A Price Worth Paying?
By: Richard Turcotte
Tags: Truth, Right Wing, Misinformation, Facts, Election 2020

A Price Worth Paying?

Contrasts…. [Photo by Richard G Turcotte]

“Should the interim tally on November 3 be changed by the ongoing tabulation of mail-in ballots in battleground states, is there any doubt that Trump and his party will try to overturn the results by claiming the Democrats stole the election through massive voter fraud?” Richard North Patterson, in his September 15, 2020 essay. *

Needless to say, his was not a lone voice in the political wilderness making that too-accurate prediction.

* Patterson’s piece offered a concise summary of some of the GOP’s more overt efforts in recent years to suppress voting rights, notwithstanding a near-total absence of support for the phony voter fraud allegations now embedded in Republican Party ideology.

Nearly 90 judges at both the state and federal levels are also awaiting proof. When claiming voter fraud, this adage is worth remembering: Sayin’ it don’t make it so. (Just sayin’….)

The lack of evidence is still no barrier for too many on the Right. Pointless attempts to advance the argument are readily available. Use ’em or lose ’em, Right? If the motivation is to engage in legitimate discussions regarding the allegations, the lack of meaningful proof is a bit of a drawback. But if the intent is to instead “energize” followers who aren’t troubled by the scarcity of facts, mission accomplished! If only “energizing” loyalists was the end point of their responses to Trump’s post-election statements and behaviors.

Ben Ginsberg is arguably the best-known and most widely-respected G.O.P. election lawyer in America. Two days before the November election, he published an op-ed in the Washington Post [links in the original] and offered this observation about claims of voter fraud:

“Trump has enlisted a compliant Republican Party in this shameful effort. The Trump campaign and Republican entities engaged in more than 40 voting and ballot court cases around the country this year. In exactly none — zero — are they trying to make it easier for citizens to vote. In many, they are seeking to erect barriers…. “This attempted disenfranchisement of voters cannot be justified by the unproven Republican dogma about widespread fraud. Challenging voters at the polls or disputing the legitimacy of mail-in ballots isn’t about fraud. Rather than producing conservative policies that appeal to suburban women, young voters or racial minorities, Republicans are trying to exclude their votes.”

Our great nation still bends under the weight of increasingly-desperate efforts by Donald Trump to satiate his quench-proof narcissism. An equally strong urge to avoid the consequences he’s likely to face from an ever-growing list of questionable (to be kind) practices undoubtedly drives his frantic, baseless attempts to remain in power by whatever means necessary, and regardless of costs.

That both supporters and detractors are now at risk is entirely irrelevant to Trump. Sadly, too few among his legion of supporters inside and outside government seem to be paying much attention to the end point of his efforts. His history makes it clear that he has always done and/or said anything and everything necessary to protect himself, and with no consideration for others. Accepting responsibility for unfortunate outcomes is a foreign concept to him [see: Coronavirus, for example].

Taking credit for the work of others is the flip side. He’s done a fine job on that score, too. A lot of boasting about “the best … anyone has ever seen/done”; “no one else has ever …”; “I’ve done more than …”; “Many people have said I …”; “I know more about _ than anyone ever” etc., etc. litter the airwaves. It must be exhausting having to one-up others in so many ways!

The consequences to those who outlived their usefulness to him in one way or another and are thus discarded with extra servings of insult and humiliation have likewise been on full display during his occupancy in the White House. (Jeff Sessions, anyone? Michael Cohen? Every person in his administration Trump dismissed for any — or no — reason?) This is more of the same pattern of abusive behavior chronicled over decades.

Those who choose to bind themselves to Trump will inevitably pay a price in one way or another once he has mined whatever usefulness he can from that unflinching devotion. Those of us who have chosen to steer clear of that bandwagon are less than thrilled by the fact we’re paying as well.

Submission apparently requires one to skip over the basis, if any, for all the pseudo-justifications/excuses/finger-pointing Trump deploys to defend himself. In the interests of accuracy, the lack of any basis is the more pressing concern. Worse still, Trump supporters by and large abide by the same rule: Just say it like you mean it. Repeat as necessary. (Facts just gum up the works.)

While the tactic is unquestionably “successful” in keeping his ardent fans ardent, it’s at best annoying for those of us who still insist that disagreements and resolutions are each better served if facts, evidence, truth, rational statements grounded in reality, and honorable consideration of relevant factors play their respective roles.

One recent effort from this overabundant supply of blind support came courtesy of a contribution entitled Apocalypse Now? at the right-wing Power Line blog by retired attorney John Hinderaker, a co-founder of that website. If nothing else, his essay encapsulates the willingness of even intelligent, respected professionals to submit to Trump’s rule with little or no effort to consider either his motivations and methods, or the consequences.

Facts matter, as does our collective future. Truth will prove to be more advantageous to all of us than will baseless and/or inaccurate statements such as those offered by Mr. Hinderaker, et al. The main purpose of so many similar efforts often seems intended more to divide and deepen distrust than anything else. Do they ever consider where such senseless efforts lead? Consequences matter, too.

[My own commentary within/regarding his quotes is in bold-face]

“Did Joe Biden and the Democrats steal this year’s presidential election? Polls suggest that a great many Americans, including many Democrats, believe that they did. (‘Believe’ based on what? ‘Just because’ and variations on the ‘I just do’ theme aren’t nearly as persuasive as enablers imagine.) I don’t know whether the election was stolen or not. I will say this: the Democrats went to great lengths to commit, or enable, voter fraud. To cite just a couple of examples, in a number of states, including my own, they used corrupt, collusive litigation to eliminate the minimal safeguards that prevented fraudulent mail-in votes from being submitted, like the requirement that signatures be witnessed. Why would they do this? Obviously, they didn’t want those safeguards to stand in the way of fraud.”

Citing “a couple of examples” that “the Democrats went to great lengths to commit, or enable, voter fraud” with a nebulous “they used corrupt, collusive litigation to eliminate … minimal safeguards” is a waste of internet print! (How about a meaningful explanation, or a “for instance, the Democrats….”?) Why are readers left to fend for themselves to understand the source of these observations and/or the specifics?

As a retired attorney (as am I), surely this author understands that litigation typically involves disputed facts to be resolved by first introducing facts/evidence/mitigating factors. Why not offer even a single link, source, or a useful detail in support of what’s insinuated?

If he doesn’t “know whether the election was stolen or not”, then why make that accusation? It’s been an empty yet successful claim made by Trump et al — if by “successful” we mean deepening the distrust, hostility, and threats of violence by the more committed Trump-supporting extremists. Statements are rarely stand-alone, self-evident conclusions. What’s the point?

Biden won. Period.

On the heels of two Supreme Court rulings summarily dismissing Trump’s legal efforts to overturn the election, it’s becoming increasingly clear that 50+ failed attempts to get a single court anywhere to buy into the election fraud nonsense is not about any actual voter fraud.

It’s much easier to make that if introducing evidence of fraud is optional. That’s even easier to do given that there is no remotely-meaningful evidence. Trump’s legal team has had fifty-plus opportunities to present some, and they are zero for fifty-plus. (Besides, facts can be so detrimental when making fact-free arguments.) It’s clearly been a successful tactic in convincing those untroubled by the need for verification that Biden’s win is somehow illegitimate. None of these efforts are consequence-free….

That’s the primary Trump objective: stirring the right-wing pot. How and/or why evil Dems pulled this off apparently aren’t essential to the narrative. Having shameless sycophants do the dirty work in courtrooms is so helpful to the cause….

If only that strategy worked as well in real life!

We’re crossing into dangerous waters now. Who among those playing along with Trump wants to assume responsibility for what happens if the political temperature isn’t turned down soon?

The choice of cautionary wording when making broad accusations provides convenient personal absolution and nothing more. Many who accept the observations similar to those Mr. Hinderaker shared aren’t likely to be so conscientious about corroboration, or — of greater concern — accepting responsibility for what ensues.

If they insist on alleging (still unspecified) fraud, let alone offer proven examples, it might help their cause if they could give us at least a clue for courts to ponder as to what might then develop into an election-changing difference. Asserting “voter fraud!” may comfort the masses, but there is not enough “there” there. Fifty-plus courtroom failures are fifty-plus courtroom failures, regardless of the actual underlying reasons for repeating the same charge.

“Voter fraud has been a problem for a long time, and I think it was worse this year than ever. Did fraud swing the election? Key questions remain unanswered, as far as I know. In several pivotal states, ballot counting was shut down (or allegedly shut down, in the case of Georgia) in the middle of the night. Then, when counting resumed, enormous numbers of ballots that were overwhelmingly in favor of Joe Biden–by margins that can’t possibly be right, not 60/40 but, say, 98/2–suddenly turned up and were counted. Have the Democrats offered any explanation for what happened, or any confirmation that these near-unanimous tranches of Biden votes actually existed? Not that I know of.”

More vague, unsubstantiated proclamations, coupled with qualifiers which further diminish the value of his assessments, all serve as depressing reminders that going ever-lower as needed is the primary rule for those intent on keeping the right-wing fires burning hot. A hint or random thought should be enough, Right?

There was of course no reference to the source of Hinderaker’s assertion regarding the substantial vote swing he questions. The inability to thus address that specific comment, and evidence-free variations of that oft-repeated complaint by Trump et al, proved decisive in court.

Thirty seconds of research turned up the explanation for what seemed so puzzling to Mr. Hinderaker — and countless others unwilling to confront the obvious:

“President Trump’s lead in Georgia has narrowed over the past few hours, and that just happened again. That’s due to another batch of votes that just came in from Fulton County — the largest county in the state and home to Atlanta — according to CNN’s Phil Mattingly. “Fulton County reported the results of more than 8,000 additional ballots. Trump’s lead in the state narrowed from more than 30,000 at midnight to just more than 18,500. “Overnight, Fulton had about 20,000 absentee ballots to be counted. The county just reported the results of 8,351 of those, with Biden getting 6,410 of those votes and Trump getting 1,941 of them…. “‘[M]ost of the outstanding ballots are from more populous blue areas around Atlanta, Savannah and Columbus,’ Mattingly explained. “‘If [Biden] continues to win this vote that’s outstanding at a rate of around 60 to 62%, he has a chance to overtake Donald Trump,’ Mattingly said. “‘To give you some context here, the vote that was coming in out of Fulton County over last couple of hours has been coming in at a rate of 80% to 20% Biden. That is above that 60 to 62% range. Will that hold? That will dictate whether or not Joe Biden ends up overtaking Donald Trump in the state of Georgia, but there’s a pathway right now for Joe Biden in Georgia.’”

In an article appropriately titled “Trump’s Wild, Baseless Claims of Illegal Voting,” FactCheck.org reiterated that same point [links are in that original piece]:

“Trump did not ‘win’ the state by a lot (or at all), though he is correct that he was leading in the vote tallies on election night. But as we have written repeatedly, vote counting always goes past Election Day. There’s nothing unusual about that. Like most states, Georgia could not start counting mail-in ballots until the day of the election, and it had roughly 1.3 million mail-in ballots returned and accepted. As has been in the case in other states, most of the mail-in ballots being counted in the days after the election broke in Biden’s favor.”

Worth noting: well-established long before the election was the expectation that the vast majority of mail-in ballots would be from Democrats. This proved to be true, and decisive. As was true for their GOP counterparts, Democrats were expected to vote in record numbers. The pandemic (the non-hoax one that’s now claimed 300,000+ lives and counting), was expected to cause many, many more Democrats than Republicans to take advantage of mail options rather than voting in person.

A Politico article, although focused on voting litigation in Texas, echoed those explanations [link in original article]:

“Texas’ lawsuit makes a statistical argument against Biden’s victory, noting that he trailed in the early count of votes, but omitting the fact that many key states were legally prohibited from beginning to count mail-in ballots — which tilted heavily in favor of Democrats, thanks in part to a months-long effort by Trump to discredit them — until Election Day. It’s a fact that was well known ahead of the election, in which election administrators of both parties pleaded with the public and the media to have patience and not draw conclusions from early returns.”

And, for good measure, this regarding Pennsylvania — another state whose election outcome generated an avalanche of apoplectic right-wing commentary [links in the original article]:

“Joe Biden has won absentee ballots counted in Pennsylvania by an overwhelming margin so far, according to data from the Secretary of State early Wednesday. If he carried the remaining absentee ballots by a similar margin, he would win the state. “President Trump leads by nearly 700,000 votes in Pennsylvania as of 5 a.m. on Wednesday, and Mr. Biden’s chances depend on whether he can win a large percentage of the more than 1.4 million absentee ballots that remain to be counted. “So far, Mr. Biden has won absentee voters in Pennsylvania, 78 percent to 21 percent, according to the Secretary of State’s office. The results comport with the findings of pre-election surveys and an analysis of absentee ballot requests, which all indicated that Mr. Biden held an overwhelming lead among absentee voters. “If Mr. Biden won the more than 1.4 million absentee votes by such a large margin, he would net around 800,000 votes — enough to overcome his deficit statewide. “Of course, there’s no guarantee that Mr. Biden will win the remaining absentee vote by quite so much. But so far, his standing in the tabulated absentee vote has almost exactly matched our pre-election projections for the absentee vote by county, based on New York Times/Siena polling and data from L2, a political data vendor.”

Mr. Hinderaker turned to a back-up approach:

“The bare facts are suspicious, to say the least. More than 74 million Americans voted for President Trump, 12 million more votes than he received in 2016, and more, by far, than any presidential candidate of either party has ever gotten. And we are supposed to believe that Joe Biden, a mentally impaired senior citizen who didn’t campaign, who rarely left his basement, about whose candidacy virtually no one was enthusiastic outside his immediate family, smashed all records by getting 81 million Americans to vote for him, 12 million more than voted for Barack Obama in 2008? Actual live Americans, voting legally, and only once? While millions of those same voters didn’t vote down-ballot, so that, apart from the presidential race, it was a good year for Republicans? I don’t believe it.”

“A mentally impaired senior citizen”? This juvenile insult from a presumably well-respected, well-credentialed Ivy League-educated professional? What a sad commentary on the low-bar criteria now sufficient to prove one’s bona fides as a dedicated Trump loyalist. Apparently, there are no concerns as to the price demanded for such subservience. [Just saying: one should be careful insulting the mental/psychological/intellectual capabilities of others when measuring them against those of Donald Trump….]

Hinderaker may not “believe it.” That’s a choice. That decision, however, does not change the math. Why is it so challenging — given the political climate and the fierce emotions aroused by Trump’s presence — to believe that 12 million more voters cast their ballot for Joe Biden than for Obama? What point does that comparison serve to begin with? Wanting to believe that “the bare facts are suspicious, to say the least” will get heads nodding in agreement. So there’s that. But the lack of evidence-driven counterfactuals isn’t helpful to the Trump cause.

Trump did in fact tally “12 million more votes than he received in 2016.” Many of us in the left struggle to accept that after four years of Donald Trump, there are even a dozen who wanted even four more days of the Trump Administration circus!

Facts — and at times, just everyday common sense — remove a lot of the guesswork from matters which supporters instead chose not to understand. Donald Trump has worked overtime to blame voter fraud as the reason for his loss.

The culprit turned out to be basic arithmetic acting as proxy for the verdict on his four-year term.

Unfortunately, even this simplest of explanations failed to convince many who backed Trump. We’re all paying a price. Let’s hope it’s not too high.