What if Trump steps down or won't concede?

[Lis]

As much as I loathe to dedicate yet another thread to politics, I don't know if my two questions fit in any of the existing ones. To be fair, I haven't read every single response to every single politics thread, so feel free to point me in the right direction if this has already been discussed.

So, for my first question: There have been numerous people calling for Trump to bow out of the race, and while he has explicitly said he would not, what would happen if he did? Does the Republican Party get to pick a #2 choice? Or does the race become only between Clinton and the third party candidates?

Secondly: There has been some discussion that should Clinton win, Trump may not concede. What would that mean for Clinton, for the presidency, for the country, etc.?

I'd like to keep this thread free of "this candidate sucks because...." There are enough threads out there bashing Clinton, Trump, and all the rest of them. I'm just curious about this unique election and I'm trying to educate myself of the whole process.

Thanks in advance!

[secondcor521]

On November 8th, we'll all go vote for President, but what we really do is choose electors, who in turn actually elect the President...sometime in late December or early January, IIRC.

If Trump bowed out before the actual electoral college vote, the electors who were chosen on November 8th could presumably coordinate a decision to choose another Republican.  Mike Pence has been suggested as a choice in this scenario; Paul Ryan might be another choice.  This would be somewhat messy for several reasons.  Among other issues, there are various state laws that impose penalties on electors who do not actually vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state.  Google "faithless electors" for more information.  Also, there would be no precedent, so there is no mechanism and little time for the Republican electors to settle on a different person.  Finally, if the Republican electors had a majority (270 or more of them) or if no candidate has a majority (unlikelier still), there would probably be court cases from the other candidates that would argue against a substitute or replacement for Trump that way.

Regarding your second question, I think the likely outcome is that Clinton would give a victory speech anyway and the rest of the machinery of installing a President would function smoothly.  There is no requirement that the losing candidate(s) concede or give a concession speech.  It is merely a tradition in our country to do so.  The country in general would probably be a bit more divided, especially if Trump tries to sue in federal court over the election results.  If he did that (which is more than just not conceding), then it is possible that we would have some interesting court action, like we did in 2000 with Gore v. Bush.

[Blonde Lawyer]

It's a great question.  I'm curious too about what happens if Trump stepped down.  I wondered if there would be a special election like when a senator dies.  In my head it would be a do-over from the republican primary.  Though I absolutely detest Trump, I actually hope he does not step down because I don't want to live through the $hit show that would follow treading through "what now."  Do we do all of the debates again?  Surely the new person would have some different positions than Trump.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

I've already voted, as have many others. I don't think there's any possibility that Trump could bow out now, even if he wanted to. The Republicans asking for him to step aside are doing so merely as a symbolic gesture.

[tonysemail]

this is a long article that gives a good explanation.
It also cites two historical examples when a VP nominee had to be replaced.
http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/20431

[Lis]

Regarding your second question, I think the likely outcome is that Clinton would give a victory speech anyway and the rest of the machinery of installing a President would function smoothly.  There is no requirement that the losing candidate(s) concede or give a concession speech.  It is merely a tradition in our country to do so.

Interesting, I'm not sure why I thought conceding was a "legal" requirement. Though I guess there are worse ramifications to consider.

this is a long article that gives a good explanation.
It also cites two historical examples when a VP nominee had to be replaced.
http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/20431

Google "faithless electors" for more information.  Also, there would be no precedent, so there is no mechanism and little time for the Republican electors to settle on a different person.  Finally, if the Republican electors had a majority (270 or more of them) or if no candidate has a majority (unlikelier still), there would probably be court cases from the other candidates that would argue against a substitute or replacement for Trump that way.

Thank you for these! I'll look these up when it isn't 5pm on a Friday when my brain is mush.

[seattlecyclone]

Even if Trump dropped out today and the Republican Party had a backup nominee ready to go immediately, it would probably be too late to change the name on the ballot in most states. Plus there are many people who have already voted. Probably can't count their votes for the new guy.

What could happen is that the Trump electors could get in touch with each other and decide to vote someone else in. Several states have laws prohibiting these folks from voting for anyone but the state's winner. These laws have never been tested. In any case it's hard to imagine the state would have the authority to recall the elector after they've already voted; the most they could do is punish them after the fact.

Of course this is all moot if Clinton secures a majority of the electoral college. This is looking increasingly likely.

[woopwoop]

Interesting article on 538 about how another guy could end up winning: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-evan-mcmullin-could-win-utah-and-the-presidency/

[radram]

Interesting article on 538 about how another guy could end up winning: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-evan-mcmullin-could-win-utah-and-the-presidency/

Very much enjoyed the article.  Very detailed explanation and very interesting.

[Lulee]

My best guess if Trump wins is that the old school Republicans will wait for some action of President Trump that gets the Democrats to try to impeach him and then join their otherwise adversaries in turning Trump out of office as quickly as possible.  His VP becomes President and the White House remains in Republican control.

[radram]

My best guess if Trump wins is that the old school Republicans will wait for some action of President Trump that gets the Democrats to try to impeach him and then join their otherwise adversaries in turning Trump out of office as quickly as possible.  His VP becomes President and the White House remains in Republican control.

I agree that if trump were to win, the Republican establishment will fight with him tooth and nail.  He would be a pseudo third party.  If that would be the Republicans strategy, they would do so at their own peril.

If Trump is president, then close to half of the population wanted him there.  Removal over a trivial matter would not end well for them.

[BudgetSlasher]

Regarding your second question, I think the likely outcome is that Clinton would give a victory speech anyway and the rest of the machinery of installing a President would function smoothly.  There is no requirement that the losing candidate(s) concede or give a concession speech.  It is merely a tradition in our country to do so.

Interesting, I'm not sure why I thought conceding was a "legal" requirement. Though I guess there are worse ramifications to consider.

The lack of a concession itself will have no legal impact and the process will continue forward. However the lack of a concession speech could indicate the intent to undertake other legal measures. A candidate could attempt to challenge the results, allege voter fraud or voter intimidation, request a recount etc.

That will likely make for an interesting November and December, remember Bush v. Gore in 2000.

[Lis]

Regarding your second question, I think the likely outcome is that Clinton would give a victory speech anyway and the rest of the machinery of installing a President would function smoothly.  There is no requirement that the losing candidate(s) concede or give a concession speech.  It is merely a tradition in our country to do so.

Interesting, I'm not sure why I thought conceding was a "legal" requirement. Though I guess there are worse ramifications to consider.

The lack of a concession itself will have no legal impact and the process will continue forward. However the lack of a concession speech could indicate the intent to undertake other legal measures. A candidate could attempt to challenge the results, allege voter fraud or voter intimidation, request a recount etc.

That will likely make for an interesting November and December, remember Bush v. Gore in 2000.

I was 10 years old then, so aware enough to know something was up, but not understand any of the details. I haven't gone back to research it, but in light of this election and how messy it's been, I think I will.

[FIPurpose]

I always do enjoy reading up and discussing possible ties, sticky legal matters, and presidential politics, but this year, it's basically Hillary in the bag. I don't even think you'll see Karl Rove have any hope for the GOP on election day.

With Trump ceding his election office in VA, this will require a Trump win to be a full sweep of all the currently polling swing states of IA, OH, NC, NH, FL, NV, and AZ. Clinton only needs 1. Whether Trump steps down before, after, during, nothing that distracting will happen this election because his odds of even winning are <10% in my opinion. I doubt even a lawsuit would attract that much attention outside of the 24-hour news sites.

My guess is that by the end of the month, Real Clear Politics will be showing enough lean Hillary states to hand her the win and by that point, no replacement of Trump will have any chance of winning.

[libertarian4321]

I can't wait for this election, with it's two nightmare candidates (Hillary and Trump) is over.

These two are a national embarrassment.   If I go overseas in the next 4 years, I'll tell people I'm Canadian, just so I don't have to answer the inevitable questions about "Why did you elect that idiot, Trump/Clinton?"  This worked pretty well for me when Bush, Jr, was in office.

That said, I won't vote for either of the clown candidates. 

I'll be voting for Libertarian Governor Gary Johnson, and hoping the major parties can do better in 2020.

[redcedar]

I apologize in advance for being very direct.

Bow out? This isn't 2nd middle school class president up for grabs. Things ebb and flow. Neither candidant, despite their glaring and sometime debilitating shortcomings, will bow out.

Concede? As others have already said, precedent set by Gore indicats there is plenty of room to argue a small or disputable margin. The country survived that embarrassment so it can survive another.

[meerkat]

I can't wait for this election, with it's two nightmare candidates (Hillary and Trump) is over.

These two are a national embarrassment.   If I go overseas in the next 4 years, I'll tell people I'm Canadian, just so I don't have to answer the inevitable questions about "Why did you elect that idiot, Trump/Clinton?"  This worked pretty well for me when Bush, Jr, was in office.

That said, I won't vote for either of the clown candidates. 

I'll be voting for Libertarian Governor Gary Johnson, and hoping the major parties can do better in 2020.

I'd like to keep this thread free of "this candidate sucks because...." There are enough threads out there bashing Clinton, Trump, and all the rest of them.

[deadlymonkey]

I apologize in advance for being very direct.

Bow out? This isn't 2nd middle school class president up for grabs. Things ebb and flow. Neither candidant, despite their glaring and sometime debilitating shortcomings, will bow out.

Concede? As others have already said, precedent set by Gore indicats there is plenty of room to argue a small or disputable margin. The country survived that embarrassment so it can survive another.

In reference to conceding, it is more of a case of whether Trump tries to cast doubt on the validity of the election.  Even with Gore, once the court made its ruling, he conceded and didn't drag it on longer than necessary.  He has never said that the election was rigged or fraudulent.  It doesn't matter if trump loses by 1 or 180 EV, failing to concede by citing the outcome was rigged or somehow not valid is detrimental to the country.

All Gore V Bush proved is that we can legally and peacefully transfer power in a very close and contested election.  Not sure that applies with Trump.

[thd7t]

Well, this thread just gets more relevant! I hope that the peaceful transfer of power will remain a part of the American tradition. George Washington established it and it is a major original value of our nation.

This year is not comparable to any before in our history.

[Northwestie]

The CryBaby is going to wail like he got a pinky toe caught in the playpen gate once the landslide for H is over.  What a vile person.

[sailinlight]

Well, this thread just gets more relevant! I hope that the peaceful transfer of power will remain a part of the American tradition. George Washington established it and it is a major original value of our nation.

This year is not comparable to any before in our history.

Why?  Because you don't care for one or both of the leading candidates? 
It's really not a remarkable election other than the fact that social media is popular and had gotten people really riled up.

[Kris]

Well, this thread just gets more relevant! I hope that the peaceful transfer of power will remain a part of the American tradition. George Washington established it and it is a major original value of our nation.

This year is not comparable to any before in our history.

Why?  Because you don't care for one or both of the leading candidates? 
It's really not a remarkable election other than the fact that social media is popular and had gotten people really riled up.

Yeah it's not remarkable at all.  It's just like when Lincoln mentioned the size of his penis as a qualification to be President.  And when JFK talked about how he liked to grab women's crotches.  Nothing to see here.

Or when (insert any candidate you'd like) consistently demonstrated that he had essentially no grasp of the way government actually works.

[MgoSam]

My best guess if Trump wins is that the old school Republicans will wait for some action of President Trump that gets the Democrats to try to impeach him and then join their otherwise adversaries in turning Trump out of office as quickly as possible.  His VP becomes President and the White House remains in Republican control.

I agree that if trump were to win, the Republican establishment will fight with him tooth and nail.  He would be a pseudo third party.  If that would be the Republicans strategy, they would do so at their own peril.

If Trump is president, then close to half of the population wanted him there.  Removal over a trivial matter would not end well for them.

I respectively disagree. I'm biased but I highly doubt the GOP will shut out a President Trump. They'll try to mollify his insane stances but on policy issues, Trump will go along with the party. This is a man without any understanding of the minutia of government and seems more at home with being a bombastic leader. The Indian Parliamentary system has a president that is a more a figurehead and face of the nation while the PM and election officials actually run the country.

As much as he rails about the failures of government and how he will fix it, he'll find his powers to be quite less than what he imagined. A good point to look at is Obama and his failure to close Guantanamo.

[sailinlight]

Well, this thread just gets more relevant! I hope that the peaceful transfer of power will remain a part of the American tradition. George Washington established it and it is a major original value of our nation.

This year is not comparable to any before in our history.

Why?  Because you don't care for one or both of the leading candidates? 
It's really not a remarkable election other than the fact that social media is popular and had gotten people really riled up.

Yeah it's not remarkable at all.  It's just like when Lincoln mentioned the size of his penis as a qualification to be President.  And when JFK talked about how he liked to grab women's crotches.  Nothing to see here.

I'm not so sure
from http://www.cracked.com/article_18945_6-presidential-secrets-your-history-teacher-didnt-mention.html

While other unfaithful presidents were satisfied with little affairs here and there, Johnson's bevy of babes was referred to by his male aides as a harem (he was said to be jealous of Kennedy's womanizing ways and wanted to top him). Johnson would make passes at secretaries, and it was known that any who accepted would be promoted to private secretary, two words that in this context should probably have air quotes around them anytime they are uttered. By the time he was done, virtually all of his secretaries, plus his two mistresses, got the Johnson Treatment.

He then tasked the Secret Service with keeping his philandering from his wife, but it obviously did not do a good job at that. His wife had full knowledge of everything and sometimes even supported it. At parties, he would make obvious passes at girls right in front of his wife. One of the girls who stayed over at his place got awakened in the middle of the night by Johnson holding a flashlight and saying, "Move over. This is your president."


Which goes down in history as the second-greatest pickup line ever, losing just barely to, "Hello, I'm an astronaut."

As for waving around his cock (a little extension of him that he had affectionately nicknamed "Jumbo"), he was said to piss in public whenever he felt like it, and if anyone dared confront him, he would whip his dick around and challenge the poor sap with, "Have you seen anything bigger than this?"

[thd7t]

Well, this thread just gets more relevant! I hope that the peaceful transfer of power will remain a part of the American tradition. George Washington established it and it is a major original value of our nation.

This year is not comparable to any before in our history.

Why?  Because you don't care for one or both of the leading candidates? 
It's really not a remarkable election other than the fact that social media is popular and had gotten people really riled up.

Wow, you and all the people who tried to dispute you missed the mark, here!

Simply, no candidate in our nation's history has disparaged the electoral process while running for president. No candidate has stated that they are prepared to ignore the election's results. This is not a comment about the positions or the negative feelings about candidates. It's about the backbone of our democratic process.

[Lis]

Hey guys, I'm not a Trump fan by any means, but I meant this thread to be a discussion of hypothetical things that could very well happen solely for the purpose of educating myself. I want to continue this discussion, given that now we have reason to believe that if Clinton wins, a peaceful transfer of power may not happen. But please, keep the whining and name calling (about any candidate) in another thread.

Legally speaking, what is this country facing if Trump refuses and starts suing? I get that there's no exact precedence - Bush v. Gore in 2000 ended with Gore conceding. But if we assume that Clinton wins and that there will be a lawsuit (or several? Would Trump have to sue per state?), how does that impact the presidency and the country in general?

[thd7t]

Hey guys, I'm not a Trump fan by any means, but I meant this thread to be a discussion of hypothetical things that could very well happen solely for the purpose of educating myself. I want to continue this discussion, given that now we have reason to believe that if Clinton wins, a peaceful transfer of power may not happen. But please, keep the whining and name calling (about any candidate) in another thread.

Legally speaking, what is this country facing if Trump refuses and starts suing? I get that there's no exact precedence - Bush v. Gore in 2000 ended with Gore conceding. But if we assume that Clinton wins and that there will be a lawsuit (or several? Would Trump have to sue per state?), how does that impact the presidency and the country in general?

Gore held out because a legal process had begun in Florida. This is not comparable. A concern I have is that people might advocate (or tacitly suggest) violence.

[DoubleDown]

Trump just quadruple-downed on his "rigged election" refusal to accept the results by offering what he called "this major announcement":

"I promise and pledge... that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election... IF I WIN."

And his audience of course had an orgasm (okay that part was as a bit of hyperbole, but they did loudly cheer).

[NoStacheOhio]

Hey guys, I'm not a Trump fan by any means, but I meant this thread to be a discussion of hypothetical things that could very well happen solely for the purpose of educating myself. I want to continue this discussion, given that now we have reason to believe that if Clinton wins, a peaceful transfer of power may not happen. But please, keep the whining and name calling (about any candidate) in another thread.

Legally speaking, what is this country facing if Trump refuses and starts suing? I get that there's no exact precedence - Bush v. Gore in 2000 ended with Gore conceding. But if we assume that Clinton wins and that there will be a lawsuit (or several? Would Trump have to sue per state?), how does that impact the presidency and the country in general?

Gore conceding is secondary to the Supreme Court ruling in Bush's favor. Yes, it smoothed the eventual transfer of power, but it wasn't required.

If Trump advocates (explicitly or implicitly) violence because he feels a loss in November means the election is "rigged," then that's a different ballgame. He's free to make any legal challenges he likes, but he needs to accept the resulting verdict. Incidentally, this is the actual meaning of the phrase "rule of law," contrary to what many people think it means.

[FIRE Artist]

I can't wait for this election, with it's two nightmare candidates (Hillary and Trump) is over.

These two are a national embarrassment.   If I go overseas in the next 4 years, I'll tell people I'm Canadian, just so I don't have to answer the inevitable questions about "Why did you elect that idiot, Trump/Clinton?"  This worked pretty well for me when Bush, Jr, was in office.

That said, I won't vote for either of the clown candidates. 

I'll be voting for Libertarian Governor Gary Johnson, and hoping the major parties can do better in 2020.

You won't have to do this if HRC is elected. 

[zoltani]

If I go overseas in the next 4 years, I'll tell people I'm Canadian, just so I don't have to answer the inevitable questions about "Why did you elect that idiot, Trump/Clinton?"  This worked pretty well for me when Bush, Jr, was in office.

Wow dude you are spineless and an embarrassment. Why can't you step up and own who you are and where you are from? I was abroad during the Bush Jr years as well and proudly stated I am American, answering any and all questions asked of me. I even had a doctor say through a translator "Tell him we don't like americans". Who cares? Own who you are and don't be such a jellyfish. 

[Telecaster]

Legally speaking, what is this country facing if Trump refuses and starts suing? I get that there's no exact precedence - Bush v. Gore in 2000 ended with Gore conceding. But if we assume that Clinton wins and that there will be a lawsuit (or several? Would Trump have to sue per state?), how does that impact the presidency and the country in general?

You can sue for whatever you want, but at some point a judge to agree with you for it to mean anything.

in the case of Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court agreed with Bush that it was a violation of equal protection for each county to have its own method of counting ballots, and therefore the ballot recount was stopped.  At that point, Bush had the most votes, so he was awarded the victory. 

Worth pointing out that the ruling was on a point of law.  That's the kind of thing judges like to rule on.  For Trump to successfully challenge the results in court, he'll have to somehow demonstrate the vote counts are fraudulent.   Despite what many Trump supporters seem to believe, rigging an election in the US is extremely difficult, bordering on impossible.   That's a much, much, much, much higher bar to clear than a simple interpretation of law.    And presumbably, Trump would have to challenge the results--and win--in enough states to give him an electoral college victory.  Not going to happen. 

[alsoknownasDean]

What about what his supporters would do? Trump will run his mouth, win or lose, but there's always the possibility that his supporters would go and cause strife at voting booths in Democratic-leaning areas, or find ways to actively prevent groups from voting.

From a distance, Trump's supporters seem to be a rather zealous lot.

It only takes one crazy person to shoot at an electoral booth early on election day for people to be discouraged from going out to vote. Hopefully that doesn't happen.

Trump might be forced to concede (eventually), but would his supporters accept it?

[MrRealEstate]

Trump just quadruple-downed on his "rigged election" refusal to accept the results by offering what he called "this major announcement":

"I promise and pledge... that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election... IF I WIN."

And his audience of course had an orgasm (okay that part was as a bit of hyperbole, but they did loudly cheer).

I think you're referring to the Al Smith dinner tonight. Trump was also lightly booed for some of his jokes. Both candidates ribbed eachother. They did go a little over the "fringe, but don't burn" rule, but I'd refrain from taking anything they said tonight as serious. 

[jrhampt]

Trump just quadruple-downed on his "rigged election" refusal to accept the results by offering what he called "this major announcement":

"I promise and pledge... that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election... IF I WIN."

And his audience of course had an orgasm (okay that part was as a bit of hyperbole, but they did loudly cheer).

I think you're referring to the Al Smith dinner tonight. Trump was also lightly booed for some of his jokes. Both candidates ribbed eachother. They did go a little over the "fringe, but don't burn" rule, but I'd refrain from taking anything they said tonight as serious.

 He said this in a campaign rally .

[thd7t]

Trump just quadruple-downed on his "rigged election" refusal to accept the results by offering what he called "this major announcement":

"I promise and pledge... that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election... IF I WIN."

And his audience of course had an orgasm (okay that part was as a bit of hyperbole, but they did loudly cheer).

I think you're referring to the Al Smith dinner tonight. Trump was also lightly booed for some of his jokes. Both candidates ribbed eachother. They did go a little over the "fringe, but don't burn" rule, but I'd refrain from taking anything they said tonight as serious.

No, this quote was at a rally in the morning. It was totally separate from the dinner.

[jim555]

Trump is pandering to his base and not even trying to win.  I think he is positioning for a Trump News Network post election.  The whole campaign is a giant grift from the master of grifts.

[frugalorganic]

Why doesn't the mainstream media ask Hillary if she will accept election results?  Are they trying to convince the American people that she is going to win?  Why don't they show you the thousands of people who attend Trump rallies, and they don't show you the empty halls of Clinton rallies?  Why do they not spend any time reporting on all of the corruption that has been unearthed by Wikileaks?  Why don't they share with you that the polls they are conducting that show Hillary in the lead are do to the population they poll being primarily Democrat which is not representative of our country?  Independents are the biggest registered party and they are not represented accurately in these polls.

One thing that has become very clear in this sad election is that the Mainstream media is biased, and does not report on the facts.  I'm not sure I will believe it it they claim Hillary won the election, and I would challenge it too based on all of the corruption that has been discovered. 

[NoStacheOhio]

Why doesn't the mainstream media ask Hillary if she will accept election results?  Are they trying to convince the American people that she is going to win?  Why don't they show you the thousands of people who attend Trump rallies, and they don't show you the empty halls of Clinton rallies?  Why do they not spend any time reporting on all of the corruption that has been unearthed by Wikileaks?  Why don't they share with you that the polls they are conducting that show Hillary in the lead are do to the population they poll being primarily Democrat which is not representative of our country?  Independents are the biggest registered party and they are not represented accurately in these polls.

One thing that has become very clear in this sad election is that the Mainstream media is biased, and does not report on the facts.  I'm not sure I will believe it it they claim Hillary won the election, and I would challenge it too based on all of the corruption that has been discovered.

If nobody is reporting all of the things you're citing, then how do you think you know them?

Large rally turnout doesn't equate to large number of votes.

[Captain FIRE]

Why doesn't the mainstream media ask Hillary if she will accept election results? 

Why do you assume that they didn't without any facts?  (You accuse others of being biased and not reporting on facts, but it may just be a case of selective hearing on those facts.)  If you actually watched the debate, you'll have seen that they did ask her.  She said "that is not the way our democracy works" "we've had free and fair elections" for 240 years and "accepted the outcomes when we might not have liked them" and "that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a debate stage during a general election".  The follow-up news articles focus on Trump because 1) he pre-emptively called the election rigged, 2) he shockingly did not say that would accept the results at the debate, and 3) he later doubled down on his statements.

Makes me wonder what his response was to losing games as a kid.

Btw, in a past election I volunteered my services to resolve issues in an election through an impartial monitoring group.  The group was available to respond to telephone calls about alleged voting problems, provide callers with poll location addresses, transfer callers to their local election officials, alert officials to potential violations of voters' rights (none happened), and provide legal research on issues of voter irregularity (not needed).  If you think there might be an issue - educate yourself to know if it's really an issue and if so, DO something.  Don't just complain.

[Northwestie]

Why doesn't the mainstream media ask Hillary if she will accept election results?  Are they trying to convince the American people that she is going to win?  Why don't they show you the thousands of people who attend Trump rallies, and they don't show you the empty halls of Clinton rallies?  Why do they not spend any time reporting on all of the corruption that has been unearthed by Wikileaks?  Why don't they share with you that the polls they are conducting that show Hillary in the lead are do to the population they poll being primarily Democrat which is not representative of our country?  Independents are the biggest registered party and they are not represented accurately in these polls.

One thing that has become very clear in this sad election is that the Mainstream media is biased, and does not report on the facts.  I'm not sure I will believe it it they claim Hillary won the election, and I would challenge it too based on all of the corruption that has been discovered.

Here we go.  I heard a good report the other day on a poll of folks who say they are leaning towards voting for Trump.   80%+ said that they did not believe the state polls and this was part of the conspiracy against Trump.  Furthermore they did not believe information coming out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics  - who assemble information on CPI, Unemployment, and GDP rates.  That somehow - all these folks are part of the grand plan to keep Trump out of the White House.

No.  It's because Trump is an extremely flawed candidate.  This is why he will get buried November 8th.

[Kris]

Why doesn't the mainstream media ask Hillary if she will accept election results? 

Because Hillary Clinton has not made it a cornerstone of her campaign to whine that the whole election process "rigged" and has not been going around to rallies telling her supporters that they should go to the polls in "certain places" and watch for widespread voter fraud that she just knows is happening without having any evidence at all. Nor has she said on more than one occasion that if she doesn't win, it's because the election is rigged, and that her supporters should not accept it.

I mean, come on. Is it really any surprise that the debate moderator asked this of Trump and not Clinton? He could have asked it of her, but she would have just said, "Yes, of course." Like any other presidential candidate in modern history.

[Samuel]

Why doesn't the mainstream media ask Hillary if she will accept election results?  Are they trying to convince the American people that she is going to win?  Why don't they show you the thousands of people who attend Trump rallies, and they don't show you the empty halls of Clinton rallies?  Why do they not spend any time reporting on all of the corruption that has been unearthed by Wikileaks?  Why don't they share with you that the polls they are conducting that show Hillary in the lead are do to the population they poll being primarily Democrat which is not representative of our country?  Independents are the biggest registered party and they are not represented accurately in these polls.

One thing that has become very clear in this sad election is that the Mainstream media is biased, and does not report on the facts.  I'm not sure I will believe it it they claim Hillary won the election, and I would challenge it too based on all of the corruption that has been discovered.

To understand how professionals use polling to understand and report the likelihood of different outcomes this is a good place to start: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-users-guide-to-fivethirtyeights-2016-general-election-forecast/. Spoiler: you can measure different methodologies based on their accuracy in predicting previous elections and weight them accordingly.

I was on a work trip to Arizona on election day 2012. I watched the early returns in a bar with a large group of locals absolutely convinced by Fox's "unskewed" polls that Romney was going to win. Having paid attention to more mainstream media sources I had the opposite expectation. Who do you think was mightily disappointed?

The media echo chambers seem to be leading to an inability to differentiate between high quality and low quality information.

[Spork]

Trump is pandering to his base and not even trying to win.  I think he is positioning for a Trump News Network post election.  The whole campaign is a giant grift from the master of grifts.

This exactly.  There is a reason he hired Stephen Bannon (Breitbart) and Roger Ailes (Fox News) -- although rumor is Ailes has left the campaign.

Trump's Hotel brand appealed to the very wealthy Hollywood set -- most of whom are politically left.  He's pretty much trashed that brand.  Those that normally would have stayed there now won't do it for political reasons.

Having a longstanding "controversy" on a rigged election and a crooked opponent gives him a year or more worth of fuel to build a news network. 

[thd7t]

Trump is pandering to his base and not even trying to win.  I think he is positioning for a Trump News Network post election.  The whole campaign is a giant grift from the master of grifts.

This exactly.  There is a reason he hired Stephen Bannon (Breitbart) and Roger Ailes (Fox News) -- although rumor is Ailes has left the campaign.

Trump's Hotel brand appealed to the very wealthy Hollywood set -- most of whom are politically left.  He's pretty much trashed that brand.  Those that normally would have stayed there now won't do it for political reasons.

Having a longstanding "controversy" on a rigged election and a crooked opponent gives him a year or more worth of fuel to build a news network.

Ailes probably had to leave if Trump is trying to start a media group. There's no way Fox didn't make him sign a non-compete to get his 40 million dollars.

[thd7t]

To those who say that the media is tough on Trump, you should remember that he hasn't been in politics long. They are trying to do decades worth of work in learning about him (as a politician) in about a year and a half. The fact that he hasn't been a politician, but has been in the public eye has lead to them finding out more in less time.

This is not bias. It is them doing their jobs.

[Kris]

To those who say that the media is tough on Trump, you should remember that he hasn't been in politics long. They are trying to do decades worth of work in learning about him (as a politician) in about a year and a half. The fact that he hasn't been a politician, but has been in the public eye has lead to them finding out more in less time.

This is not bias. It is them doing their jobs.

Not to mention, it's thanks to them giving him hours upon hours of free press that he got the nomination in the first place. Any Trump supporter who says the media is "rigging" the election has to contend with the fact that they "rigged" it in his favor first during the primaries.

[radram]

Why doesn't the mainstream media ask Hillary if she will accept election results?  Just ask the mainstream moderator.  From FOX News.  During her response, she denounced Trumps response. It was implied that the thought of not accepting the outcome was deplorable to her, but she did not state "I will accept the results". It was definitely implied.

Are they trying to convince the American people that she is going to win?  Probably just asking every candidate accusing our system of being a fraud and rigged. Was there another candidate with these claims.  


Why don't they show you the thousands of people who attend Trump rallies, and they don't show you the empty halls of Clinton rallies? I don't understand.  You are saying they do not cover Trump rallies.  They do not cover Clinton rallies.  What, exactly, is the bias?


Why do they not spend any time reporting on all of the corruption that has been unearthed by Wikileaks?  This one if funny.  I have 3,220,000 google search results for the search  "refuse to cover Wikileaks"


Why don't they share with you that the polls they are conducting that show Hillary in the lead are do to the population they poll being primarily Democrat which is not representative of our country?  Independents are the biggest registered party and they are not represented accurately in these polls. EVERY poll I have seen has a link that describes their methodology of sampling. Your statement that people being primarily Democrats is nothing but false.  Another important factor in poll results is the accuracy of past polls.  I think you would agree that a poll that is consistantly off on their results should be treated with a grain of salt moving forward.  An excellent artice regarding the 2012 election results here.  http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/?_r=0  you can see each poll result with described samplings ans decide for yourself. Based on your question, there is no way you have drawn your conclusions by doing so.



One thing that has become very clear in this sad election is that the Mainstream media is biased, and does not report on the facts.  I'm not sure I will believe it it they claim Hillary won the election, and I would challenge it too based on all of the corruption that has been discovered.  "The media is biased" is a worthless statement to me.  I like numbers, like these:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/09/20/is-the-media-biased-toward-clinton-or-trump-heres-some-actual-hard-data/

It does show a bias(in both directions), which is slightly larger than what the researcher considers statistically significant.  It does not appear to be the vast industrial complex that is impossible to overcome that you seem to be implying. Do you have numbers that counter this research?

Comments made within above quote.

I think at this point in time, it is important to realize that "The Media" is whatever the consumer wants it to be.  If you want to get your news from FOX, or MSN, or TMZ, then you will.  The "mainstream media" is whomever WE make it to be.  What a great time to be alive.

[Lis]

I think at this point in time, it is important to realize that "The Media" is whatever the consumer wants it to be.  If you want to get your news from FOX, or MSN, or TMZ, then you will.  The "mainstream media" is whomever WE make it to be.  What a great time to be alive.

This is the frustrating thing. I get that media is run by individuals, and people are inherently biased one way or the other, but there doesn't seem to be an attempt at unbiased news anymore. Hell, CNN puts out enough clickbait articles to compete with Buzzfeed. 

[jim555]

"The Media" has no obligation to be objective.  Each outlet brings its own slant to stories.  Everyone knows this. 
Cry baby candidates need to toughen up.