Hacker News Reader

Comment by triceratops | Hacker News Reader

> The Atlantic has pieces saying that the Democrats should not concede

You should really read the article. Because a couple of words in the headline are playing into your confirmation bias and misleading you.

FTA: "I find myself truly worried about only one scenario: that Trump will win reelection and Democrats and others on the left will be unwilling, even unable, to accept the result."

Not really the same thing as "The Atlantic told Democrats not to concede".

> Clinton has told Biden to not concede, even if he loses

Citation needed. Did she say not to concede ever at all, or not to concede if on election night things look to not be going his way? With the number of mail-in ballots, the latter is entirely reasonable.

View on HN

Here's some more in-depth coverage of Podesta's war gaming, Clinton's suggestion that Biden should not concede and the resulting media spin.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/11/the-left-is-setting-the...

https://spectator.us/top-democrats-contemplate-civil-war-bid...

The Atlantic is a left-leaning publication. They posted the article as if not conceding would be an appropriate reaction. I have read the article (multiple times at this point), and I have come to the same conclusion: while not outright instructing them not to concede, it is normalizing not conceding.

And yes, the title is incredibly leading. If it were an article about how some republicans may choose to not concede, the article would be titled 'Why the GOP won't concede the election'. It should have been similarly titled for the Dems, but of course, it's not, because it's being normalized.

With regards to clinton... Another commenter posted articles linking to the tweet. And you're giving her more benefit of the doubt than trump. Trump has said he will concede if fair. You are now wondering if Clinton's call to not concede is really just a call to not concede until the election is fairly settled while attempting to draw a difference between the two.

"Trump has said he will concede if fair."

Sorry for the bad language, but What The Hell does this mean in a well established democracy? Is this a statement that a leader of a well-governed state can put out for his own country?

We are talking about the USA not a banana republic. And somehow this behavior has been normalized.

It means that regardless of the results on election night, there's a reasonable probability that lawyers and possibly the supreme court will become involved.

>What does this mean in a well established democracy?

As the established democratic institutions declined in Rome, the cesar was selected by the praetorian guard. Similarly in the US's we see intelligence agencies and Federal law enforcement agencies conspiring to undermine the legitimacy of the Presidency. This was most visible in the failed attempt to impeach him for alleged connections to Russia.

From this perspective, it is possible to understand an unwillingness to accept an "unfair" outcome resulting from fraud or other interference as preservation of the republic. The decline of democratic government was foretold by Plato.

Of course for those who are prone to compare the President to an autocrat, ignoring this decline or blaming Trump for it may seem reasonable. However, it is possible to interpret the unwillingness to concede with good faith.

Even better, let’s ask Russia to send us a delegation to oversee our election and ensure the validity of the results.

"International Election Monitors Arrive in the US for the Nov. 3 Poll"

https://www.passblue.com/2020/10/07/international-election-m...

>The OSCE, based in Vienna, is an intergovernmental body of 57 countries from Europe, North America and Central Asia. It has been monitoring elections in the US since 2002, most recently the 2018 midterm elections.

https://www.osce.org/participating-states

>Russian Federation

> it is normalizing not conceding.

That's not what I got at all. I believe the article can be summarized as "If Democrats lose, where do they go from there? They'll have to concede that everything they've been saying for the last 4 years doesn't matter to the electorate. That would be a crushing blow and very hard to come to terms with". Which is obviously true when someone's entire worldview is shattered. That statement could apply to anyone.

Not once does it say "They mustn't concede" or "It would be totally fine if they didn't concede."

> The Atlantic is a left-leaning publication

I feel like you're letting your biases creep into your interpretation.

>I feel like you're letting your biases creep into your interpretation.

You're letting yours creep into your interpretation of Trump's statements? Should anyone accept the results of an election whose integrity is not clear? Without any context surrounding his statements, they are hard to really condemn. Of course, if we examine the context, the President's statements are clearly condemnable. The same is true of the Atlantic.

I didn't say anything about Trump's statements. Are you confusing me with someone else?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com