical impeachment that was nothing more than Dems STILL not accepting him as POTUS. And it just goes on and on. And all along the way, the Dem supporters (or Trump haters, take your moniker) cheered and took every innuendo and false accusation as proof and fact because they couldn’t accept that their Goddess lost.
So if Biden loses, it is likely that we will continue with 4 more years of uselessness on the part of the Dems and their loyal radicals will continue to try torching cities, take over sections of those cities, terrorize as many people as they can, attack police and generally try everything they can to start a civil war. I don’t know…is that considered “not accepting the results of the election”?

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: The reason for the reaction from the Dems in 2016 was because the popular vote went to Hillary but the Electoral College did not go the way of the people.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

A million GAs for @jca2 ,maybe that proves you don’t have to “rig” the election just the electoral
college to to win?

lastexit's avatar

As long as all the mail in ballots are counted, no matter how long it takes, I think Biden supporters will accept the results.

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 That might be a reason to say “Hey! That doesn’t seem right!” It isn’t a reason to forego all other actions than trying to undo the results. Our elections have an Electoral College for a reason. We don’t use popular vote for that same reason. And all candidates know that is how the election is decided. All citizens ought to know that as well. And by your reasoning, you are justifying any and all actions to negate an election you don’t like the results of. That is lunacy and anarchy. And I find it completely hypocritical when someone tries justifying the actions of the Dems for the past 4 years and then try to get down on Trump for hedging his answers.

Response moderated
Darth_Algar's avatar

@seawulf575

Since crazyguy refuses to answer, let me ask you the same question – will you accept it if Trump loses?

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 isn’t it funny when people squawk about the electoral college in relation to the 2016 election but they don’t say a peep about how the Dems choose their candidate? Hillary bought the nomination….plain and simple. She bought the super-delegates and that basically gave her enough votes to win. Bernie could have won just about every every normal delegate and still not won the nomination. So why is it okay to use a corrupt version of the electoral college to decide the Dem nomination, but not a cleaner version to decide the election? Besides, the electoral college is put in place for a specific reason…a reason that prevents a few high population areas from having more control than the rest of the country.

seawulf575's avatar

@Darth_Algar Providing it is a clean election, sure. In other words, providing we don’t have 110% of available voters in any areas voting, providing we don’t drag out the decision and extraordinary amount of time because of “mail in ballots”...things like that..I would accept the results. But let’s be honest…the question that went to Trump that started this whole thing was “Win, lose, or draw…will you commit to leaving office peacefully?”. Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that trying to get him to commit to leaving office no matter what the results of the election are…even if he wins? Why isn’t anyone clocking the idiot reporter for asking such a question?

Darth_Algar's avatar

You’re wrong.

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
stanleybmanly's avatar

Interpretation of what? That it is fair that a candidate can garner 3 million more votes than her opponent and yet lose the election?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Listen my grumpy little wulfe I never said it was OK for Hillary to rig her getting the nomination, YOU did and what it sounds like according to you if Hillary did it why not Trump.
If what you said was illegal and can be proven then she should pay, but that is not what I am getting since your guy did it why can’t mine type thing, that doesn’t make either right.

MrGrimm888's avatar

IMO. It will largely depend upon the legitimacy, of the process.
Which is clearly, already, in question.
I don’t expect Trump to accept a loss.
If votes are thrown out, or the process is further tampered with, there are likely to be protests by the Biden supporters, and those who simply wanted a fair contest.

It’s important to note that not all people who wouldn’t accept a stolen election, would be “Biden supporters.” I think that many, would be pro-democracy.

I am FAR more concerned about Trump, and his supporters, not accepting a Biden win.

Remember that Trump didn’t even accept that he won, in 2016, by electoral college.
He’s a bad winner. That leads me to believe that he’s probably a REALLY bad loser.
His declarations leading up to this election, simply galvanize my opinions…

crazyguy's avatar

@MrGrimm888 If Trump wins, by some miracle, I fully expect nationwide riots and looting. I hope Trump will remember what Lincoln did, when faced with similar lawlessness in 1861.

“Keep your rowdies in Baltimore, and there will be no bloodshed. Go home and tell your people that if they will not attack us, we will not attack them; but if they do attack us, we will return it, and that severely.”

In modern terms here is what he should do:

All honest citizens will be asked to submit video of anyone they see engaged in violence, looting and destruction.

Every business will be asked to share any pictures its security cameras produce of mobs and violence.

Every TV news program will be scrutinized to seek to identify the violent and the destructive.

All police officers will be asked to use their phones to record videos of every violent or destructive person they encounter.

The Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security will be tasked with coordinating with state and local authorities to track down, arrest and prosecute the violent, lawless, and criminal.

AND THE ULTIMATE ANSWER:

Those local authorities who refuse to cooperate will have all their federal funding suspended until they are replaced by the voters with people who are anti-criminal and anti-looting.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Such thinking is exactly why his fat ass will be booted out of office, and our national nightmare suspended from “kicking open the portal to hell.”

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
jca2's avatar

@crazyguy: Your description of what you think should occur sounds like what one might expect in North Korea.

JLeslie's avatar

Trump has spent weeks telling supporters to go to polling centers and watch for cheating, blah blah blah.

American is having a calm and typical Election Day. Thank goodness.

The American citizenry has not forgotten how to be civilized.

jca2's avatar

@JLeslie: I think the election day is calm like the calm before the storm.

JLeslie's avatar

I’ll still take it for now. People are out voting, no one should feel intimidated voting.

I just saw Trump in Virginia, and overall he sounded very normal and respectful of the process. We can only hope that continues.

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 I didn’t say it was illegal at all. It is how the Democrats hold their primaries in this country. But isn’t it amazing that while there is outrage about the electoral college for not supporting popular vote, those same people venting about it don’t even want to address how the Dems do it?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

But shouldn’t the electoral college follow the popular vote to a degree?
Because if they alone can say they outcome of the election, 2 things come to mind then do you have true democracy, and every joe blow votes doesn’t count so why bother?

Darth_Algar's avatar

@seawulf575 “But isn’t it amazing that while there is outrage about the electoral college for not supporting popular vote, those same people venting about it don’t even want to address how the Dems do it?”

You do realize that Clinton got more of the popular vote than Sanders in the 2016 primary, right? Simply put, Democratic voters preferred Hillary Clinton.

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 The electoral college is put in place so that all 50 states can get a say in presidential elections instead of just NY and CA always deciding things. So while the high population centers might have a lot of people voting one way, that isn’t necessarily the right thing for 50 sovereign states.

Darth_Algar's avatar

A: California wasn’t even a territory when the Electoral College was devised.

B: New York really wasn’t that large, and 90% of the nation’s population lived rurally, not in cities.

C: The states haven’t really been sovereign since the moment the Constitution took effect. They tried the concept of sovereign states in one union with the Articles of Confederation. It didn’t work so well. Even Thomas Jefferson, about as anti-federal as they came, grew frustrated by the Congress’s inability to do much of anything and being beholden to the state governments.

seawulf575's avatar

@Darth_Algar I use CA and NY because of the reason for the electoral college. Not that they were the reason at the time for it. It was to avoid large population centers having all the say and the less populated states getting the shaft.
As for the states being sovereign, I’m not sure what state you live in, but I’m betting they have their own government, right? Governor, supreme court, etc. That means they control themselves….as it was set up in the Constitution.

Darth_Algar's avatar

The states are, however, still subject to federal law. Before that they were perfectly free to tell the federal to go fuck itself. Contrary to what people seem to believe the Constitution was a massive expansion of federal dominion.

And no, the Electoral College was set up to appease states like Virginia, who didn’t want their slaves to have any kind of rights or standing as human beings, but still wanted their slave populations to count when it came to those state’s influence in the federal government. And there were no real population centers at the time. New York City, the largest in the nation even then, was only around 30,000 people at the time. Nowhere near large enough to counter the votes of the 90% of the population who lived in the countryside.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The establishment of the electoral college was not so much about the dominance of population centers. Just like the 3/5ths of a person provision, it was another concession granted the slave states to make the institution of slavery viable in a land supposedly based on the principle that all men are created equal. You can pretend the college is somehow just because it prevents population centers a huge advantage. But @Darth Algar ‘s point is beyond dispute in that the measure went into effect when population centers were few and far between. In the end, there is no justification in rewarding hillbillies simply for choosing to live in places engineered by capitalism such that you can no longer earn a living. How do you justify that a man’s vote in Wyoming is worth more than my own simply because no one chooses to live in Wyoming?

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
crazyguy's avatar

@jca2 In North Korea, all protesters would be arrested immediately. All looters would be shot on sight.

jca2's avatar

OK @crazyguy, noted, but your description of what you’d like to see doesn’t seem like anything ever in this country. Does it to you?

stanleybmanly's avatar

As indicated, and universally predicted, there was never any doubt regarding this question of whose supporters would devote themselves to rejection of the results in this election. It would be difficult to list a grouping so dedicated to consistent rejection of reality on this or any other issue critical to the sanity and wellbeing of their country.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly The electoral process was created in 1787. ALL states at that time (all 13) were slave states. So your statement starts with a flaw and build on that flaw.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Can I ask our two very fright wingers can you accept the election results, because right now you’re not doing very well.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@seawulf575 the “flaw” in all of our conversations is in the fact that you have no inkling of attributing any understanding or nuance to what you read. Were you actually a resident of this country, you would have to be brain dead to attempt convincing anyone here that Pennsylvania or New Jersey should EVER be catalogued as “slave states.”

crazyguy's avatar

@jca2 To me it seems as constitutional as the actions of the violent people and looters.

crazyguy's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 I guess you are including me in “very fright wingers”, so I’ll attempt to answer.

The fact that you and your cohorts on this board, and all over the country, are ok with the election results tells me one thing: you care only for the result. Fortunately or unfortunately, this is not the last election we’ll ever have. Therefore, I think, we owe it to ourselves to assure that doubts can never be raised again about any future election. Therefore, I think trump should take all the time he wants between Nov 3 and the constitutionally prescribed electoral college meeting date of Dec 14 to challenge any and all irregularities, real or perceived, in the lat election.

If complaints about all irregularities can be thrown out by the courts, I would hope Trump and his supporters will swallow and bear it.

crazyguy's avatar

@seawulf575 I became convinced some time ago that engaging with @stanleybmanly is an absolute waste of time.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Birds of a feather is sufficient rejoinder. I feel fully vindicated in my assessment of you both. The link provided by poor wulfie splendidly illustrates EXACTLY my point. The 2 of you combined lack the intellect to form a cohesive thought, let alone the wit to challenge my positions. Read your link again, then enroll in a bonafide course on American History.

seawulf575's avatar

Sorry, Stan. Don’t have to read much more. Both states you listed had slaves at the time the electoral college was created. You claimed the electoral college was created to allow slavery in those states that wanted it. If it already existed in all the states, which it did, your claim is wrong. You then went on to claim that Pennsylvania and NJ were never slave states. My articles showed your second claim was wrong. Tell you what….show me a source that says I’m wrong and we can continue talking. Otherwise, you are blathering, trying desperately to avoid saying you were wrong.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Once again, just as surely as you don’t understand what is stated in your link, you once more misquote what I wrote. I never claimed that you couldn’t find a slave in Pennsylvania or New Jersey. I now repeat my statement that the electoral college was established as a concession to accommodate the slave states. If you believe that claim invalid because slavery was technically legal in Delaware and Massachusetts, you grasp neither what I nor your link itself are telling you. But more significantly, you cannot sustain such peculiar views, and yet pretend yourself a product of this country. Who are you really?

Darth_Algar's avatar

@seawulf575 “You claimed the electoral college was created to allow slavery in those states that wanted it.”

Not at all what was said.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther