Consider what would be happening if Donald Trump (or any Republican for that matter) had won the popular vote by two million votes but lost the electoral college.
Consider further what would be happening now if Hillary Clinton had won the electoral college and had previously called upon Russia to hack into Trump's campaign, had sent Chelsea to meet secretly with Putin's people in Paris during the campaign, and specific Russian involvement in the campaign had been acknowledged.
Consider still further what would be happening now if, in her president-elect transition, Hillary Clinton were telling foreign leaders that it might be a cool idea if they would give money to the Clinton Foundation so that it could expand its activities further.
Is there even a scintilla of doubt that Trump would be attacking the system, attacking the voting process, encouraging supporters to rally and riot, to find out the names of electors and harass them, to be demanding jail time not White House time for Hillary, and suggest that "Second Amendment rights" should be exercised?
Is there a scintilla of doubt that Trump would seize on the computer analysis and demand recounts?
And, is there a scintilla of doubt that, failing to keep Hillary from taking the oath of office, the Republicans would have already used these protests and tactics to label her a minority president who lost the will of the people, and start down the path of undermining the legitimacy of her presidency?
Hillary, they would say, has no right to a Supreme Court nominee. Period. They would not confirm anyone to the Supreme Court for 4 years, as the will of the majority was otherwise. They would not allow any of her cabinet or agency appointees to take office, forcing her to work with those who are willing to stay on from the Obama Administration.
The rest is rather obvious.
By contrast, what are the Democrats (aka, Cave-ocrats) doing? First, they are not challenging the vote count in the states where it appears rigging and hacking may have taken place. Why? Because they don't realize that the fight itself is worth the effort.
Second, while they are objecting to one crazy Trump appointment after another, they are nonetheless referring to Trump as the "president-elect". Why? Because they don't get that holding off that designation keeps them in the fight, and that the fight itself is worth it.
Third, having just noted a profound loss among white working class voters, they select as what will be the top Democrat in the country, a Wall Street apologist and Iran nuclear deal opponent, Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as their leader. Why? Because they don't get that words, language, attitude and pedigree matter.
Fourth, on the House side, they are going to stick with Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as Minority Leader, rather than go for a heartland America, younger Member of Congress, who just might be able to lead them out of the political wilderness. Why? Same reason as above.
Fifth, the Democrats send out messages, "aren't you proud?" for the effort and fight they put up? NO. I am not proud of losing, especially to the most absurd and dangerous opponent who has ever darkened our political doorposts.
Sixth, progressive groups send out more "sign this petition" messages, seemingly oblivious to the fact that Donald Trump and the Republicans and the press could not care less what any petition says or how many signatures it has.
Indeed, all of what Republicans would be doing, and all of what the Cave-ocrats do not do, comes down to a simple proposition: Republicans are in constant political war, because they want power, and want to consolidate power, and want to make it impossible to dislodge them from power.
For Republicans a lost 2016 election would never be "over".
Democrats do not. Thus, Democrats do not go to the mat, they do not realize that showing they will fight, and fight hard, even if they lose, is what people need to see before they can begin to have any faith that they mean what they say.
On December 8, 2008, I wrote an article outlining just what the Obama Administration should do, and could do, to address the heartland voters. I called it the "Great American Heartland Initiative". Had Obama done that Democrats would be enjoying large majorities for decades to come for the simple reason that Republicans offer nothing, except tax cuts for the wealthy and removing regulations so that, for example, tobacco companies can back into the business of addicting our children.
But, if one does not go to meet and live with the people that really need help, and show you will fight with everything and never give up, you will lose to those who see every disagreement as war, and look for any opening, any crack, any space, to occupy.
Democrats' conducted "autopsies" following their catastrophic defeats in 2010 and 2014. The conclusions they came to, that they "have to do a better job of getting out their message", were ludicrous. They will do another one. Their conclusions will be at least as ludicrous.
How many times did President Obama go back to Congress asking for a modification to the Affordable Care Act? Zero. And, whatever he requested would have been rejected. But, fighting for it, for ways to improve it, would have resonated with voters. Sure, it would have been used as examples for what is wrong with bill, but so what? They were lying about it anyhow, and the entire dialogue could have been shoved back down their throats.
By contrast, Republicans tried 60 times to repeal it. On the 61st try, they will now achieve it.
When the Democrats controlled the Senate, how many times did Harry Reid (D-NV) hold hearings just for the sake of showing his majority was fighting for something? Answer: Zero. The Republicans do that all the time.
It has fallen to Jill Stein, Green Party candidate to demand a recount in key states. Her fight may be quixotic, but people will remember who fought for them, who fought for the planet, and who sat back on their duffs and kowtowed the emperor.
Pathetic.
It is why, absent a charismatic candidate like Barack Obama at the head of the ticket, Democrats always lose.