The terrible sand people of the terrible sand kingdom of Arizonastan.

The Terrible Sand People of the Terrible Sand Kingdom of Arizonastan have a terrible choice ahead of them in November: elect a sane governor in Katie Hobbs or elect the Queen of Team Coup, election denier Kari Lake.

Anyway, Lake was on CNN’s State of the Union, and this exchange happened:

CNN — 

Arizona Republican Kari Lake would not commit Sunday to accepting the results of her upcoming election for governor if she loses.

“I’m going to win the election, and I will accept that result,” the GOP nominee told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” after being asked three times whether she would accept the election’s outcome. Lake dodged the question the first two times.

“If you lose, will you accept that?” Bash asked, to which Lake replied again: “I’m going to win the election, and I will accept that result.”

Not exactly comforting, now is it?

Or is it? Our pals over at Electoral-Vote have an observation, and it is a good one:

The reticence of Lake, or Mastriano, or any other Republican—from vice associate dogcatcher of East Cupcake to President of the United States—to commit to accepting defeat leaves us with just one question. And that question is: Who cares?

The concession phone call/telegram, coupled with the concession speech, have been a longstanding and chivalrous tradition in American politics, dating back at least 150 years. And it’s a shame that Donald Trump has destroyed this bit of civility, just like he’s destroyed so many other bits of civility. But in the end, a concession has zero official meaning. A candidate can concede zero times, one time, or 50 times, and it doesn’t change anything. If the candidate concedes, and they actually won, then they take office anyhow. If a candidate refuses to concede, and they actually lost, then their opponent takes office anyhow.

It is true that there is no legal requirement to concede, it’s another quaint custom from a bygone era and it has been smashed to smithereens by the short-fingered vulgarian. E-V sees this as another stupid stunt from our failed political press that legitimizes election deniers:

In our view, reporters should just stop asking this question. It implies that the candidate has some voice or some role in deciding whether they won or not, and that their decision to concede defeat (or not) has some importance. This is not a useful message, as it encourages some (and perhaps many) people to think “Well, if my candidate didn’t concede, it must not be officially over.” This is a line of thinking that plays right into the hands of Trump and other election conspiracists.

And that brings us to a very important point: why does CNN (and others) give a platform to cranks? Letting liars lie on “respectable news” (I know it is CNN, but work with me here, folks) is not news, it is propaganda:

Truth be told, if a person can’t behave like a grown-up, and adhere to the basic standards of behavior expected of any candidate for office, we would prefer that legitimate media stop giving them a platform. Interviewing Kari Lake doesn’t make CNN “balanced,” it just makes the outlet a tool in promoting her antidemocratic propaganda. There are plenty of reasonable Republicans out there who could be given that screen time instead.

Our press is badly broken, and it might irreparable. The question is not balance, the question is about defending democracy. One of the two parties we allow ourselves  is speeding down the tracks into fascism, and the other is not. Giving election denier propagandists a mic is enabling election denial.

Do Better, CNN.