Do you dispute that Ohio in 2004 bears a resemblance? Every Presidential election of course has its own unique context, so if you want to discuss broader patterns you have to be willing to step back from the nitty-gritty of each individual year.
I do, because Ohio was a single state with apparently some irregularities in the vote, and the effort to challenge was not even broadly supported within the Democratic party. What is being alleged here is that Democrats "stole" the election. Nonsense.
I think we're talking across each other here. I'm not attempting to draw a strict equivalence; I'm not saying this year is as bad as that year, this side is as bad as that side, this argument is as bad as that argument. I'm just saying that the original claim - that only one part of the political spectrum attempts to dispute clear election results - is flawed.
I'm not talking about in general though, I am talking about this year. And moreover, one senator and one representative cannot be taken as representative of a whole side. One objection is an aberration. A whole party objecting is a political strategy.
You were bringing in historical perspective to justify the idea that the left commonly denies basic facts to dispute clear election results. I have argued, and I believe demonstrated, that the context you present does not support the conclusion you argue. This is disagreement, not misunderstanding.
