Trump needs to choose his battles wisely. He isn't.

President-Elect Trump:  The election was completely fair, beyond question, so an audit is ridiculous.    And the election was totally rigged.   

Both, simultaneously.

Trump is angry and tweeting about election fraud.   He is trying to have it both ways.   Even Fox News has noticed and is doing damage control.  

Trump is furious about the recount and vote audit going on in Wisconsin.   Hillary said we should accept that Trump was elected, he said, so an audit is ridiculous and a scam.  Of course the election  was fairly and honestly held and counted, something self-evident and needing no further question.  Most people agree that it is extremely unlikely that his 15,000 vote margin would be changed by anything found in the audit.  There is no evidence of voter fraud or election irregularity.   

Trump apparently lost focus and clarity on the position he was taking.  He appeared to be drawn back into the issue of his legitimacy because of news reports that Hillary Clinton's lead in the popular vote was approaching two million votes.  He can't let that go.

His original response was that he could have won but didn't try because racking up extra votes in a California or Texas or New York and instead focused on the battleground states.  

He could not leave well enough alone.  Now he is raising the argument that in fact he would have won except for all the rampant voter fraud. 

In tweets today he said millions of votes were cast fraudulently thus denying him the popular vote victory.  This is dangerous territory for him.   If the election was rampantly fraudulent then audits of the kind being done by Wisconsin are not ridiculous.  They are reasonable and prudent, there and elsewhere.

Trump: Rampant Voter Fraud

Trump:   Actually, I won the popular vote in a landslide.

Is the election result credible or was there widespread fraud?     Trump wants it both ways, and his campaign statements and tweets argue it angrily in both directions.

When he was a candidate apparently it did not matter..  Voters did not seem to care--or notice--and the media covered stories of this kind by noting this.  But now he is President-elect and the NY Times is now flatly noting in the headline that Trump is making an unfounded claim. 

More significant, even his reliable allies at Fox News noted he wanted it both ways, undermining his own argument.  

"There's been no indication of widespread vote manipulation, illegal voting or hacking that materially affected the outcome one way or the other. It's that very lack of evidence that suggests Trump is likely to prevail in recounts."

There are two long term implications from the event.   First is the press coverage.  The New York Times and even Fox, on their website and on Fox and Friends this Monday morning, both openly acknowledged there was no evidence of the charge Trump was asserting.  They called him out as part of the story themselves, not relying on some other person to quote to say, "Hillary Clinton responded by saying. . . . "  This is brand new for Fox.

The second implication is that Trump is remaining in campaign-fight mode, taking on every perceived slight, every implication that he is not in total triumph.   Trump won the electoral vote.  He is creating an administration.   The only meaningful risk to his legitimate election as president would be if Trump himself managed to bring into question the entire election, calling it full of fraud.  He is now doing this.    Trump's tweets and talk are not going to change the election but it raises and confirms troubling personality traits of Trump, that he must fight every fight and battle every slight no matter its relevance and not matter if it contradicts his earlier position.   He is not a mere candidate now.  He is president elect and will become president.   Trump personally may choose to fight every battle but countries need to be able to choose battles wisely.