Admittedly, I wasn’t following as closely in 16, but I really don’t remember much of this coming from authorities at all. Was it senators and Ms. Clinton herself? Because that is what is happening this year

Maybe you overlooked a multi-year investigation and failed impeachment over the notion that the president in collusion with Russia interfered with the '16 election?

The impeachment succeeded but the senate refused to even investigate so he wasn't convicted.

This has gotten extremely off topic, and in the worst direction: generic, tedious, partisan flamewar. You posted 41 comments moving the thread in this undesirable direction. Could you please refrain from doing that here? The more threads go in this direction, the more off topic for HN they become.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I'm not disagreeing with you, I respect your views and feelings and the importance of the issues. But HN's mandate is curious, thoughtful conversation about topics of intellectual interest. When the thread gets reaches this degree of fiery political minutiae, it has left that far behind. In fact it's at the far end of the solution space from ontopicness.

"Many on the left" meaning every Democratic senator and congressperson, and the Democratic president himself too?

What, you think Obama and the Clintons would have minded terribly if it turned out that way?

Anyway, we're not shifting the goalposts to the leaders, we're talking about the people, which is the subject of the article. The people of the left were completely down with the faithless electorate concept, whoopie!

And somehow you missed this point. Which leads me to a question: why? Perhaps you didn't hear about it. Perhaps you forgot it. Maybe you brushed it aside. Or maybe you recalled it and decided it wasn't worth mentioning. Each of these are mechanisms through which people are steered.

You accuse the far right of doing something that the far left was doing just four years ago, and still you have thought yourself objective, but it doesn't work.

You can find people of any background who will spout contradictory rhetoric. I don't think you're making this argument in good faith. 2016 was a whole lot closer than 2020, and Clinton conceded and there was no serious calculated attempt to overturn the election results by either the public at large, or people who had any power to do so.

Equating that with what's going on now does not seem like an argument made in good faith.

I was hanging out in lefty circles in 2016; the faithless electorate idea was wildly popular, as was the "the popular vote should win." These were the last hope for many who were previously so confident.

It's true that the popular vote should decide the presidency but unfortunately it doesn't in the US. It's a bad sign that we keep electing presidents who didn't win a majority of the popular vote. Nonetheless, we have to follow the rules and processes in the Constitution until we get the opportunity to change them.

The popular vote should win is still popular on left. In large part because both Clinton on Biden won popular vote.

And partly because they don't count as real Americans in popular rhetoric and are getting increasingly ressentful about that.

>The people of the left were completely down with the faithless electorate concept, whoopie!

Well, I certainly wasn't, and I contest that this belief was widespread within the left, but without evidence one way or another we're not going to resolve this aspect of the disagreement. What I do know is that no significant number of people with political positions and political power used that power to throw the election results into doubt, as Mitch McConnell and GOP congresspeople are now doing.

I don't think Obama would have supported it as he called Clinton urging her to concede early on election night.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/307536-obama-urged-cli...

Right. But then none of that ever happened.

One could argue that the electoral college (and in the past, Senators elected by state legislatures) was intended to be a circuit breaker or hurdle to prevent grossly unqualified candidates from reaching office. I challenge you to find a candidate that was less qualified and more dangerous than Trump.

Yes, we can simultaneously recognize that the Electoral College was intended to stop candidates like Trump, while also accepting that once it actually voted for Trump, he was in fact the legally and constitutionally legitimate President.

And Meanwhile, Clinton admitted defeat and Obama invited Trump to while house as every other president before. And Obama cooperated on power handover. Was not threatening to fire people for cooperating with new President.

You really can't bothside this.