With Their Recent Antics, Democrats Prove They Don't Accept The Election Results

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton acknowledges supporters after filing papers to be on the nation's earliest presidential primary ballot, Monday, Nov. 9, 2015, in Concord, N.H. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)

“To say you won’t respect the results of the election…that is a direct threat to our democracy!” These are the words of Hillary Clinton following the final debate between her and Donald Trump. During the debate, she said Trump’s signal that he wouldn’t immediately accept the results of the election was “horrifying.”

The op-ed pages of newspapers and magazines filled up with pieces describing Trump’s words as being disturbing, even dangerous. I wrote on these very pages that Trump was engaging in a dangerous game by signaling he wouldn’t accept the election results.

But then Trump won. 

The same Democrats who were doing the finger-wagging were suddenly struck with a fever, and the prescription was not more cowbell. It was to call into question the results of the election. You see, since 1988, Democrats never “lost” a Presidential election. Republicans “stole” those wins. In 2000, it was the Supreme Court who saw to it that President George W. Bush was “selected, not elected.” In 2004, John Kerry, despite losing the popular vote and the electoral college refused to concede until the day after the election, citing “voting irregularities” in Ohio. Diebold was a familiar brand to people that year because Democrats were convinced the voting machines in Ohio were rigged to give Bush his 118,000 vote margin in the Buckeye State.

Fast forward to 2016 and not much has changed. Immediately after the election, Democrats began calling for an end to the electoral college. Pesky flyover states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan were interfering with the more enlighted voices of voters in New York and California. Democrats denigrated states such as Montana and Wyoming for having the audacity to exist, thereby providing six electoral votes for Donald Trump.

Once that idea was lost like a fart in a wind storm, Jill Stein decided to rip off her supporters and start recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. The Clinton campaign, out of sheer desperation, signed on. In the end, Donald Trump gained more than 100 votes in Wisconsin. Judges quickly put an end to recounts in Michigan and Pennsylvania, knowing they were a waste of time.

Democrats have settled on one last bit of strategery: Make a joke of the system by encouraging electors to vote for somebody other than Donald Trump, thereby forcing the House of Representatives to make the final arbiter of who won. The same people who wouldn’t know the meaning of the word ‘federalism,’ have suddenly become the biggest fans of ‘The Federalist Papers.’ The electoral college they peed on for weeks, is now their last stand. Democratic entertainers are creating videos begging electors to vote for somebody else other than Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton electors, with the blessing of Clinton flunky John Podesta, are demanding an intelligence briefing to understand how much of a role Russia played in the election results.

The Russian conspiracy is the one Democrats will be talking about a decade from now. Thanks to political players within the CIA, many Democrats have managed to convince themselves Russian hacking is responsible for Trump’s win. It doesn’t matter the FBI, and the DNI both disagree with political appointees at the CIA that Putin had a preference in the election. The likely aim of the Kremlin was was to cause chaos.

Thanks to Democrats and their goofy antics in the month following the election, it appears Vladimir Putin got his wish.