Leftover Tabs
A collection I started but didn’t fully finish.
Steven L. Taylor
·
Wednesday, May 22, 2024
·
10 comments
- Via NBC News: Sen. Marco Rubio won’t commit to accepting 2024 election results.
- Via CBS News: Hungary’s far-right PM Viktor Orbán has made “some smart decisions,” Sen. J.D. Vance says.
- Via Fox News: Biden’s plan to admit Gazans to US could backfire: ‘Brainwashed by Hamas,’ expert warns. This one strikes me as problematic in a host of ways. First, the headline is pure scare tactic that encompasses the kind of islamophobia we saw after 9/11. Second, the “expert” appears to me to be a commentator, not an expert, per se. Third, it basically says that Palestinians, even f they aren’t Hamas need to be treated as if they were, well, Hamas.
- Via Bloomberg: Wealthy Taxpayers Prep Years-Late Returns Ahead of IRS Crackdown.
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor of Political Science and a College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored
A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog).
Follow Steven on
Twitter
I’ll just note in passing that Rubio has been identified as one of the “good” or “sane” or supportive of the norms Republicans in the past. The sort one could vote for to be, say, President without being worried. I’ll also leave you to draw your own conclusions and pass on outta here.
@just nutha: Albeit he comes across as dumb as a rock, Rubio is a normal Republican politician in the early 21st century. I’ll leave it to history, or as an exercise for the reader, to judge how awful that is.
And he’s not as bad as our junior FL senator, Rick Scott.
Re tab #1: I do not think highly of Rubio. I rarely think of him at all.
I want to note the game that is being played here. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a damn serious issue. And that makes the game playing all the more irksome (not the best descriptor, but I like the mouthfeel and sound, so I invite folks to read it out loud).
The question that is asked goes something like this: “Will you accept* the results of the 2024 presidential election?”
The modal answer of D respondent goes something like this: “Absolutely, faith in our election system is paramount to…”
The modal answer of R respondent goes something like this: “[deflect deflect] [well umm] [Democrat Party something something] [Hillary Clinton said something] [Stacie Abrams said something]”
AFAICT, many/most Ds and non-Rs accept that Russia and other “malign actors” (Pompeo, 2017-2021) are working hard to corrupt the election.
Many/most Ds contend that there are concerted efforts among R-supporting groups to unfairly impact the election.
Many/most Rs contend that the Ds are trying to rig the election.
In summary, it seems that most Americans believe that one (and probably more) groups are committed to influencing/corrupting the upcoming election. And this group (these groups) are pouring money/people/time into such efforts.
Given the above premise, how should one answer the question: “Will you accept the results of the 2024 presidential election?”
When journalists/reporters ask this question, I don’t think they are seeking an actual answer to the question. Rather, I think they are using it as a prompt for the respondent to, among other things, reinforce our simple binary conceptualization of all things political. It’s safe, time honored, and fits the pre-written copy.
The respondents are more than happy to play their side of the game. It’s safe, time honored, and fits the pre-written script.
Stimulus-response, stimulus-response,…
But going back to the question, would anyone around here answer: “Yes, I pre-commit to accepting the results of the 2024 presidential election.”
*I do not mean psychologically/emotionally accept, but rather cognitively appraise as legitimate.
Well, the way I would answer the question is: “I think every vote cast legally should be counted, and I will accept the outcome of a legally conducted election without question. That’s a core principle of being American, as far as I’m concerned.”
@Jay L Gischer:
I like that answer. I also like you… at least the OTB version of you.
I would probably (definitely) have a different opinion about that answer if it was given by, say, Jim Jordan. I don’t like him… at least the tv version of him.
@Mimai: I will accept the results of the election. Then again, I will accept the insurrection that may come on the equivalent 1/6 date in 2025. I am only one cracker and can’t fix stupid or change people by my wild-mad mind control powers, so how would I do otherwise?
@Mimai: I think that saying you think every legally cast vote should be counted actually boxes them in, and they are unlikely to say it. Because they want to be able to declare, after the fact, which votes should be counted, and which shouldn’t. They do not want to leave it up to the courts.
However, it’s also a very bad look if you ask someone, “Do you think every legally cast vote should be counted?” because it’s a question with an obvious answer, and if they hedge, it looks bad. They will try to answer a different question, of course, but a little persistence goes a long way.
Also “I will support the result of a legally conducted election” also boxes one in. It means you don’t get to go by your feelings of “that was unfair”, but by what a court or courts say. They won’t want to answer that way, but they might be forced to.
Seriously, I really hope someone asks Trump (and Rubio) these questions.
@just nutha:
Ha! That’s very #onbrand for you. I think I’d rather enjoy having a Piña Colada with you. And I don’t even like that drink.
@Jay L Gischer:
I hear you and I agree. Because I trust that you are not playing games with the phrase “legally cast vote” or “legally conducted election.” Nor do I think you will try (or advocate) to change, after the fact, what is or is not “legal.”
Thus, I’m not so sure how boxed in certain actors will be if such a question were posed. And “bad look” depends on who is being looked at and who is doing the looking.
@Mimai: Contrary to the Rupert Holmes song, I like neither pina coladas, nor getting caught in the rain*. How about G&Ts, or Jaegerbombs, if you’d prefer something more outre?
*Grew up in Seattle and lived in Korea 8 years. I’ve had all the endless drizzle and monsoon seasons I need, thank you.
@Mimai: While I’m here, I will note that I admire Jay L Gischer‘s optimistic views and belief that good people can prevail if only they will keep the faith, if you will. On the other hand, we’ve already seen the types of prevarication people are capable of on “all legally cast votes should be counted,” including all of the bloviation about vote by mail “fraud” in the mid-term elections.
Expecting Trump, or now Rubio apparently, to be boxed in by anything they say seems, to me, similar to believing you can stick jello to walls with enough glue or staples.