Senator JD Vance’s Bold Assertion on the 2020 Election
Recently, Senator JD Vance of Ohio provided a definitive answer to the persistent inquiries from journalists regarding the outcome of the 2020 presidential election: he boldly declared that Donald Trump was the victor. This assertion, while not surprising, has sparked a range of reactions, particularly among those who oppose Trump’s agenda. My colleagues in the newsroom captured the moment with keen interest.
While I won’t delve into the absurdity of Vance’s claims again, his remarks prompted me to reflect on a significant concern that has been weighing heavily on the minds of many liberals and Democratic voters: the looming threat that Trump may attempt to usurp the election results should he find himself defeated.
There is no doubt that both Trump and his allies will vehemently contest the results if, on November 6, the day after the election, it becomes evident that he has lost. In fact, it is highly likely that Trump will prematurely declare victory on Election Day, exerting pressure on election officials in crucial swing states to halt the counting of ballots. If he does, in fact, lose, he will likely try to impede individual states from certifying their electoral votes, hoping to instigate a contingent election in the House of Representatives.
This scenario understandably instills fear among liberals. However, it’s essential to acknowledge that the most favorable outcome for Trump remains winning the election outright. His capacity to overturn a loss is fundamentally constrained by his ability to galvanize others into committing unlawful acts on his behalf. The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 clarified that the congressional counting of electoral votes is merely a formality and does not influence the outcome of the election. The methods employed during the January 6 insurrection are no longer viable.
Moreover, Trump currently lacks any legal authority, as he is not the sitting president. If he loses, he will merely revert to being another private citizen, attempting to incite other private citizens to engage in both state and federal crimes for him.
While some individuals may be compelled to act due to Trump’s cult of personality, it is crucial to recognize that many others will not. There is a significant difference between breaking the law for an elected representative of the nation and doing so for someone who is, essentially, just an individual. Should Trump face a decisive defeat, it is highly probable that civil society will rally around Kamala Harris, making any attempts to disrupt the election results nearly impossible.
This is not to suggest that concerns about the aftermath of a Harris victory are unfounded; there remains a legitimate risk of post-election violence. However, the reality is that Trump has a far greater likelihood of achieving an outright victory than he does of successfully overturning a defeat.