The question is not “is anyone surprised?”

No one who has observed liberalism at work for decades could be surprised that after a campaign in which they routinely attacked Donald Trump for supposedly being unwilling to accept the election results, the scolders themselves do precisely that.

The stories pour forth. Hillary Clinton lost because the Russians hacked. There have to be recounts in key states because it could change the results. Electors need to step up to the plate and overturn the voters. And on it goes. “It” being the attempt to delegitimize the Trump election and his presidency that will follow.

But why is this? Why this absolutely bizarre notion that, knowing the rules full well — rules for a presidential election in force since the founding of the country — there is this abrupt unwillingness by Clinton and company to accept defeat?

The answer surely can be tied to the longtime sense of moral superiority that has become a standard feature of modern liberalism. Let’s recall that instantly infamous statement of Clinton’s during the campaign. Note well the quote which appeared in the New York Times exactly as written below:

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” she said to applause and laughter. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

Catch that descriptive line added by the Times? This one, inserted in the middle of the quote, that says “she said to applause and laughter.” This event, again no accident, was a fundraiser held with the elites of Manhattan in Manhattan.
And right there is exactly the real reason this election was lost to Clinton and proved a disaster for her party. The hard fact is that many liberal elites really do look down their noses at their fellow citizens who reside between Manhattan and Beverly Hills. And in this election this translated into an assumption that of course Hillary Clinton was going to win. How could it be any other way?

Take a good look at this Politico story from October 20, written in the aftermath of the third and last debate between Clinton and Trump. The headline?

The final debate was Trump’s chance to stop the bleeding. 16 political watchers tell us whether he succeeded.

The story opens with a brief recounting of the debate, then says this:

It was all pretty much routine in a campaign marked more by put-downs than policy discussion—or at least it was until Trump broke with centuries of tradition and told the audience that he wasn’t sure whether he would accept the voting results on Election Day. It was an admission that shocked—but also one not likely to be uttered by a candidate who’s confident, or even halfway confident, of a win on November 8.Indeed, over the past week and a half, as more than 10 women have accused Trump of sexual assault, he has been sliding in the polls, and election forecasters were giving Clinton around an 85 percent of victory.

And that unconfident candidate was, of course — Donald Trump. Among the sentiments of these sixteen “political watchers” were the following:

‘Trump surrendered whatever shreds remained of his credibility. Unlike Donald Trump, I won’t keep you in suspense. He didn’t lose the election Wednesday night; he forfeited it. Bigly.” – Jacob Heilbrunn, editor of the National Interest

But this will be remembered as one of the very few presidential elections in which the losing candidate mattered more than the candidate who actually won. Trump’s 18-month performance in a self-written piece he should have called “Make America Hate Again” repelled far more Americans than it attracted. Yet even before the final curtain goes down, we are wondering—no we are shuddering to find out—what crazy, destructive things he and his adoring followers will say and do next. – Michael Kazin, professor of history at Georgetown University and editor of Dissent

“But the matter of his win or loss will matter less if he takes our democratic institutions out with him—and that was all that mattered at the debate. … One moment crystallized precisely what the 2016 election is about. When asked whether he would respect the election results, Trump shrugged. “I will look at it at the time,” he told moderator, Chris Wallace. “I’ll keep you in suspense, OK?” No, not OK. Not at all. This isn’t the build-up to the season finale of a reality show. This is the basis of our representative democracy. Americans are not supposed to be waiting to hear Trump’s verdict on election night; he is supposed to be waiting to hear ours.” – Nicole Hemmer, assistant professor at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, co-host of the Past Present podcast and author of Messengers of the Right: Conservative Media and the Transformation of American Politics

“This cake is baked. Any hope that Donald Trump could deliver a game-changing last-ditch final debate performance was dashed when he refused to accept the Election Day results. Everyone except for the most delusional Trump supporter knows that Hillary Clinton will be the next president. … But the truth is Trump lost this race the day he entered it, when he smeared Latino immigrants as rapists and criminals. He has never led in poll averages against Clinton, save for a brief convention bounce, because he never stopped being a candidate of white right-wing rage in a multicultural center-left nation.” – Bill Scher, senior writer at the Campaign for America’s Future, co-host of the Bloggingheads.tv show “The DMZ” and Politico Magazine contributing editor

“Trump is on track to be the biggest loser in a national campaign since Walter Mondale.” – Katie Packer, a Republican consultant, adjunct professor at George Washington University and founder of the anti-Donald Trump super PAC Our Principles PACKatie Packer, a Republican consultant, adjunct professor at George Washington University and founder of the anti-Donald Trump super PAC Our Principles PAC

One could go on here. And on and on.

But without question the smug sense of elitist moral superiority over those vulgar, common people who supported Trump was unmistakeable. Is it any wonder that, dumbfounded at having so grossly misjudged the election, the elites would do anything other than exactly what they so vehemently accused Trump of being willing to do? Which is to say, not accept the election results.

No. Of course not. As Rush Limbaugh has pointed out, it is a huge mistake to think that this flat-out refusal to accept the election results will simply fade once Trump is sworn in. This is going to be the modus operandi of the Left for the entire Trump term or terms. The subject will change — the underlying theme and tactics will not. Already former Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich is pitching the idea that rich, liberal entertainers like Bruce Springsteen, Jay Z, Madonna and more do a counter-inauguration concert. Presumably to detract from the Trump inauguration and the traditional concerts and balls that have become staples of a modern inauguration.

It never occurs to any of these people that the reason Hillary Clinton is not going to be president of the United States isn’t because of Russian hackers or anything else. Simply put she lost because she — and many of her supporters — were too smug, too elitist, too arrogant and too condescending to voters.

And surprise, surprise those voters did not take kindly to it. (For more from the author of “Smug, Arrogant, Elitist Liberals STILL Refuse to Fathom President Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.