The "peaceful transfer of power" ship sailed with the Obama administration in 2016, kicking up a rooster tail as it roared out of the dock, but Republicans are still required to ritually proclaim that they will be good losers.

We're coming off a couple of months where the Democrat Party threatened America with violent riots if they lose, loudly announced it will not accept the results of the vote if Trump wins, and floated several plans to change election rules so they can never lose again.

But that's OK, because Democrats have absolutely no equivalent requirement to promise they will be good losers. The conversation is, in fact, rigged so that voters understand it's DANGEROUS for Democrats to lose. They will pay a price for defying the Party at the ballot box.

Democrats who refuse to accept the outcomes of elections are celebrated as epic heroes and rising political stars. No conspiracy theory is too insane, offensive, or incendiary for them to dispute elections. They insist their losses be marked with asterisks in the history books.

When the Democrats finally do grudgingly admit a Republican can be seated in high office, they immediately begin acting like he's a questionable temporary occupant with no "mandate" and should only exercise limited powers of the office.

This goes back for decades, and it works largely because weak Republicans began accepting that framework and acting like their victories were all provisional and partial. They had to make deals and compromises with Dems just to unlock their office doors.

If Dems lose enough elections, they begin vowing to attack and destroy the system itself. It's obviously badly broken if Democrats don't win all the time! They don't just talk about it, either - they make plans, raise funds, form organizations, and plot agendas.

At no point during any of this nonsense are Democrats EVER told their refusal to accept the outcome of elections is damaging the Republic or dangerously fragmenting our society - even though it very obviously IS.

Today's left-wing political violence flows, in no small part, from years of Democrats telling their followers that government is only legitimate when Democrats control it. That's the literal meaning of all their "Resistance" role-playing, which always had violent overtones.

The big story of the past few days was Dems attempting to deny President Trump's constitutional authority to nominate a Supreme Court justice because he's not "really" the president and didn't "really" win the 2016 election. Some of them were explicit in this reasoning.

Take Amy Klobuchar, for a notorious example. She said the president should nominate RBG's replacement - and then frantically backpedaled when she realized it sounded like she was referring to Trump. No, no, she insisted - she meant the *next* president.

There you have it, sports fans: REFUSAL TO PEACEFULLY TRANSFER POWER, right in your face, big as life. Klobuchar was saying Trump isn't the legitimate president right now. Only the next one will have the legitimacy to appoint RBG's successor.

Making up imaginary rules that restrict the office of the presidency because your party lost the election is REFUSING TO PEACEFULLY TRANSFER POWER. Obviously, so is threatening violence if the president lawfully exercises his constitutional powers.

Legitimate political opposition can thrive after peacefully transferring power. No president has a right to expect Congress to rubber-stamp their agenda. Our system makes robust opposition possible whether your party is in the majority or minority.

But you can do that WITHOUT implying, or outright stating, that elections were illegitimate, the other party isn't legitimately entitled to exercise the powers of the office it holds, the system must be destroyed, or threatening violence if your demands are not met.

I would prefer that both parties - all parties - commit to full respect for elections held with the highest standard of ballot integrity. I would like that to be such a universal pledge that asking the question is silly, akin to asking if you plan to obey the laws of gravity.

But if Dems get to FLAGRANTLY undermine elections, refuse to peacefully transfer power, sabotage administrations, question the legitimacy of every election they lose, and attack the integrity of the ballot itself, then what are Repubs accomplishing by swearing to lose gracefully?

All you're really doing is telling wavering voters they can expect riots, vandalism, perpetual unrest, and endless lawfare if the GOP wins, but it's totally safe to let Dems win because Republicans will have their desks neatly cleaned out by the end of the day. /end