It's November. Trump wins! The day after, Dems are supposed to accept this loss with good grace. But the traditional reasons for doing so - namely, you know it was fair and you'll get your chance next time - will have been abolished by the Senate months ago (looks like). 1/
The new reason Dems should accept their loss, in the event, is: 'even if the reason you lost is that Trump somehow meddled behind the scenes, as he surely tried to, then that will have been because Trump thought it was better for the country.' That is cold procedural comfort. 2/
So far we've confined ourselves to D's saying Dersh is wrong. We haven't heard from R's about why, if Dersh is right, the other side should accept the result. 3/
Suppose it's true Murkowski voted against witnesses because she was upset at Warren's perceived rudeness to Roberts. Suppose we accept all Lamar Alexander says at face value. 4/
Why should D's be expected to trust the result of an election shaped by such reasons? 'We lost, and maybe there was meddling. But if there was, the reason it wasn't exposed in a timely way was because Murkowski thought Warren was rude.' Is that a reason to accept the result? 5/
You can imagine a world in which, having acquitting their guy, the R's offer the D's, as a sop, some guarantees that the kind of bad thing we know happened won't happen again, tainting the result. But we know Trump won't permit that. 6/
We've heard a lot about norm erosion. But this is the big one. Seriously. We're a bit distracted, yet, by Dem primary season. But when that's over it's going to be months of collective knowledge that Trump is still Trumping. And then maybe he wins. 7/
Trust in the fairness of the upcoming election requires confidence that Trump will behave significantly better than he did, for example, on his 'perfect call'. What material assurances can R's offer D's that Trump will mend his ways for the next 9 months? 8/
