Donald Trump has a magic power to change people’s minds. He turned some conservative, free-market folks into industrial planners who agree abortion should go away and think extramarital affairs are no big deal.

Trump has an even more powerful effect on the opposing party: One election, the Democrats laughed off fears of Russia with snarky jokes — the 1980s called, and they want their foreign policy back — and the next election, Russia was the biggest threat to the world. Liberals also switched gears on other issues.

Most importantly, in late 2020, liberals decided that it was bad, actually, to describe your election loss as a coup d’etat, and it was harmful to try and overturn elections.

I’ve written before that flip-flopping is, very often, switching from error to correctness. That’s the case in the whole election-denial thing: Losers of elections should accept the result and stop calling the winners “illegitimate.”

Stacey Abrams never accepted her loss for governor in Georgia, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) stated it simply that if Democrats lose, it was illegitimate.

Hillary Clinton called Trump “an illegitimate president.”

In 2004 and 2016, congressional Democrats pioneered the modern process of objecting groundlessly to the other side’s Electoral College votes.

Again, it’s good that Democrats typically now say that one ought not to try and overturn an election — and that one ought to accept an election loss. It’s too bad that they don’t live up to this new rule consistently.

It is simply not true that the Supreme Court threw the 2000 election to George W. Bush.

We can debate who really won Florida in 2000 based on how you think votes ought to be counted.

We can debate whether the Supreme Court ruled correctly in Bush v. Gore.

But neither of those debates could establish that the court threw the election to Bush. That’s only true in the Democratic mythos articulated by Warren and repeated again and again by their media allies, that Democrats only lose when Republicans steal it.

Some basic facts, which are not up for debate:

For these last two points, take it from the New York Times:

“A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year’s presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward. Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court’s order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

These three points together don’t prove Bush v. Gore was correctly decided, but they do make it utterly false to claim the Supreme Court threw the election to Bush.