Rubio Teaches Gives Masterclass on How to Handle Tough Election Questions from the Media

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio delivered a textbook example on Sunday of how Republicans should respond when confronted by media partisans pressing them to prematurely commit to accepting the results of the 2024 election.

NBC News’ Kristen Welker asked Rubio if he would “accept the 2024 election results no matter what happens.”

“No matter what happens? No! If it’s an unfair election, I think it’s going to be contested by each side,” Rubio replied.

“No matter who wins, Senator? No matter who wins?” Welker pressed further.

“You’re asking the wrong person! The Democrats are the ones that have opposed every Republican victory since 2000. Every single one. Hillary Clinton…” Rubio began.

“No Democrat has refused to concede,” Welker interrupted. “Hillary Clinton conceded. Senator, will you accept the election results?”

“Hillary Clinton said the election was stolen from her, and that Trump was illegitimate. Kamala Harris agreed,” Rubio responded. “By the way, there are Democrats serving in Congress today who, in 2004, voted not to certify the Ohio electors because they said those machines had been tampered with. And you have Democrats now saying they won’t certify 2024 because Trump is an insurrectionist and ineligible to hold office. So you need to ask them.”

Rubio then highlighted issues like “over 500 illegal dropbox locations” in Wisconsin as legitimate concerns that undermine confidence in elections.

Rubio’s response was exemplary because he recognized the insidious nature of the question: Republicans are being coaxed into forfeiting their right to challenge questionable election management. Rather than being coerced into agreeing with Welker’s assumptions, Rubio chose to take the offensive.

Left-wing corporate media have already labeled Rubio and other conservatives as election “deniers” for not falling into the media’s trap. It’s a tactic aimed at silencing valid concerns about election administration by portraying them as threats to “democracy.”

When Republicans accept the question at face value, they immediately go on the defensive by conceding the question’s dishonest assumptions. This approach was evident when South Carolina senator and potential vice-presidential candidate Tim Scott faced a similar query in a recent interview with Welker. When asked if he would accept the results of the 2020 election, Scott chose to evade the question.

“At the end of the day, the 47th president of the United States will be President Donald Trump,” he stated.

When probed further, Scott reiterated “That is my statement” and added, “I look forward to President Trump being the 47th president — the American people will make the decision.”

Scott’s reply was poor because he appeared fearful of the question. No Republican should be intimidated into playing along with corporate media’s bad-faith “gotcha” questions. Additionally, there is nothing wrong with refusing to definitively affirm the results of an election that hasn’t occurred yet, especially in an environment where Democrats are using everything from weaponized lawfare to unconstitutional attempts to federalize elections with programs like “Bidenbucks” to tilt elections in their favor.

As Rubio noted, scrutiny of elections is not new. Democrats labeled George Bush’s 2000 election as “fraudulent,” claimed his 2004 victory was “stolen,” and opposed the certification of Trump’s 2016 election by alleging collusion with Russia to steal the presidency.

In the 1960 presidential election, some electors initially declared Richard Nixon the winner of Hawaii’s electoral votes before a recount certified John F. Kennedy’s electors. Should Kennedy have renounced his right to challenge the incorrect initial results?

Of course not — yet that’s what Republicans are being urged to do today. They should view the question as the shallow attempt it is and respond accordingly.