Media Should Have Asked if Democrats Would Accept the Result

The theme thoughout the campaign was constant speculation as to whether Trump would (A) accept the results of the GOP primary if he lost, and (B) accept the results of the general election if he lost. He ended up winning both so we don’t have a window into how a loss would have gone in light of his claims that the system is “rigged” against him.

However, what we do have is a window on the last several days following Election Day which has given us endless riots, many of which including violence, of people refusing to accept or concede the presidency to Donald Trump. Mourning over a political loss is nothing new, everyone goes through it from time to time if your preferred candidate loses. Tradition holds that Americans eventually come together through a peaceful transition of power and the losing side simply accepts the loss and prepares to perform better next time.

The question I’m asking now is whether the media should have been more inclined to ask whether Democrats would be able to accept a Trump victory without resorting to street violence.

To be fair to Hillary voters and supporters, we’re referring to handfuls of individuals here, some of whom might be paid activists.

The ironic point here is that the media was so consumed with fear of violence from Trump supporters if he lost, that they didn’t bother preparing for the same from the other side. We documented the threat of violence in the case of a Clinton victory here.

CNN is reporting as the protests (riots) stretch into the fifth day:

In Manhattan, a group gathered to demonstrate against Trump’s immigration policies.

“The main purpose is to tell Donald Trump he can’t just deport 11 million undocumented people,” Noelle Yasso said. “They’re here to stay and we stand in solidarity with them.”

Yasso, who said she was an immigration lawyer, said immigrants are terrified.

“They’re saying, ‘Are we going to be deported tomorrow?’ ” she said. “People don’t know what will happen and they’re very scared.”

Protesters are upset about Trump’s policies on health care, the environment, LGBT rights and other issues. Some are questioning the legitimacy of Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton by noting that although he took the Electoral College, Clinton won the popular vote.

Over the weekend, Los Angeles saw anti-Trump protests swell to 8,000 people on Saturday. In New York, thousands peacefully marched two miles on Saturday and gathered outside Trump Tower, the President-elect’s home in Manhattan, where they chanted “not my president.”

Some of the gatherings have been peaceful protests. Some, on the other hand, have turned into violent riots with property damage and gun shots.

One facet that could be prompting such rage is the “inevitability” of Hillary’s victory last Tuesday. Everyone from pollsters to forecasters called upwards of a 99% chance of a new President Clinton. In that line of thinking, most Democrats were already popping the champagne days in advance. It appeared that Trump wouldn’t come close to breaking down the blue wall in the Midwest and would likely glide to a Romney loss. When the opposite happened, I imagine Clinton supporters being both shocked and depressed at the outcome. Thus, the outpouring of emotion over the results.

This anger will wane over time and I hope all of our elected leaders on both sides will uniformly condemn any election-related violence and instead celebrate the uniqueness of America as the presidency is peacefully handed from one civilian to the next.