Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why Trump’s “Wait and See” Was Brilliant
If you hear someone hyperventilating over Trump’s reply on automatically accepting the election results, tell them to take a breath. First, remember, that 41 percent of people now think things are rigged. And most remember eight years of Democrats claiming that Bush was not in office legitimately, and Gore demanding a recount.
Contrary to received wisdom, Trump was brilliant to say he would wait to see if the election was rigged. Why? First, the media will pick this up, criticize it (which will make Trump supporters feel they are right to be concerned), and carry it into the ether for Mr. Trump … more earned media on his point.
Second and more important, saying he’d “wait and see” about the election outcome was the only answer that fit his entire raison d’être as a candidate: standing up to a corrupt system, uncowed, and fighting for fairness.
Had he said he’d accept any outcome, his supporters would have thought, “He’s effectively told them it is OK to cheat! Now they actually can cheat since he’s effectively conceded in advance and we’re screwed!”
Instead, now they think that this will be a caution to Democrats not to cheat, and if Trump loses, expect him – as his supporters will – to first verify that he actually lost fair and square, that they weren’t cheated – and only then accept defeat.
Anything less and they’d wonder what happened to their champion.
As with Trump’s pattern for the last year, he starts with an extreme statement (garnering earned media), and ends at a reasonable result. All his remark was saying last night, translated into safe, no-earned media speak, was “We’re going to make sure this election is fair.”
It would be a good message for the GOP to echo and support.
Published in General
Much easier as opposed to not being challenged at all?
Come on. I’m tired of this. We, the intellectual party, only cares about perception when it is how the enemy pereives us.
News flash: They already think we are stupid.
The R party has been bleeding voters because it does not care about the perceptions of its own base. All of the issues, like being vetoed on Obamacare repeals, tat were going to result in media backlash, they should have trusted their base to have their back.
Look at the abuse Trump supporters are willing to deal with. You think we would give less to Boehner and Rubio if they had just stood up and TRIED? Without apologizing for offending people or for their base’s baseness.
The only relevant question is, “Does Trump’s statement here draw more undecided voters into his column, or doesn’t it?”
If Mr. Trump’s supporters like it, great. However, they are already likely to vote for him. Are Mrs. Clinton’s supporters collapsing with the vapors over it? So what? They’ll dispute that the sky is blue and grass is green if Mr. Trump were to say so.
Does making argument that the election is systematically unfair towards him, and then suggesting he might not recognize the final results, advance his electoral strength among undecideds?
I am not denying that voter fraud happens or that it’s a serious problem.
I am saying that Trump’s been whining since the primaries began about how everyone is unfair to him and the system’s rigged, etc.
Again, one of the reasons why this is so destructive is that it makes it that much harder to nail the democrats for their abuses; crying wolf is dangerous because then no one believes you when the wolf actually shows up.
Trump, Keep fighting.
Oy vey. I guess sarcasm violates the CoC now. How ’bout them unicorns and rainbows?
yes he protests too much, but you’re right this was the only answer available to him, but he should have limited it to voter fraud. I’m sick of hearing Democrats and many Republicans say there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud. Why do the Democrats oppose voter I.D? Why do Democrats carry with outsized majorities precincts with powerful urban Democrat machines. The most frequent voter fraud is vote harvesting where some operative votes the name of a registered voter, the less likely to actually show up the better, non existent or dead people are the best but anyone of either party reliably known by the end of the voting day to be a non voter, is also as good as gold.
It largely depends on how receptive independents are to learning if there is corruption in voting.
If our “reasonable” media (as opposed to the “in the tank” media) would stop the cries of Trump’s uncouth behavior and spread what Valiuth posted across conservative media, independents may be more likely to have a favorable reaction.
Right now, people who do a cursory look for election/voter fraud only find verified instances of Republicans doing it. There is something wrong with that if, indeed, democrats do it too.
Because it triggers a vigorous denial by the sensible Republicans, that they are stuck with no much matter what happens. Hugh Hewitt is a prime example of this phenomenon.
A lot of spinning here, especially considering a month ago it was being argued that Trump was just like Ronald Reagan. Of course he isn’t, and that comparison was rather insulting to the Gipper.
Trump isn’t going to come close to Reagan, in fact a betting man now is debating just how bad Trump is going to LOSE. Reagan was underestimated, but deep down was a brilliant man. Trump? He’s a bloviating moron, who is barely able to argue in complete sentences.
Lose an election?
I’ll try to be civil, but this is crazy
You mean this guy?
He’s from New York. There’s a difference!
Gotcha, thanks.
That’s a powerful claim. Has any candidate in the past ever been asked about this issue? Has any one of them proactively stated they’d accept any outcome, even despite grievous irregularities? Why is stating that you’ll wait until presented with the situation before giving a definitive decision reckless? Anyway, using the word reckless implies some damage. Who would be damaged?
Yeah, was I expressing bad faith, or simply a bad attempt at a joke? Perhaps I should have put a wink after it ;)
Either way, sorry Heather!
The normal and correct way for a candidate to answer is “Of course I’ll accept the outcome. What kind of question is that?” because the operating assumption is and should be that the process is legitimate. The possibility ex ante that fraud could decide the election should be treated by candidates as so remote as to not be worth discussing as a hypothetical, in part because “I will dispute fraud” should go without saying. If during or afterwards that assumption turns out to be shaky (e.g. Franken/Coleman in MN in ’08 or , Rossi/Gregoire in WA in ’06) only then do you start picking “accept the outcome” fights. As a practical matter, suggesting in advance the possibility of widespread fraud accomplishes nothing except eroding trust. Even if a candidate does expect fraud, the way to go about dealing with it is to have poll watchers on election day and report irregularities ahead of time to police. Only if those aren’t dealt with do you start raising a stink.
I was surprised Trump did not refer to the news story of this week about the organized efforts to commit vote fraud, per the Project Veritas video. If he had added a little context and reminded viewers of Al Gore’s not accepting the election in 2000, he still would have made the point while giving a lot less ammo to the pearl-clutching media.
I think we all may fall into this trap that we expect something big to have been heard of by a lot of people and need not have direct reference.
I’m continually surprised how my right-leaning friends haven’t heard much of what I have to the point of shock when I tell them. Like the Muhammad video maker… I still have to look this up to make sure *I* am not crazy because no one else knows about it.
Yes, I believe a recent biography of him quotes Trump as saying he uses “hyperbolic truth” to garner media attention. It has worked brilliantly.
Where has he alleged fraud where there actually was none? To be like the boy who cried wolf, one must cry wolf when there is none. I see plenty of wolves.
Actually, they probably are. I’d guess that lots of stuff is classified merely from force of habit.
He isn’t eroding my trust. I already have zero trust in the electoral system.
Tom, I reviewed the article you linked. From my perch, the ten examples of Trump false claims were in fact truthful claims of wolves were there were indeed wolves.
Item 1. Trump complained that the Emmys were rigged. Well, I believe Oscars, Emmys, Nobel and awards in general are all political, not to mention academic tenure, and now even science. Thus Trump is accurate. Wolf.
Items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are all complaints about biased media. Is there any dispute that the media is biased against Trump? Wolf.
Item 7 is a complaint about Khizr Khan as not knowing what’s in the constitution. As tempting as that might be, it is unlikely Trump is so ignorant. Wolf.
Item 8 is a complaint Clinton “spent hundreds of millions of dollars on negative ads on me, many of which are absolutely untrue.” We all know that is true. Wolf.
Item 9. At the second debate Trump said “One on three.” True, Wolf.
Item 10. During the second debate, Trump complained that Clinton was getting more time to speak. True Wolf.
(I am limited to 250 words so I will continue)
The claim against Trump is not falsehood, but a variant of bad decorum. For example, if one fails to get an Emmy, it is bad decorum to complain. We are past good decorum. The democrats use our decorum against use, so the electorates have chosen a fighter and wisely so. Let him do what others have failed to do. Even without decorum he is at least fighting back. It is more than I can say for most Republicans.
Lord Cardigan was a fighter. I suppose ours is not to reason why…
I think he talks about this approach in his book. Basically start bigger and more general, work toward smaller and more specific.
It’s amazing (and a little sad) how many people did exactly what the media told them to do, and still think they’re sticking it to the man.
Where do you apply for the “normal and correct” parsing tool? I want one, too! A majority of citizens do not assume the process is secure or legitimate anymore. All Trump said was that he’ll answer if and when an issue arises. You and others speak as if he’s the incumbent and may decide not to call the moving van in January.
Except it hasn’t. We’ve yet to see if it worked brilliantly. At the moment it looks like Trump’s strategy of “hyperbolic truth” is simply the mirror image of Jeb!’s, “lose the primary to win the general” strategy.