The WaPo Worries That Republicans Won’t Know How To Lose In 2020


Because Democracy Dies in The Darkness, one might conclude that the Washington Post is exploring new revenue generation tools in parody. Have they now decided to compete with The Onion?  WaPonion has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?

This column from Paul Waldman is potentially the most exceptional WaPo projection with the least self-aware headline of all time.

Can Republicans relearn how to accept political outcomes they don’t like?


Holy UNselfaware hypocrisy! This is proof the Democrats have lost. Not shocking, but Waldman has readers who live in the same dystopian bubble that he does. It’s almost like he’s role-playing for Meryl Streep in “The Giver” and his column is the daily injection that he forces his readers to take.

It is becoming pretty clear that the likes of Waldman cannot escape their media bubble.  They’re either unable to help themselves because they genuinely believe the projection they continue to vomit, OR they’re holding onto the reigns of as many readers as possible who continue to blindly inject their daily dose of ideological faux media.

Waldman begins his column talking about recent election results in Kentucky, how it remains too close to call, and how the Republican in the race will undoubtedly refuse to concede. He obsesses over that for one paragraph too many before he remembers to inject a save for Stacey Abrams’ governor race in Georgia during the 2018 mid-terms.

….there are certainly cases where Democrats have protested that electoral outcomes were unfair; you might recall last year how Stacey Abrams ended her campaign for governor of Georgia but pointedly refused to call it a “concession” because…

Waldman continues with more “deep-red-state thoughts” on how Trump will likely not vacate the White House if he loses in 2020.

One occasionally hears liberals muse that even if Trump were to lose next year, he might simply refuse to vacate the White House. This seems a highly unlikely scenario, especially since there may be nothing Trump fears more than public humiliation. Instead, what is far more likely is that Trump would not have to be physically removed from the Oval Office, but would — starting immediately after Election Day and continuing into his post-presidential life — undertake a campaign to discredit the results.
He might claim, as he did after the 2016 election, that millions of people voted illegally against him. He might allege that a foreign country hacked the voting machines (not Russia, of course — Vladimir Putin would never do such a thing). He’ll certainly object that the media were biased against him. All of it would be, in Trumpian style, unburdened by facts but nevertheless convincing to his devoted supporters.

He goes on to give his woke analysis of Trump’s Deplorables and how they certainly won’t accept it if Trump loses in 2020.

Some of those supporters certainly won’t accept it. They’ve been trained by Trump and other Republicans over and over to reject anything that challenges their faith in Trump’s godlike perfection. ….They’ve had years of practice constructing a mental world made up only of “facts” that support their existing views.
But the new president will take office whether they like it or not. They can take to the streets in their MAGA hats and shout that they’ll never concede that the Democrat is actually president, but that won’t stop the inauguration from taking place. And then what?
At one extreme, you have a genuine potential for violence. Part of Trump’s unspoken message is that while democratic institutions may be inherently illegitimate, they can still be managed or manipulated to serve Trump’s ends. But if they can’t, then some may conclude that the ordinary processes of politics are insufficient to solve America’s problems, and the only thing that will is a spasm of violence. If even a tiny number of people conclude that, it could be terribly dangerous.
At the other end, you could see Trump supporters channeling their anger into a new tea party aimed at working against the Democrat’s presidency through ordinary political means like protest and elections. To a certain degree that’s inevitable, since we live in an era in which every presidential election is followed by a backlash.
But perhaps the most important factor will be how Republican officeholders react. Will they distance themselves from the defeated Trump, or will they continue to quake in fear of his supporters? After four years of doing the latter, do they remember how to do anything else?

But never fear! Surely there are “Reasonable Republicans” who will save the day and reject the chaos of RESISTANCE!

If those Republicans send a message that the election’s outcome was unfortunate but not cause for a revolution, things could calm down quickly. But I fear they may not have it in them, that the way they tried to delegitimize Barack Obama will be not half as bad as what they have in store for the next Democratic president. Trump might not have the attention span to lead a revolution, but Republicans know how to spend years sabotaging a president. As depressing as it is to say, that might be the best outcome we can hope for.

Excuse me please as I step out of the WaPo bubble into 2019.  Viva La Resistance! Meanwhile, Hilda is now projecting “it wasn’t Russia that kept her from winning in 2016, it was Ukraine….”

Maybe if the WaPo steps out of their bubble, they’ll remember that Republicans do know how to act like grownups when they lose. Case in point, 2008-2016, when Republicans did not try to oust Obama, scream in the streets or fly baby Obama balloons. Nor did they wine when they were called racists for criticizing Obama’s policies.

Indeed, we should all hope that Republicans respond like this in 2020:


Listen to "Mock and Daisy's Common Sense Cast" on Spreaker.