The difference between the candidates and why they hate each other so much is that one of them tells lies and the other tells the truth.

Strategically, this mirrors his initial refusal to pledge support for the Republican candidate. It did not appear to hurt him in the primary elections.

Tactically, the fear of investigation into the election results might suppress some voting by resident aliens (many who have fake ID's and have a stake in voting against him), and serve to keep the opposition a little more subdued for fear of scandal in their get out the vote operations.

I don't think this hurt Trump that much. Probably helps him a little around the edges, but not by a lot.

The polls seem to agree with my statement above. This poll, released two days after the third debate, shows Trump has cut Hillary's lead in half. And that's assuming she actually has a lead.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-gain...

Given the known level of corruption in Hillary's campaign, I think Trump's statement will gain him more votes than he loses. He is beginning to inch up in some polls following the third debate.

I think Al Gore pretty much put paid to the idea that we always accept the results of the election.

It amuses me to watch the liberal media explaining that "accepting" a Supreme Court decision ending your multiple lawsuit attempt to steal the election is an act of grace.

Gore not only failed to accept the result, he attempted to steal it by use of recounts specifically in areas where he had a statistical advantage.

I agree they are unfair in attacking him, esp in articles that are presented as news not opinion.

It would have been better for Trump to have stated what conditions or independent certification of the election he will accept. Journalists writing stories about him not accepting the results have an obligation to ask him probing questions.

I do not agree that because the future is unknowable we can make no commitments. People do make promises, like getting married or promising to finish a project. If something weird happens not covered in the contract, the parties deal with as best they can. So suppose Trump said he would accept the results if the election official and the editorial board of the NY Post certified them. Suppose the NY Post had issues with the election, but an org tied to Clinton somehow bought out the NY Post and changed the editorial board. Trump would have to break the letter of his promise to keep its spirit. That would be fine. It's not a reason not to make the promise now.

There is a NYT article titled Trump Says He Will Accept Election Outcome ('if I Win). When you actually read the article, Trump actually said he would accept a clear defeat and would follow the rules and traditions of presidential elections. I have great respect for the NYT, but I do not like how they're handling this issue.

Gymbeaux ... we are on the same page, in essence. Trump's error here is in his phrasing, not his intent. He's possibly the only honest man in the room.