My guess: Neither of them will concede. I don’t know if refusing to concede will become the Republican norm or just very commonplace, but it’s not just a Trump thing, and Trump isn’t gonna go quietly anyhow.
Would be shocked if he ever did. People with no grace or integrity don’t tend to find it in defeat.
Confess I was wrong about Loeffler. Seemingly realized after yesterday that failing to concede might carry some personal, financial liability. ajc.com/politics/polit…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is true. It’s also true that the mob sacked an institution whose leaders have insisted on pretending, in the face of all indications to the contrary, that everything is normal.
If you know days in advance, as I and everyone with functioning senses did, that the president was trying to incite a violent mob in the nation’s capital to stop the certification of his defeat, it should trigger both a security AND a political response.
When the latter doesn’t materialize, when the people under threat essentially say “what’s we’re witnessing is actually not happening, it’s an illusion” why wouldn’t that bleed down into the operations of the people charged with protecting them. Just another protest.
This thread is sorta fatally undermined by the telling omission of race as a factor in the formation of the conservative movement, but I think it's narrowly right in its implication that movement conservatism has presented itself in a series of disguises.
The problem for the argument is the disguises have served to cover the movement's elemental racism and authoritarianism. To that end, reformoconism, tea partyism, etc have been embraced as tools of deception, whereas Trumpism represents a more undisguised form of the movement.
If there's been an attempt to disguise anything the last four years, it’s been from intellectuals trying on one hand to pretty up Trumpism as a respectable form of nationalism, against others attempting to treat Trumpism as a weird, easily ignored hiccup.
When you’ve predetermined to do nothing under any circumstances, you have limited rhetorical tools for explaining yourself to your horrified supporters, and now the old excuses—we don’t want anything we do to backfire in the election, etc—have expired.
If Ossoff wins, I’ll say: highlighting your opponent’s corruption is good. If he loses I’ll say: highlighting your opponent’s corruption is good even if it isn’t politically resonant enough for a Dem candidate to win a runoff election in Georgia that he also did not win on Nov 3.
My take is based less on the view that anti-corruption politics are effective (elections are weird and highly variable) than that corruption is bad and corrupt candidates should be held to account.
I do suspect anti-corruption politics are pretty effective in the scheme of things: corruption costs politicians popularity and elected office a lot; all challengers would rather run against corrupt opponents than squeaky clean ones.