Now that both major parties have settled on their presumptive nominees, most liberal angst has been focused on the possibility of a Donald Trump victory in November. Historian Rob Baker (Georgia State) raises a different question. What will happen if Trump loses an extremely close election. He has written a long and extremely interesting blog post on the subject, with historical examples. Here is the heart of it:
So what would Trump do? Would he follow tradition, call up Hillary to concede, and then make a rambling statement to his followers about how he fought the good fight but now has to go home? This, of course, is historically what has happened at the conclusion of American presidential elections. But then again, Trump is the aberration. He has thrown out the playbook. Why would he follow tradition?
It is much more likely to imagine Trump not only disputing the results in key battleground states and filing lawsuits by the bunches, but immediately taking to the podium and Twitter to denounce the election as bogus and Hillary’s victory as a fraud. One can already see his pumpkin-hued, rage-bloated face exploding with rants: This is a fraud. A fraud! Come on people. I was leading in Pennsylvania. I was leading by ten points. The exit polls had me 10 to 1 the winner. 10 TO 1! And now Crooked Hillary suddenly wins? THIS ELECTION IS BEING STOLEN!!!
None of Trump’s facts would be true, of course—polls prior to the general election (in my hypothetical) will have indicated a statistical dead heat and exit polling would be in line with the results, predicting a Clinton victory in the battleground states. But no matter. Every news network in America would be eagerly giving The Donald all the airtime he would need to convince his followers that the Election of 2016 was stolen. Trump has demonstrated a pathological tendency to lie, exaggerate, and lie.[3] Why would he stop after he loses?
What would his supporters do? Trump has already called for violence at his rallies. He hinted about rioting in Cleveland if the Republican establishment denied him the nomination. There are, among his supporters, organized radicals who might take to the streets in an orgy of violence that entices the more law abiding to join.
The entire post, on the historiography blog Tropics of Meta, can be read here.
I do not agree with this evaluation and implicit degradation of Trump. You seem to really be tilted against Trump. How about some negative stuff on Hillary? I admit Trump is off the beaten track but that is what we need – NOT business as usual. Yes, he can flamboyant but I will tell you that I support Trump 100%. I find his opponent to be less than honest and I think her election would find our great nation in further decline. We need fresh ideas. Here is one: both Clinton and Sanders want to cut the estate tax exemption to 3.5m from the current 5.5m So we have a situation where hard working individuals worth up the ladder of success and earn good money and are TAXED on the income. These people then save their money and invest it say in the stock market or real estate and have capital gains which are then TAXED. Fine. I understand this but then the estate is once again TAXED? Why? Trump is for the repeal of the estate tax and he is correct. There is a substantial amount of corporate abuse (jurisdictional shopping) and Trump wants to bring all this money back home. Trump also correctly says the personal income tax laws are very confusing and reduce the incentive for hard work. Very convoluted laws and regulations why should we need tyo pay accountants for figuring this nonsense out?
Trump is the pathological liar? You meant to write Hillary, correct. As I recall William Safire described her as such when she was First Lady and her conduct since has proven him correct.
In terms of riots, so far only Trump opponents have rioted and violently tried to infringe the rights of his supporters
I am not voting for Trump, btw, nor Hilliary.
I'm still waiting for President Gore.
Leo,
William Safire said a lot of idiotic things. The "Hillary-is-a-liar" narrative is based more on decades of repetition than any firm foundation; like just about anyone in the public eye for decades she's been caught twisting the truth in a self-serving manner, but sites like politifact who actually analyze and keep track of those statements actually show she's pretty much in the average range of politicians for that sort of thing. And well above Trump who actually probably does qualify as a pathological liar.
And speaking of lies, on many occasions Trump supporters have been caught on tape attacking protestors. The idea that only anti-Trump protestors "violently tried to infringe the rights" is untrue.
"In terms of riots, so far only Trump opponents have rioted and violently tried to infringe the rights of his supporters."
Get out of the Fox News bubble, Leo. Demonstrably untrue
I have a pin back that reads, Bunker in '72, Chaos in '73. The main problem is that there will be no Edith to whisper in Trump's ear.
Trump:
Slave labor in Dubai
Bigoted comments against Mexicans
Bigoted comments against Muslims
Fraudulent business practices
Global ignorance
Employees illegals
You call that flamboyant? I call it despicable.