Iowa Democrat will challenge election results with House

[AleksS]

42. No, not really.

I’m only assuming that people like fighters better than give-uppers, and disagreeing with the position that “it would give trump a field day” is ever a reason to not take an action.

Trump will have a “field day” no matter what. Might as well fight, and be a fighter, rather than surrender and be a coward/wimp/capitulator/surrender-monkey/milquetoast/etc.

I make no assumptions either way about what the house will do. I leave that up to you. Regardless of what the house does or does not do,

A). people prefer a fighter to a quitter.
B). Repubs will smear any candidate any way, so “bad optics” are irrelevant.

If I make any assumption, it’s the assumption that the repubs will always attack on some bullshit hypocritical issue, so there’s no actual harm in fighting, and some significant gain. While we don’t want to be republicans when it comes to their beliefs and platform, there is no value in throwing away weapons just because the republicans also use them. Let’s not re-enact Pickett’s Charge politically because we won’t use every weapon available out of a fear of dirtying our hands; let’s not avoid useful tools just because repubs also use them.

The union used guns too. It didn’t mean they were morally equivalent to the confederacy. Both sides used guns, but only one side was using them to defend slavery.

Conversely, let’s especially use those weapons repubs use, rather than simply yielding the field to them. Let’s not bring marshmallows to a gunfight when there are guns lying at our feet.

To make good policy, you have to first win. Giving up a weapon and surrendering is generally not a good way to win.