How did it ever become relevant whether the loser accepts the result?
The result should obviously be decided by a non corrupt competent body, oh... never mind.
It is relevant in that the loser is the elected nominee for his party and has many people who look up to him and follow his lead. If the loser accepts his defeat gracefully, the people who look up to him are more likely to accept the results and less likely to cause trouble. It doesn’t matter who decides the results and how non-corrupt they are if a corrupt loser sows doubt in the results and makes his followers think they have been cheated, particularly when the majority of his party joins in instead of ostracizing him for being a liar.
Has there ever been a democrat presidential candidate who ever said he/she wouldn't accept not winning?
This insanity is exclusively something the Republicans say.
But yes I would, reluctantly yes, and I would be sad and pissed that so many would vote for a criminal corrupt malignant narcissist. But I would accept it unless there was clear evidence as in proof of cheating. Not just accusations mind you, proof.
And I'm proud to be an American
Where at least I know I'm free
And I won't forget the men who died
Who gave that right to me
And I'd gladly stand up next to you
And defend Her still today
'Cause there ain't no doubt
I love this land
God Bless the U.S.A.