Has Kamala Agreed to Accept the Outcome of the Election...?

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Without caveats?

What if it's clear that the Rs stole the election - as they absolutely will try to do. Based on the law changes and other tactics they have put in place in various states. And based on what we saw last time around.

Suppose, just to take one plausible example, Harris squeaks to a win in Georgia, then the Georgia legislature substitutes a Trump slate in the Electoral College.

I worry that the Dems may have backed themselves into a corner where they cannot object to an obviously stolen election. Imagine Harris feeling obligated to certify a stolen election because she and the Dems have made it impossible to do otherwise.

Can anyone reassure me?

 

[Rifler]

Dems have objected in some fashion to every Republican presidential win in recent memory,.. It will happen again.

 

[NoleATL]

That would be an unconstitutional outcome. Why would she accept it? You are trying to compare clearly fraudulent behavior with an election that was investigated every which way INCLUDING Sunday with no material voter fraud. Most of the voter fraud has been by the GQP and not material enough to impact the outcome, thankfully.

 

[Rifler]

Votes collected in a manner not dictated by the ruling state legislature will also produce an unconstitutional outcome,.. Outright fraud is not a requirement.

 

[Aardvark86]

Without caveats?

What if it's clear that the Rs stole the election - as they absolutely will try to do. Based on the law changes and other tactics they have put in place in various states. And based on what we saw last time around.

Suppose, just to take one plausible example, Harris squeaks to a win in Georgia, then the Georgia legislature substitutes a Trump slate in the Electoral College.

I worry that the Dems may have backed themselves into a corner where they cannot object to an obviously stolen election. Imagine Harris feeling obligated to certify a stolen election because she and the Dems have made it impossible to do otherwise.

Can anyone reassure me?

Regardless of candidates, these are sort of stupid hypotheticals. The reality is that if it's close, each party will naturally and appropriately "fight" to try to come out on top, as is their legal right. Is that "accepting the outcome"? At what point in the process does "the outcome" get determined and "stealing" take effect - election night? certification of results from precincts or Secretary of State? confirmation of slate of electors by states? counting in Congress? other?

If, say, your hypothetical kicks in, and if there's a case under either state or federal law that it's illegal, the case will be brought and litigated until it can't be litigated any more.

Better yet, for even more fun, suppose an incumbent loses. Is it 'accepting the outcome' to push through a run of midnight rulemaking on various topics Congress hasn't addressed, to hamstring an incoming new administration (since undoing rulemaking requires rulemaking, which takes time)?

 

[CoachH]

Dems have objected in some fashion to every Republican presidential win in recent memory,.. It will happen again.

Democrats object. Republicans insurrect.

 

[desihawk]

in the interest of stability i think everyone one should accept the election result however it was achieved. efforts to setup bullet proof rules and processes and systems should be made prior to and after elections.
we accept rigged outcomes in sports in this manner, life goes on while the system evolves incrementally.
this is how i feel after 12 years of constant bitching and acrimony from both sides.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

The Al Gore rhythm suggests she will.