"If you work in American politics and your boss asks you to defend not accepting results of American election, do the decent thing and quit," Stuart Stevens, strategist for 2012 nominee Mitt Romney tweeted. | M. Scott Mahaskey/POLITICO 2016 Trump couldn't overturn election, but could undermine it With few options for legal challenges, GOP nominee would be forced to contest a 'rigged' election via public opinion.

Donald Trump's claim that he might not accept the results of a "rigged" election — citing the media's alleged collusion with the Clinton campaign and the fact that she was "allowed" to run despite her email controversy — drew shock and condemnation across the political spectrum.

There isn't much Trump could do to overturn even a close, but clear-cut Clinton victory. In most states, he'd have a legal right to demand a recount of a very close election — defined in some states as one within a 0.5 percent margin. And he could sue state officials if he felt they had violated their own procedures.


But a refusal to concede, while rallying his followers through social media, would violate a deeply ingrained tradition of candidates peacefully accepting election results, which most people in politics consider a sacred affirmation of faith in the American system.

Many of those people are Republicans.

"If you work in American politics and your boss asks you to defend not accepting results of American election, do the decent thing and quit," Stuart Stevens, strategist for 2012 nominee Mitt Romney tweeted in some unsolicited advice to the Trump staff.

Trump's former rival for the 2016 nomination, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, said in a statement: "Like most Americans, I have confidence in our democracy and election system. During this debate Mr. Trump is doing the party and the country a disservice by continuing to suggest the outcome of this election is out of his hands and 'rigged' against him. If he loses, it will not be because the system is 'rigged,' but because he failed as a candidate."

And even some Trump loyalists were upset.

"He should have said he would accept the results of the election. There is no other option unless we're in a recount again," conservative commentator Laura Ingraham, a frequent Trump defender, said on Twitter.

When disputes over presidential elections have arisen in recent history, those on the losing end of such fights have conceded, although sometimes after a delay.

In 1960, Democrat John Kennedy's victory over Republican Richard Nixon was by a tally of only 113,000 votes out of roughly 68 million cast. There were allegations of fraud in 11 states, with particular focus on Illinois and Texas. Nixon ultimately decided not to contest the results, although some in the GOP establishment pushed him to do so.

The 2000 election did provoke a legal fight focused on whether Florida had properly tallied ballots cast for either the Democrat Vice President Al Gore or the GOP nominee George W. Bush, particularly in counties where voting procedures caused some confusion. The dispute wound up at the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 in Bush's favor on December 12.

Gore decided to drop out of the race that same day, but did not formally announce his decision until the following evening. A spokeswoman for Gore declined to comment on Trump's debate remarks.

Some Democrats insisted that despite the legal fight, no prominent members of the party tried to undermine the credibility of the 2000 election once the court decision was delivered.

“I am not aware that any serious Democrat pushed the envelope [in 2000] as much as Trump did tonight,” said Jim Manley, a longtime Democratic operative and former spokesman for Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada. "It wasn't funny ...This is dangerous — really third-world dictator stuff.”

Some historians and political analysts said a refusal to accept the election results would be unprecedented.

“Trump’s statement that he might decide not to do so is entirely unprecedented, and potentially very dangerous," said Fairleigh Dickinson University political science professor Dan Cassino. "After the 2012 election, Trump went on a tweetstorm calling for a revolution, and for people to come into the streets: I hate to imagine what he’ll do when he’s on the ballot.”

"By applying the word 'rigged' to everything he doesn’t like, [Trump's] getting himself into a hole and it’s one that has serious consequences," said Douglas Brinkley, a presidential historian at Rice University."One sacred bond we make in America is that we’re the land of free and fair elections. It's because out political process can be so brutal and long, it's important that when it's over, it's over."

Trump's statements in Wednesday's debate were also provocative because of what he cited as evidence for a rigged election — the unsubstantiated charge that there are "millions" of illegitimate voters on the rolls; the entirely subjective claim that the media favored Clinton; and the fact that she wasn't prosecuted for using a private email server while secretary of state.

When asked whether he would or would not protest the election results, Trump said: ""I'll look at it at the time. What I've seen is so bad." Then, he launched into a series of gripes about the process.

Moderator Chris Wallace seemed nearly incredulous, referring to the peaceful transition of power as "one of the prides of this country" and asking the GOP presidential nominee again whether he would abide by the outcome.

Trump refused any firm commitment and seemed instead to make light of the issue.

"I'll tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense, okay?" the real estate mogul said.

The GOP nominee sometimes talks about the possibility of people voting multiple times or of ineligible people voting—things that could be the focus of legal action after the election if the results are close.

But most of the specifics Trump points to as part of his case about a “rigged” election would be difficult to frame as part of any legal challenge.

During the debate Wednesday, he pointed to media bias as part of his litany of claims about a "rigged" system after being asked whether he might protest the outcome.

“The media is so dishonest and so corrupt and the pile on is so amazing….It is so dishonest, and they have poisoned the minds of the voters,” Trump said, articulating a grievance that the courts seem powerless to fix.

Trump also described as part of the corruption of the electoral system the fact that Clinton was still on the ballot, indicating that she should’ve been charged and perhaps convicted on felony charges that would disqualify her from office.

While some former prosecutors like Trump backer Rudy Giuliani have called for Clinton’s prosecution over classified information on her private email server and her statements on the issue, the FBI closed its investigation into Clinton without seeking any charges and removing her from the ballot now is legally a non-starter.

Trump's unwillingness to pledge to accept the election results Wednesday night was particularly striking since several of his key allies have backed away in recent days from his talk that the election results may be wildly unreliable.

In interviews this week, Trump's campaign manager Kellyanne Conway, vice-presidential running mate Gov. Mike Pence and daughter Ivanka all seemed to throw cold water on earlier comments by the GOP nominee about potentially protesting the election.

"We will absolutely accept the results of the election," Pence declared on NBC's "Meet The Press" Sunday, although he continued to warn in some appearances about a need to be vigilant against voter fraud.

"He'll either win or he won't win, and I believe he'll accept the outcome either way,” Ivanka Trump said at a Fortune Magazine event before the debate Wednesday.

After the final Trump-Clinton face-off, Conway initially said Trump would accept the results because he is going to win, then argued that his statements weren't extraordinary because Gore had protested the election results in 2000.

However, she later said Trump would likely concede if he comes up short in the voting on Nov. 8.

"Absent evidence of widespread abuse and irregularities, yes," Conway said on CNN.

That Americans in their partisan corners might not accept the election results isn’t a new thing. More than a quarter of Republicans felt that way about Obama’s 2012 second term victory, and Democrats had a similar take on Bush’s 2004 win.

One risk of Trump's strategy, Cassino said, is that it could cause a political system divided on partisan lines to become nearly paralyzed.

“Any concerns about the health of democracy aside, that makes it harder for the new president to negotiate with the other side, and actually get something done," the professor said. "All of that is without a major party candidate actually telling his supporters that they shouldn’t necessarily accept the results of an election if their side loses."