What Does A Contested Election Look Like?

Let’s say Donald Trump refuses to concede the election, sending both the White House and the media into a frenzy. Would a contested election even be a contest?

In the last debate, in the middle of calling Hillary Clinton “a nasty woman,” Donald Trump threatened to not acknowledge the peaceful transfer of power. It was rightfully and immediately condemned, with one member of the Wall Street Journal editorial page calling it “the most disgraceful statement by a presidential candidate in 160 years.” He later attempted to deflect attention from it with a ‘gotcha’ joke.

In a series of 27 tweets, Matt Glassman, who works in political science and is based in Virginia, reiterated that — even if Trump tried to keep campaigning until the electors themselves cast their vote, his concession will be important for the following reasons: a concession signals the beginning of a loyal opposition, “and not [the] start [of] civil unrest,” that “immediate dissemination of this to out party [sic] and in party followers, other countries, and bondholders signals stability,” and that — even in the case of the Confederacy — even they “conceded Lincoln won the 1860 election. They then proceeded to challenge the legitimacy of the rule of law.”

Glassman doesn’t think we’re in trouble “yet,” but the continued evidence of Trump being a danger to the country is real.

But, again, we’re not at that point yet. A lot of post-debate talk suggested that Trump was merely comparing himself to the results and the outcome of the 2000 election (Morning Joe phrased it as “Remember Al Gore?”), but as Jonathan Chait and others have pointed out, that’s not an apt comparison to make, as — during his concession speech — Gore made the following affirmation:

I also accept my responsibility, which I will discharge unconditionally, to honor the new President-elect and do everything possible to help him bring Americans together in fulfillment of the great vision that our Declaration of Independence defines and that our Constitution affirms and defends.

This reflects (and I wish I was joking) an understanding of the United States that Donald Trump simply does not seem to have. Remember when he met with Congress and said he wanted to protect Article XII? (Which does not exist?) Or when he spoke about ordering the head of the Federal Reserve around, which he can’t do? He has used air-quotes to describe President Obama. He believes that the President was born in another country. He has never proved why it was worthwhile for him to stand on any stage of this country and campaign for President.

What’s also worth bearing in mind is the level of efficiency Trump and the Trump campaign can display in the period between now and when Trump decides to exit the race. If he tries to threaten Speaker Ryan’s position on the way out, as Robert Costa’s reporting suggests, he has yet to produce evidence of the capacity with which he can follow through on that threat.

Trump’s voters aren’t going away, though, and that divide (and the conundrums posed therein) will continue to be a problem after election day. How shall it be solved? Paul Krugman doesn’t think policy alone will convert the white working class, as Medicaid expansion under Obamacare was something that benefitted them directly. Mike Konczal thinks that “addressing white working-class economic insecurity will potentially drive them even further to the right.”

If we’re to rid ourselves of all the sound and fury of the moment, the salient points are the following: Trump’s attack on democracy is as only effective as we opt to let it be. While his threat on down-ballot races may be real, his position in the party doesn’t currently seem to be organized enough to get rid of someone like Paul Ryan, even though Ryan’s days could be numbered.

But if Trump does try to contest the election, we should pay careful attention to what happens between election night and what happens when those who comprise the electoral college cast their vote (which happens on “the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December after the presidential election”), as well as any reasoning he might try to give. Voter fraud is not a problem in the United States, so voter fraud won’t be a problem. Innumerable scientific polls have broadly shown that Hillary Clinton has been doing well for a while, so it won’t be a question of improperly applied poll methodology. Trump’s campaign is relying on the RNC for voter turnout, and the head of his turnout has stepped away from the campaign, so it won’t be a question of someone fiddling with Trump’s capacity to get out his own vote.

The only scenario that comes to mind when it comes to Trump trying to contest election results in the United States would look something like this — Russia hacks or alters voting rolls in the United States. Trump’s campaign cries foul and blames Clinton. When challenged to present evidence, with the promise of wanting to sue The New York Times and failing to do so hanging in the background (as he has with countless other activities), he doesn’t — or throws out a piece of nonsensical evidence before pivoting on to his next quick con. (And what’s to keep Democrats from pushing back against documented evidence regarding voter suppression, some of which includes elected officials flat-out admitting that their goal is voter suppression?)

And even if Trump tries to do that, even if he picks out a state and tries to turn it into an issue and apply the kind of legal bluster he’s tried to apply in the past, there is a hard wall that awaits him: The Supreme Court decided the contested 2000 election on December 12th, and they had more material to work with than Donald Trump has ever produced in a court of law, which means that if Trump decides to throw a tantrum on his way out, it won’t last long. It’s all but over.

The potential responses from the GOP in Congress seem limited as well. Will some try and say that Donald Trump certainly lost, but — to play off the 1960 election, as the PBS NewsHour recently discussed — certain Senate results might need to be recounted? John McCain has called accepting the results of an election “an act of respect” for Americans. The Republican candidate for Governor in Missouri has said he will accept the results of the election. The Senator of Wisconsin has said he “we need to respect the results on Election Day.” The candidates for Senate in Indiana have said they will accept the election results. Tennessee Republicans think Trump should accept the election results.

So all these officials (and more) are on the record, meaning that if they somehow change their mind, they’ll be in a certain degree of trouble. Currently available information suggests an overall trend regarding the election as a whole. The rest is up to voters.

Sign up for Daily Pnut to get a daily digest of world news and current affairs.