How Worrying Are Pro-Trump Gubernatorial Candidates Running on Rigged Election Claims?

It may not be a successful strategy in general elections, but it's still deeply unnerving.


David Perdue cut straight to the chase.

"First off, let me be very clear tonight: The election in 2020 was rigged and stolen," Perdue said at the beginning of his opening statement during a Republican gubernatorial debate on Sunday night.

It wasn't just a cheap applause line for the MAGA crowd. It was something more like a thesis statement for Perdue's campaign. Perdue, a former Republican senator who lost his bid for reelection in 2020, is now running against incumbent Republican Gov. Brian Kemp in the GOP gubernatorial primary in Georgia. And in Perdue's telling, everything from rising gas prices to illegal immigration and even the U.S. coming "to the brink of war" over Russia's invasion of Ukraine were the result of Kemp allowing "radical Democrats to steal our election." Something that he says Kemp was responsible for aiding and abetting.

Kemp, of course, was one of the Republican officials who blocked then-President Donald Trump's attempt to get state legislatures and governors to overturn the results of the 2020 election. Two weeks after the election, as state officials finalized the results showing that Joe Biden won by about 12,000 votes, Kemp called for tightening voter ID laws in Georgia and making other technical changes in how the state conducts future elections. But he also certified the result of the 2020 election, against Trump's wishes.

Since then, he's been a target for Trump, who vowed not long after the 2020 election to boot Kemp from office. Trump has helped Perdue fundraise and has even chipped in $500,000 of his own campaign cash to Perdue's campaign.

Perdue has put Trump's election grievances front and center in his campaign. His campaign website splashes a big picture of a smiling Perdue and grinning Trump, reminding voters that Perdue is "the only Trump-endorsed candidate for governor." The video that plays on the front page isn't a message from Perdue about his campaign or the issues vital to Georgians—it's a 73-second tirade by Trump in which he condemns Kemp for "letting us down."

Two years after Trump became the first Republican to lose Georgia since 1992, Perdue is staking his claim to the governorship on the hope that Republican voters are motivated primarily by the former president's delusions and rage.

But Georgia is hardly the only swing state where this year's Republican gubernatorial elections are focused on Trump. In Pennsylvania and Arizona, too, Trump-backed candidates who say they believe the 2020 election was stolen are running at or near the top of the polls. If they're successful, those governors might create major complications for the next presidential election—as they would be in a position to do some of what Kemp, and others, refused to do in 2020: decertify results that go against the Republican nominee.

For now, though, the best way to view these GOP primaries is as a test case for the staying power of Trump's election grievances. Is this really how Republican voters want to define their party going forward: as little more than a tool for for Trump's self-serving lies about the 2020 election? These three races will provide an answer—and it might not be one Trump likes, as his preferred candidates are facing difficult paths to winning in November. Perhaps it's too simple of an explanation, but the average Republican voter is likely not as motivated by Trump's grievances as Trump himself.

Still, it's worth asking how worried the country should be about this wave of Republican candidates centering their candidacy for high office on a message of denying the legitimacy of the 2020 election. There's no evidence yet that it is a successful strategy in the primaries and it seems likely to be a political liability in the general election. Yet it remains unnerving that so many high-profile Republicans—in Perdue's case, even a former U.S. senator—have decided that the path to political success on the political right requires rallying around a blatant falsehood constructed to serve the political ambitions of a single man.

And it is a falsehood. Audits and recounts in swing state after swing state failed to turn up evidence of a stolen election—one much-ballyhooed audit conducted by Arizona Republicans actually found that Biden won by a slightly larger margin than originally thought. Dozens of lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign or its supporters alleging voter fraud and anti-Trump conspiracies collapsed in court. The myth of the stolen election lives on as a way to raise money and as a way to snare the endorsement of the most popular man in conservative politics.

The gubernatorial candidate who can claim to have risked the most in support of Trump is probably Pennsylvania state Sen. Doug Mastriano (R–Fayetteville), who attended the January 6, 2021, election protest in Washington, D.C., that devolved into a riot at the U.S. Capitol. Mastriano has claimed that he did not participate in the riot and walked away from the scene once violence started—but photos and videos from the scene show Mastriano beyond police barricades outside the Capitol (no evidence has emerged showing that he entered the building itself). He's been subpoenaed by the congressional committee investigating the riot.

Back in Pennsylvania, Mastriano has spearheaded a different sort of investigation. He's running a legislative audit of the 2020 election results that he says will uncover evidence of widespread voter fraud.

By the time the congressional investigation is finished, he might be governor of a crucial swing state. Polls show Mastriano running neck-and-neck with Lou Barletta, the former mayor of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, who rose to prominence via political stunts like making English the town's official language and trying to ban illegal immigrants from working there.

Fittingly, the race also includes state Senate President Pro Tempore Jake Corman (R–Centre) who played the role of Pennsylvania's Brian Kemp in 2020. When Trump's allies were pressuring top Republicans in state governments to overturn results in a handful of close states, including Pennsylvania, Corman backed a legislative audit of the vote tallies but refused to take more radical steps like appointing an alternative slate of electors to represent Pennsylvania at the Electoral College. Corman is trailing badly in the polls.

In Arizona, incumbent Gov. Doug Ducey memorably sent Trump to voicemail and (like Kemp) dutifully certified the election results showing Biden's win in the state in 2020. But he's term-limited and can't run again. Leading the pack to be his replacement is former television news anchor and political neophyte Kari Lake, who has made it very clear where she stands.

Citing "serious irregularities and problems with the election," Lake told One America News (OAN) last year, "I would not have certified it."

Lake has gone further than simply second-guessing Ducey. Early on, her campaign loudly proclaimed that she would seek to retroactively decertify the 2020 results if an audit showed that Trump had actually won the state. After that audit was completed and revealed that Biden had, in fact, prevailed in Arizona, she called for decertifying the results anyway.

In a nutshell, this is the worry of liberals, anti-Trump conservatives, and anyone else harboring concerns about rising authoritarianism on the political right: What if this campaign rhetoric translates into official behavior. What happens if elected Republicans begin ignoring their oaths of office and the rule of law to declare illegitimate any election the GOP loses?

As the country learned in 2020, presidential elections aren't a single national contest. Instead, the race for the White House is 51 separate contests (D.C. gets to cast electoral votes too)in which the winner must be certified by a series of top-ranking officials. Without people like Kemp and Ducey to ensure that legitimate electoral outcomes are certified, the argument goes, the outcome could be rigged long before the official counting of the electoral votes in Congress.

Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania's gubernatorial races are rated as "toss-ups" right now. That means characters like Lake, Perdue, and Mastriano will have a decent shot at being elected in the fall (and helped by a political environment that's shaping up to be favorable to Republicans across the board) if they can win their respective GOP primaries during the spring and summer. And this trend goes beyond those three. In Wisconsin, Republican gubernatorial hopeful Rebecca Kleefisch said this week that she believes the 2020 election was "rigged." According to Politico, some 57 participants in the January 6 protest are running for office this year—though mostly for lower-level posts.

But, there's an alternative way to read what's happening here: Maybe it's just politics. Deeply cynical politics, to be sure, but these are politicians, after all. They'll say whatever they think gives them the best chance at getting elected—and polls say the majority of Republican voters believe, despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, that Biden's victory was not legitimate. So that's what the pols are saying.

To be sure, cynically refusing to accept election results for future political gain is not unique to Trump or to Republicans. Hillary Clinton has repeatedly called into question the legitimacy of Trump's 2016 victory. Stacey Abrams, who lost to Kemp in Georgia's 2018 gubernatorial election and is the presumptive Democratic nominee for the same post this year, claimed the 2018 result was not "right, true or proper" and famously refused to concede. Biden has gone a step further and declared that future contests should be viewed as illegitimate if Congress does not adopt Democrats' proposed election reforms—though the White House later walked back that claim.

For Republicans, though, it's not just about following the polls or playing politics. Trump really wants Kemp gone, remember? Any challenger would be foolish not to try to take advantage of the former president's animus towards the current governor—which is great for fundraising if nothing else. In Pennsylvania and Arizona, candidates who would probably be well beyond the fringes in a more typical primary season are effectively trying to ride Trump's coattails (and his grievances), even in a year where Trump's not actually on the ballot.

In an age when the power of political endorsements has faded significantly, Trump seems to be the exception to the rule. His endorsement isn't a sure bet—in fact, the track record is far from terrific—but it's a way to tap into an angry and energized portion of the Republican electorate.

Are Lake, Mastriano, and Perdue true believers or cynical opportunists? There is, unfortunately, no way to know for sure at this stage. Thankfully, that's not actually the most important question. Whether sincere or not, they have built their campaigns around ideas that are dangerous and anti-democratic.

And it might not pay off. In Georgia, Perdue is trailing badly in the polls. Mastriano, despite being a co-front-runner in Pennsylvania, will likely struggle to get more than 30 percent of the votein a closed Republican primary.

Pennsylvania does not allow independents to participate in primary elections. If Mastriano wins, it will be with the backing of less than a third of the voters in his own party. Perhaps, like Trump, he can parlay that into a general election win. But he seems likely to alienate many moderate Republicans who are crucial to winning statewide elections in Pennsylvania.

Lake seems to have the clearest primary path, but the leading Democratic candidate has pulled even with her in some head-to-head polls. (For the sake of comparison, Ducey won the state by more than 14 points in 2018.)

This Republican primary season will test the limits and staying power of Trump's election grievances. It's far from clear whether the strategy of continuing to contest the last election is a winning one in Republican primaries—and it seems more like to be a liability in November.

One thing that is clear: When candidates like Perdue stand on a debate stage and tell outright lies to prospective voters, the only thing they accomplish is demonstrating they're unfit for office.

NEXT: Florida, Tennessee Ban Ranked-Choice Voting Despite Citizen Support

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Reason decides to run this story on the same day Biden announces a literal Ministry of Truth is being formed at DHS. This is the third story today bashing Republicans and not yet a single story about the dystopian move by Biden to officially control the media narrative by the government. Hmmm?

    1. but it's still deeply unnerving.

      Why exactly? So what if a hardcore base of Rs think the 2020 results are fish? Who cares? Biden was declared winner and is still in office so what's the big deal?

      for FOUR years and counting Hillary has been proclaiming the 2016 was 'stolen' by the Russians. No one fucking cares except CNN analysts.

      1. I still can't believe Reason hasn't even mentioned Biden's announcement today about the new department of misinformation in the DHS. This should have every single libertarian and libertarian learners completely up in fucking arms. This is the most authoritarian thing yet done by either party.

        1. Instead we get Republican bashing stories.

          1. There will be many more the worse things get for Dems.

            1. They’re already so shrill and violent. I cringe to think how much worse they’ll get right before…. and after… the midterms. They might not some more Rittenhousing to teach them their place. They clearly didn’t learn from the first one.

      2. for FOUR years and counting Hillary has been proclaiming the 2016 was 'stolen' by the Russians. No one fucking cares except CNN analysts.

        Perhaps the reason the "Russia backed Trump in 2016" claims are not treated the same in the press as the "2020 was stolen" claims is that they are not actually equivalent. For example, how many lawsuits did Hillary or her supporters file with "fire hoses" of affidavits claiming fraud trying to prevent hundreds of thousands of Trump votes from being counted or his electors from being certified in 2016? How many audits did Democrats hand to partisan outfits with no prior expertise in auditing elections to look at the 2016 results? How many Democrats and other Hillary supporters violently pushed past police lines at the Capitol, climbing over things, breaking windows, hitting police with flagpoles and stun guns, while chanting "Hang Joe Biden" because he didn't refuse to read off the Electoral Votes for Trump?

        It isn't that some Republican voters think that the election results are "fish". It is that a lot of Republican voters and their preferred candidates won't accept anything as a final word on the election results other than it being "stolen". They have shown no sign that any analysis or audit that doesn't say what they want to hear would ever be considered valid. Anyone that says that they've looked at the evidence for fraud and found it lacking is in on the conspiracy, in their minds.

        That isn't how you investigate crimes, and election fraud is a crime. When the guilt of a suspect is simply assumed and all investigations must say so or be doubted, then it is not following the evidence, justice, law and order, or election security that is desired, but a validation that their side deserved the power. It is no longer about government having the consent of the governed in order to legitimately wield power. It is only about making sure that is their side that has the power.

        1. Anything you read from this steaming pile of lefty shit ought to be tempered by the asshole condoning murder as a preventative in case the murder victim might, at some time in the future, have done something to which the asshole might object:

          February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
          “How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”

          Yep the assholish pile of shit actually posted that and has yet to retract it.
          Fuck you with a telephone pole.

          1. I don't know what history you have to discount T20's posts and all the condoning murder stuff, but his comparison of Hillary's vs. Trump's stolen election claims seems dead on to me. No one took Clinton's claims seriously enough to take any action or campaign on the issue, which is way different from what happened with Trump, especially the effort to not certify the election.

            1. Clinton didn’t pursue the claims because she didn’t think she could win. Maybe she didn’t think she had a case? Maybe the accusation is more powerful than proving it just wasn’t so.

              Maybe Hillary cheated and audits and investigations would open and destroy the “biggest and most diverse fraud organization in history.”

              It’s not as convincing as you think it is.

              1. Clinton didn’t pursue the claims because she didn’t think she could win. Maybe she didn’t think she had a case? Maybe the accusation is more powerful than proving it just wasn’t so.

                What claims were there to pursue legally? Even if its strongest form, the argument is that Russia's interference was about propaganda and misinformation, not fraudulent votes. I think there is some evidence that they tried to hack some local and state election databases, but they weren't successful and wouldn't have been able to change any votes or vote counts if they had been. Correct me if I'm wrong on that, please.

                And, of course, Clinton actually conceded the election by the next morning, iirc.

                Maybe Hillary cheated and audits and investigations would open and destroy the “biggest and most diverse fraud organization in history.”

                Well, that is just pure conspiratorial speculation. Election results go through standard sets of audits every time. The kinds of audits that Republicans have been clamoring for are simply larger in the number of ballots and jurisdictions examined. But machines are always checked, hand counts checked against machine totals, examinations of rejected ballots, etc., and this is always done at least on a random sample of precincts or batches of ballots or similar subsets of the total. If problems are discovered, then they can expand the audit wider.

                And your quote is hilariously taken out of context and was the kind of 'gaffe' that Uncle Joe was famous for before he got old, anyway. He was describing the legal teams his campaign had organized intending to protect voting rights from disingenuous legal challenges and rule changes made in the name of fighting voter fraud.

                Maybe you don't recall the efforts in Texas. Such as demanding that over 100,000 votes cast in Harris County (Houston) be thrown out because the voters had stayed in their cars while driving through temporary structures. Of course, Harris County had set up that plan and announced it in June, but the state GOP didn't sue over it until after thousands of people had used it. This was, naturally, the main reason the judge ruled against them. Seems to me that a legal team set up to fight that kind of bullshit is doing the work of protecting election integrity, not damaging it.

            2. "No one took Clinton's claims seriously enough to take any action or campaign on the issue, which is way different from what happened with Trump, especially the effort to not certify the election."

              Democrats filed exactly the same sort of legal challenges to Trump electors that the Jan. 6 protestors wanted applied to Biden's.

              And the FBI and Robert Mueller seemed to take Clinton's claims seriously enough to take action.

              1. Democrats filed exactly the same sort of legal challenges to Trump electors that the Jan. 6 protestors wanted applied to Biden's.

                How many Democrats in Congress objected to the certification of Trump's electors? Did Hillary express support for those objections? Did she and other Democrats encourage thousands of supporters to march on the Capitol to "fight like hell" or they "wouldn't have a country anymore" in an effort to at least pressure more members of Congress to join them, even if they didn't have the intention of actually stopping the certification through violence and intimidation?

                The false equivalences you people keep pushing are plainly false. You are only fooling yourselves and each other when you keep it up.

                1. Here, you can count for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP4hzhxFE4g

                  1. Yes. The point of my question was whether Paulpemb knew the answer and was really trying to equate 7 Democrats from the House (none from the Senate) stating objections compared to 121 House Republicans and 6 Senate Republicans. That no Senate Democrats joined, in writing, the objections of any of those 7 House Democrats, meant that then-VP Joe Biden was correct to reject those efforts, repeatedly saying and banging the gavel, "there is no debate." Also note that the numbers would have been higher among Republicans objecting had the mob not pushed into the Capitol. Many that had indicated their intention to object simply changed their minds after that violent display.

                    We'll never know if Democrats would today still be saying the same things about 2016 that they did then and continue to say, if history had been different and mobs of Democratic Party voters angry that Trump won had gotten as violent as Trump's supporters did on Jan. 6, 2021. But we can see from the history that, if anything, the violence of Jan. 6, 2021 has pushed some Trump supporters even deeper into conspiracy land. Some continue to claim that it was a 'mostly peaceful' protest, that it was a 'false flag' set up by the FBI, that they were like 'tourists' just milling about taking pictures, and so on. Most of the Republicans in Congress that expressed anger at Trump and those in the mob and seemed livid at the attack in the days immediately afterward would soon completely change their tune once it was clear that Trump's base was going to stick with him and punish anyone that dared to blame him for those events.

                    Again, the facts show your false equivalence to be false.

                    1. We'll never know if Democrats would today still be saying the same things about 2016 that they did then and continue to say, if history had been different and mobs of Democratic Party voters angry that Trump won had gotten as violent as Trump's supporters did on Jan. 6, 2021

                      We'll never know? Democrats are STILL denying the legitimacy of the 2000 and 2004 elections--never mind 2016.

                      And Democrats DIDN'T get as violent as Republicans when they protested Trump's election. They got MUCH MORE violent--and started being so right after the el.ection--long BEFORE the certification.

                      They REPEATEDLY burned DC during his term--starting on the first day.

              2. Thanks! I was not aware of this and appreciate your post. I have some reading to do.

            3. “No one took Clinton's claims seriously enough to take any action…”

              You know, except Congressional Democrats and the DOJ and the media and the IC.

              Goddamn son.

              1. Ok. Solid point. But they stopped short of trying to stop certifion of the election so... IDK, 1 step away from trying to implement a dictatorship? Playing the long game I suppose.

    2. Cleanest election ever.

      1. Where is Stacy Abrams now? Isn't she the legitimate governor of Georgia?

        1. Guest starring on Star Trek Discovery as President of the World. Also, is it just me or is every third character on STD some member of the rainbow flag?

          1. it's not just you and it's not just STD. Every couple is mixed, every segment of the rainbow is on display, and everything that is not indicative of real life is treated as routine. All of these things exist, of course, but they're not the majority of society.

            1. Strange New Worlds better not be like this, or I’m done. Which means bye bye Paramount+ subscription.

          2. Same with every Netflix Original, unless documentary.

          3. It’s gotten really bad, so hamfisted and banal.

          4. STD.... Can't believe I didn't get that acronym until now. No wonder it's the worst trek yet.

            1. WTF is Florida's official motto now. Welcome to Florida.

              1. "In God we trust"

                1. Even aside from the Establishment Clause violation of having "In God We Trust" as the state motto, what bothers me about it is this - People don't actually trust God when they appeal to their religion as a source of ethics, morality, or other cultural norms. They are trusting the people claiming to speak for God.

                  We have seen politicians that will lie, get caught on tape having lied, and then suffer no political consequences for having lied. Why trust them to tell us what God wants?

          5. STD sucks....cultural appropriation big time. You need real men commanding a Star Ship...Kirk was a stud..no way around it...that is what Star Trek was about..a swashbuckling Captain, his good friends (the doctor and cerebral XO) and hot looking woman. And classic Greek and Shakeparian plots. Screw some fat cow pretending they are captain or president or what not..Star Trek wasn't for wokes..it was dripping with Testosterone for a reason. Tech, Chicks, and fighting...in a moral Western Civ cause.

        2. No wonder the federation is in such terrible shape on that show.

      2. No widespread corruption.

        1. mostly peaceful rigging.

    3. It's Reason's rear-guard left authoritarianism. While they say "pox on both their houses", they believe that Dems are inherently good people who mean well, and the GOP is full of nascent theocrats who hate freedom.

      1. The GOP is considered evil, yet held to a higher moral standard.

        It’s weird.

        1. Held to a higher moral standard by democrats, who have no morality whatsoever. Everything is situational ethics, based on advancing The Narrative. It’s the perfect place for a sociopathic narcissist like Tony and the progpedo gang here.

          The irony is palpable.

    4. I’ve said this many times, and will continue to say it: Reason took a stance almost immediately after the election that there was no fraud. It doesn’t matter how much evidence is presented otherwise, they will ignore it.

      Short of Joe Biden coming out and admitting that he had the greatest election fraud organization in history…oh wait, Joe Biden admitted he had the greatest election fraud organization in history. So yeah, Reason will never, ever, admit their was fraud in this election.

      1. It gets better, Psaki stated today in her press conference that the new board of disinformation will be monitoring and policing election disinformation (and COVID disinformation).

      2. "Reason took a stance almost immediately after the election that there was no fraud."

        As opposed to Trump and the Republicans that patiently waited for the investigations to conclude before concluding fraud while open-mindedly accepting all the evidence against fraud?

        1. Reason is not a political party, they are a publication that’s supposed to support “Free Minds”. They are not a political party in opposition to Republicans. Your comment supports that they are acting like that.

          1. "Reason is not a political party, they are a publication that’s supposed to support “Free Minds”."

            OK Good point.

            1. Very good point; are they open to false advertising claims?

    5. Any reasonable person who objectively looks at the data already knows the 2020 election was blatantly stolen. It's obvious ! Those involved in the cover up or try to silence the truth are on the losing side. Everyone should want fair, transparent election process and results.

    6. You beat me to it. The government does something that, if allowed to proceed, will require the forced removal of said regime, and this is what. Lehman is worried about? Boehm is one of the biggest piece’s of shit I’ve ever seen. A nearly literal semi sentient mass of excrement.

    7. Is everyone finally ready to get rid of the democrats?

  2. Ohhh bohem back telling us to worry about the big bad Republicans while the dems are still holding political prisoners, pushing socialism, and establishing a ministry of truth.

    Bohem you are an evil retard. You deserve every bad thing that happens to you.

  3. Every time I read "rigged election claims" I keep thinking we're talking about 2016-2020 and Russian bots on Facebook.

    I need to learn that those rigged election claims are valid, based in fact and coming from reasonable, thoughtful people.

    1. Impeachment worthy even.

    2. I am fairly certain that 70% of (D) voters asked, and I forget the poll, still believe in the 2016 Russia collusion lie. And morbidly obese stacey abrams appears w/ the title 'GA governor' rather frequently. There are some folks in the GOP who are outspoken about the 2020 election, but so far, not a gubernatorial or presidential candidate. Boehm's one paragraph about abram's lying doesn't make for objective covering on this story, but it does continue to demonstrate how the writers' personal politics impact what is covered, and how.

  4. Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania's gubernatorial races are rated as "toss-ups" right now.

    Oh man, David Perdue must really be doing well in the polls if the race is a toss-up against an incumbent governor from his own party.

    And it might not pay off. In Georgia, Perdue is trailing badly in the polls.

    Oh. You mean he's polling down 15 points?

    1. What's weird about Georgia is that there's not a Democrat willing to run against Abrams, who has already lost the governor's race once. Democrats just feel like she's owned the governorship and nobody can run against her. There's actually a legitimate primary challenge for the sitting governor, which is quite rare, and it's very rare when Kemp has been overall great for conservatives. He opened up his state very early after COVID, he sued cities to stop them from issuing mask mandates, he got that new voting bill passed.

      1. The Democrats' issue in Georgia is that Kemp ran the election while running for office, an egregious conflict of interest. It says something that Kemp looks good against his GOP opponents.

        1. So you're saying the election was rigged or stolen? Sounds a little insurrectiony to me.

        2. The Democrats problem is figuring out how to turn Georgia into another one party state like California, Oregon and Washington state.

        3. The Democrats' issue in Georgia is that Kemp ran the election while running for office, an egregious conflict of interest

          It was literally never a conflict of interest for any Secretary of State prior to 2016, including when Democrats held the office. Nobody brought it up any gubernatorial election. Abrams' whole platform is about insinuation, race grievance's, and blaming the institution, so she made a big cry about voter suppression.

          The secretaries of state in Georgia frequently run for governor. Given that they have basically zero control over the actual certification and administration of vote-tallying, which is done at the county level, literally nobody thought it was an issue until Abrams played the race card.

          1. I kinda thought it would turn out to be something like this, but as I am not familiar with Georgia election laws and traditions, didn't want to say anything. Thanks for the information.

            1. Also, Stacy Abrams is in bed with big media in a lot of ways. Paramount made her the future President of Earth on Star Trek Discovery. Free publicity for a candidate they support, exposing her to an audience that otherwise might never have seen her. Which, yes, they're free to do, I just find the whole thing very sleazy.

              1. I just don't get the infatuation with Fat Stacy. There is nothing about her that inspires anything positive. She's black. She's a female. That's it. In Dem circles, that's apparently enough but damn, you'd think there might be a somewhat qualified black woman to run if those are the criteria in place.

                1. We don’t want no Oreos.

              2. Yeah just watched that episode. I'm a trekkie but I have got to admit the newest trek series are just not that good.

    2. And one presidential candidate was leading by 400,000 votes in Pennsylvania on election night, but the race was too close to call because apparently the networks were confident that the mail-in ballots would break blue to about the same degree as they did in California, even though no similar distribution was seen in other battleground states.

    3. The Reason wokes always bad mouth Italian American politicians..always "authoritarian" bullshit. Getting sick of some cosmo woke wimp doing what NYC Libs in the media always do..badmouth Italians. And it always comes from the same folks.

      1. And just so we're all clear Psaki said today that part of the job of this board of information will be dealing with is election disinformation. Doesn't sound at all like that could be totalitarian at all.

        1. It’s time to get rid of the democrats. It’s either that or we become a Marxist totalitarian state. I favor getting rid of the democrats. The soft headed fools can stay if they go crawl back under their rocks. The rest have to go.

          Marxism must be extinguished.

      2. fuhggeddaboudit.

  5. That Republicans are putting at the center of their already thin platform a lie that threatens the foundation of our democracy? Very.

    1. Run along and tell herr Goebell, maybe with his new ministry of truth you can get your wish of eternal uniparty control.

    2. Also, based on the past decade and everything the media and the left has stated and got wrong, we can assume if you label it a lie, it's most likely the God's Honest Truth.

    3. CNN and NPR "journalists" are STILL claiming the 2016 election was rigged by Putin.

      1. and already claiming the 2024 election is rigged.

        1. As if any of us will see another national election in this country that will be peaceful


          1. If democrats have chosen their complete destruction, then so be it. They are not needed, or wanted. Their end will be a blessing.

    4. Remember when leftists had semi-intelligent political positions and didn't have to keep resorting to gaslighting, hyperbole, and straight lies?

      Pepperidge Farm remembers.

      1. Remember when Reason had Libertarian political positions and didn't have to keep resorting to gaslighting, hyperbole, and straight lies to attack Republicans on behalf of Democrats?

    5. Over 70% of Biden supporters think Russia changed the 2016 election.

      That is not a problem for Molly here.

      1. Hey Damiksec, damiskec, and damikesc, and ALL of your other socks…
        How is your totalitarian scheme to FORCE people to buy Reason magazines coming along?

        Free speech (freedom from “Cancel Culture”) comes from Facebook, Twitter, Tik-Tok, and Google, right? THAT is why we need to pass laws to prohibit these DANGEROUS companies (which, ugh!, the BASTARDS, put profits above people!)!!! We must pass new laws to retract “Section 230” and FORCE the evil corporations to provide us all (EXCEPT for my political enemies, of course!) with a “UBIFS”, a Universal Basic Income of Free Speech!

        So leftist “false flag” commenters will inundate Reason-dot-com with shitloads of PROTECTED racist comments, and then pissed-off readers and advertisers and buyers (of Reason magazine) will all BOYCOTT Reason! And right-wing idiots like Damikesc will then FORCE people to support Reason, so as to nullify the attempts at boycotts! THAT is your ultimate authoritarian “fix” here!!!

        “Now, to “protect” Reason from this meddling here, are we going to REQUIRE readers and advertisers to support Reason, to protect Reason from boycotts?”
        Yup. Basically. Sounds rough. (Quote damikesc)


        See https://reason.com/2020/06/24/the-new-censors/

        1. Fuck off Sqrlsy, you demented neo-Nazi pedophile apologist.

          You're a troll, a compulsive liar and an all around evil old fuck who shills for the very totalitarians you claim to oppose. You're the utterly disgusting.

          1. Judgmental self-righteous asshole describes you to a "T"!

            You have "human dysphoria"... You're an evil inhumane being stuck in a human body! Try to LOVE being a humane human, for once!

            Mammary-Necrophilia-Fuhrer has ZERO balance… She would PUNISH- PUNISH- PUNISH the ones who fart too loudly, the same as the ones who fire-bomb our houses in the middle of the night!

            All agonist-muscle, and no antagonist-muscle, You are, Oh Perfect Imbalanced One… All gas pedal, and no brake! And one of these days, You will have earned Your Perfect Self a Perfect Collision of Agony!

            1. What is your opinion of the Abraham Accords?

          2. I do not normally mention my block list, but he was my first.

            1. Blockhead has a block list, of all people who call His Perfect Lies, 'cause He has a Perfect Ego!

              This (above damikesc quote) is a gem of the damnedest dumbness of damikesc! Like MANY “perfect in their own minds” asshole authoritarians around here, he will NEVER take back ANY of the stupidest and most evil things that he has written! I have more of those on file… I deploy them to warn other readers to NOT bother to try and reason with the most utterly unreasonable of the nit-wit twits here!

              You’re a fucking authoritarian asshole who can NEVER find the humility to take back the utter, complete asshole things that you’ve said! WHEN are you going to grow up?

              Humility is a MUCH underappreciated virtue! See this: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/12/27/army-has-introduced-new-leadership-value-heres-why-it-matters.html Even in a supposedly “proud” profession, wise leaders treasure humility!

      2. Or Bohem it would seem.

    6. Take it back Corn Pop...take it back. You won by 400Million votes man

  6. If democrats really did steal the election, do you expect the authors of Russiagate hysteria and scrubbing Biden’s scandal laptop to tell you about it?

    1. I originally thought the stolen election line was mostly bullshit, but the louder the media insists it never happened, and mounting evidence that some really shady things (such as illegal ballot harvesting in swing states) come to light I am starting to question my original assumption. Based upon the track record of the media for the last decade I am really starting to wonder if Trump may not be right.

      1. ^ this.

      2. ^ oh and also the screaming bloody murder over the attempts to fortify the election integrity in those states. They want a mail in, no verification, ID-less free for all and anything less is "racism" and "conspiracy" Wtf

        1. I don't get that. Even if they impliment voter ID they can just get 1 ID and let all the minority share. All black people look alike right?

          1. Molly sure as fuck can’t tell the difference.

            1. Molly probably needs a cheat sheet to remember to keep breathing.

              1. To be clear, that wasn’t a dig at her intelligence (it’s readily apparent it’s lacking). That was a dig at her being a racist piece of shit.

      3. And they keep shouting THE AUDIT SHOWED BIDEN WON EVEN BIGGER! When that's not really what the audit demonstrated, it was just the recount associated with it, ignoring the actual problems found with the audit. The audit didn't do a final tally when discounting all the problem ballot issues it found, it only pointed out massive errors with out of state voters, people voting at the wrong precinct, some double voters, and some dead voters.

        1. Massive errors with out of state voters, people voting at the wrong precinct, some double voters, and some dead voters, sufficient to have changed the results.
          Plus, Dinesh Dsouza's 2000 Mules movie, with video and technical tracking evidence of thousands of ballots, at a time, being stuffed into drop boxes.
          And the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop, that a game-changing number of Biden voters said would have changed the way the would have voted, if they had known.
          But, yeah, to Eric Boehm-movement, all lies.

          1. The kicking the green party off the ballot in swing states

        2. "it was just the recount associated with it"

          That's one of the big lies the Democrats and their media acolytes have been pushing hard. That a recount is the same thing as an audit.

  7. one much-ballyhooed audit conducted by Arizona Republicans actually found that Biden won by a slightly larger margin than originally thought.

    Yes, that is what the RECOUNT associated with the audit showed. But the recount wasn't assessing the validity of those ballots, and the audit showed many critical issues that affected the tally of votes, including thousands of people who's current addresses were out of state who cast ballots in the Arizona election. People on the left love to talk about the recount and ignore literally every issue that came up in the audit.

    1. Boehm ignored the 90% of the report not about the recount. It is amazing. But that's what twitter and headlines said. Apparently only the recount happened, nothing else in the report.

  8. To be honest, at this point, anything less than a total embarrassing slaughter of the Dems this year will be worrying to me.

    1. I wouldn't lose sleep over it. The Dems are going to get crushed in the midterms.

      1. Good.

      2. Unless they cheat. Again.

        1. ^This.
          If they don't cancel them entirely because of Covid 2.0 or Russia, watch everyone pretend to be amazed that miraculously the Democrats only lose a seat or two at most, and squeaked by in most districts.

        2. That will be the end of them. If it’s a choice between their rigged elections along with their ministry of truth, or wiping them all out, the choice is simple.

        3. Like have a brand new government agency destroy every word, comment, or thought that is in any way in opposition to them?

  9. The 2020 election WAS rigged.

    There's no one who doesn't know that.

    ESPECIALLY the Democrats and the left.

    That's why they're shitting the bed now.

    They will lose at the ballot box or they will lose on the battlefield--either way, the time of the collectivist has ended.

    1. I wish I shared your optimism.

      1. It's not optimism.

        The conflict is coming.

        1. Maybe. There are still people who think Fauci is a diety and people with no clue what the Reset is all about, the same people who buy shit like "inflation is Putin's fault." You can't reason with folks like that.

          1. Of course. You absolutely cannot reason with them.
            But you can shoot them, and they are the crazies that are scared shitless about guns, and so have never touched one.

            1. What is wrong with you? There is nothing happening in America that justifies killing people or trying to start a civil war.

              You are a sick, sick person.

              1. Bullshit, a literal Government Board of Disinformation ran by a political hack. That is just Orwellian bullshit. Yeah, I'm starting to think I need more ammo.

              2. This is all on you. Your party needs to stand down and abandon it’s totalitarian agenda. If your kind leave Americans alone, you will be allowed to live.

                It’s our freedom, or your lives. Your choice.

              3. And you're a stupid fuck.

          2. None of those people can fight their way out of a wet paper sack. Defeats in the courts and the ballot box are the best thing that can possibly happen to the Marxist democrats. Anything else involves things getting real fucking bad for them.

    2. https://www.thedailybeast.com/mypillow-guy-mike-lindell-punts-timeline-for-trump-retaking-power-as-august-conspiracy-theories-get-wackier
      MyPillow Guy Punts Timeline for Trump Retaking Power as Conspiracy Theories Get Wackier


      The Lord Trump didn’t return to us as scheduled, but the Second Coming is now re-scheduled. You can TRUST us THIS time, for sure!

      The Lord Trump DID return to us faithful ones, but He did it in an invisible way! Hold strong in your Faith in Him!

      The Lord Trump didn’t return to us yet, this is true! It only did NOT happen because YOU were not faithful enough, and didn’t send Him enough donations!

      The Lord Trump didn’t return to us yet, but He DID miraculously protect us all from the VERY worst forces of Evil, which is Der BidenFuhrer! Hold fast in your Faith… Lord Trump will come back VERY soon now! Especially if you send Him more money!

      The Lord Trump moves in Mysterious Ways! All will be revealed SOON! Especially if you have Enough Faith to DONATE till it HURTS!

      1. Fucking Salon links, I'm sure that agitprop's going to convince everyone. How about a DNC newsletter while you're at it?

        You're an evil, lying, totalitarian fuck, Sqrlsy.

        1. Send more money to Trump, evil bitch! Maybe He will Grab Your Perfect Pussy!

          1. What’s your opinion of the Abraham Accords?

            1. The same as my opinion about allegations that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

              1. Your nonsense dodge is noted.

                1. Your seal-barking is noted! Unless my opinion is PERFECTLY aligned with Yours, Oh Perfect One, You are asking for my opinion ONLY so that You can Perfectly sneer at it! And even if mine is near-perfectly aligned with Yours, You will STILL find SOME reason to sneer!

                  Why try to reason with unreasonable people, witch-burners, and Perfect People (narcissists) like you, Oh Perfect One? Unless one is a masochist, and enjoys futility and frustration?

                  1. So you won’t answer a simple question.

                    1. About 85% of my opinions about anything and everything that matter much to me, have been written down as listed below (at bottom; 2 web pages). I bet you're too lazy to read more than a few words (at most) of ANY of it, before you derisively dismiss ALL of it! This is the "R Mac Way".

                      The intelligent, well-informed, and benevolent members of tribes have ALWAYS been resented by those who are made to look relatively worse (often FAR worse), as compared to the advanced ones. Especially when the advanced ones denigrate tribalism. The advanced ones DARE to openly mock “MY Tribe’s lies leading to violence against your tribe GOOD! Your tribe’s lies leading to violence against MY Tribe BAD! VERY bad!” And then that’s when the Jesus-killers, Mahatma Gandhi-killers, Martin Luther King Jr.-killers, etc., unsheath their long knives!

                      “Do-gooder derogation” (look it up) is a socio-biologically programmed instinct. SOME of us are ethically advanced enough to overcome it, using benevolence and free will! For details, see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Do_Gooders_Bad/ and http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Jesus_Validated/ .

                    2. I really hope he dies.

  10. TL;DR but dammit, it should be worrying. Why would you not be concerned about election cheating? But at least some candidates want to do something about it.

    1. “Why would you not be concerned about election cheating?”

      They like the result.

  11. It's simple. If the 2020 election was NOT rigged, why are Democrats doing everything possible to block any and all investigations in to it? You would think that they would want to show that it was an "honest" election.

    1. "When you're takin' flak, it means you're over the target."
      -- USAF

    2. I assume you have forgotten (or probably ignored) the hundreds of investigations, recounts, and legal cases that all discovered the same thing: the fraud rate was typical of a Presidential election (roughly 10,000 fraudulent ballots nationwide), Biden won the election, and every piece of "proof" has been shown to be like Sidney Powell's "Kracken": completely mythical.

      1. You're going to have to show your evidence of this.
        Virtually every deep-dive into state voter rolls and legalities has shown tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of technically illegal ballots cast and counted, such as out of state voters, people voting at the wrong precinct, some double voters, and some dead voters.
        And no one can deny that censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story had enough of an effect to make the election bogus.

        1. And no one can deny that censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story had enough of an effect to make the election bogus.

          I never voted for Trump, despised the man from Day 1 and thought the riot at the US Capitol on Jan 6 was pathetic. But the censoring of unfavorable news of Biden, Hillary’s funding the Russian hoax, the 50+ intelligence operatives who branded the Hunter laptop story as Russian misinformation, it all swayed me to detest modern day Democrats. I switched parties to Independent. Both parties are two sides of the same coin. The next election does not look promising.

          1. No, they’re not. One party is lead by weak, conniving feckless weaklings, and the other one are a collective of global Marxist totalitarians who think the wrong side won the cold war. They are not equally shitty. Not even close.

          2. "Both parties are two sides of the same coin"

            Naw, the GOP are like Boss Hogg and Cletus, and the Democrats are like Cthulhu. One party are greedy, selfish idiots and the other are world-destroying horrors.

            1. HP makes an appearance. cool. why won't hollywood make Mountains of Madness?

              1. Because cathulu isn't trans

                1. Maybe they could make it and portray Cthulhu as a tranny who identifies as an ancient eldritch deity.

      2. And you're ignoring the criminal investigations that have been started in Georgia and Wisconsin

      3. Or as Obama said, "we had an election, it wasn't very close, and Joe Biden is the President now."

        Which could be true in either case.

        1. Obama wasn't technically lying, which is just about all you can hope for from a Democrat.

  12. All this rigging yet none of it stood up in court, not even with Trump-appointed judges. FSM you lot are gullible. You want to know why the left-wing media are shouting that the 2020 election was fair? Because the right-wing media have been shouting from day 1 that it wasn't. And yet you regard that left-wing media shout as evidence for its being rigged.

    1. Do you work for the New Ministry of Truth?

    2. Also, if you looked at those ruling they were almost all procedural rulings in which the judge didn't even allow evidence to be entered that may have shown irregularities or fraud. They had nothing to do with the actual merits and were instead procedural rulings. Since then several courts have ruled that the procedures in the states in question violated election law, and or the state constitutions. Additionally, several states are now running active investigations into illegal ballot harvesting and other shady tactics, almost exclusively by Democratically linked groups.

      1. I'm still open minded about the whole thing. I've seen a lot of claims, but nothing convincing. Cases being tossed out without a hearing isn't proof that they would have gone one way or another. Same with bad procedures. That could go either way. The investigations you identify are investigations. As in they haven't concluded. Show me something convincing and you may change my mind. But so far it's weak sauce. Also, the fact that I didn't vote means I've got no dog in the fight.

        1. I don't know how the investigations will go, but the narrative that Boehm is pushing that it's been unquestionably proven to be false (the claims by Trump) is just fucking disingenuous, and based upon the fact that there are investigations (including some with witnesses and videotape evidence and electronic recordings) makes me wonder why the media is insisting that it has already been disproven. It seems eerily similar to the Russia Hoax, that the evidence of collusion was unimpeachable and unquestionable, only to find out now that it was all based on lies created by the Clinton Campaign and used by a friendly FBI to start illegal investigations.

          1. I take notice of things being repeated in the MSM. For example you can't find an article about the weather that doesn't mention "climate change." Nor can you find an article about politics that doesn't mention the "insurrection" or "steal" depending on the author's slant. But these things are repeated ad nauseum, even when irrelevant to the rest of the article.

          2. ...makes me wonder why the media is insisting that it has already been disproven.

            As I said my mind can be changed, but it would take a lot. From what I've seen, even if these investigations prove fraud it won't be enough to change the results of the election. That's where most people are at. Nobody is saying the election was without shenanigans because every election has shenanigans. The question is if it was enough to change the outcome. Of that most people are not convinced.

            1. No widespread corruption.

              1. Just enough corruption.

            2. I don't know the stories I've read may involve tens of thousands of harvested ballots in states that Biden barely won. It would be impossible to prove unless someone flips (if there is proof that is), because a lot of states have destroyed the evidence contrary to federal and state laws.

              1. The destruction of evidence, by the party that won no less, is what gives a lot of people pause as to what actually happened.

                1. The more I read about the shenanigans the more I wonder if I misjudged Trump two years ago.

                2. Once something is destroyed you can only guess what was in it.

            3. The problem is even if it shows a small amount of fraud (not enough to change the election, but more than normal), that just erodes the public’s trust further.

              The idea that it was Trump who pushed people into questioning the legitimacy of our elections is 100% asinine though. I’m not so old that I’ve forgotten 2000 or 2016.

              And I’m not so gullible that I’m going to just unquestioningly accept that Biden outperformed Obama in a handful of heavily Democratic cities.

              1. Your tu quoque is really weak. I don't remember people campaigning on "Putin stole the election" or "hanging chads" and making it the party platform.

                This is a bit different. People are campaigning with the message of "The elections are rigged, and if I lose that's proof!"

                Who is eroding the public trust?

                1. I don't remember people campaigning on "Putin stole the election" ....


                2. Constant calls for impeachment even before they took office ring a bell? And they did run on the Russian hoax thing in 2018.

                3. I wasn’t calling you out specifically, so not sure what I said is a tu quoque. Democrats definitely ran on “Putin stole the election” in 2018 and 2020 though.

                  And they spent four years playing up the Russian collusion bullshit. Fuck, the Hag to this day continues to push it.

        2. And then there's all those Zuckerbucks.

      2. Roughly a third of the cases were decided on the merits, and in some of the other cases the procedural rulings required at least some consideration of evidence.

        Try again.

        1. Oh, so still ignoring all the rest, including the criminal investigations in Georgia and Wisconsin?

        2. How could they be "decided on the merits" when they never got to a stage where actual evidence was presented - you know, where a "judge" does more than reading submissions to make a decision?
          The Supreme Court sent a loud-and-clear message, when they refused to rule on the challenge to Pennsylvania's blatantly illegal election regulation changes: The courts should not get involved in election matters.

    3. 2 dozen cases were decided on merit, out of just over 30, that ruled election regulations were changed illegally. Multiple states have active criminal investigations regarding illegal ballot harvesting, illegal citizen voting, and even nursing home voting rates.

      Your talking point is ignorant and stale.

      1. The 30 is the ones that passed procedural rulings mentione dby soldiermedic above.

  13. ERIC is getting more and more like Polyphemus after Ulysses poked his eye out. It takes five seconds for a woman voter to discover that David Perdue is a foaming, carpetbiting glossolalian girl-bullying fanatic demanding a Constitutional Amendment to force her to reproduce at gunpoint. Purdue deserves thanks for helping voters uproot the Gee Oh Pee Army of God, and Eric could use a pair of glasses or a seeing-eye dog for not noticing the obvious.

    1. Just die already you senile shitsack.

      1. Hey, it worked for Hihn; the sumbitch was told to fuck off and die, and HE DID, making the world a better place!

        1. I’m really hoping he or SQRLSY are next. Or maybe they could have a suicide pact.

  14. still bothered with the whole censorship stance ...

  15. also, rigged.

  16. ...the former president's delusions and rage.

    For now, though, the best way to view these GOP primaries is as a test case for the staying power of Trump's election grievances. Is this really how Republican voters want to define their party going forward: as little more than a tool for for Trump's self-serving lies about the 2020 election?

    ...a blatant falsehood constructed to serve the political ambitions of a single man.

    Dude, you're supposed to say those things after giving your argument. Not before. Now the people who should listen have tuned you out because they're offended. Not a good strategy for changing minds.

    Though I will say that, in my observation those who deny "basic truths," like Global Warming or The Steal, risk being ejected from their political tribes.

    So it probably doesn't matter. Minds are made up.

    1. "So it probably doesn't matter. Minds are made up."

      So true! Tribalism explains a LOT of this! Lesser known, "do-gooder derogation" explains some of it as well. Do NOT make MEEEE look bad by being more rational, data-driven, and benevolent than I am!

      Details here...

      “Do-gooder derogation” (look it up) is a socio-biologically programmed instinct. SOME of us are ethically advanced enough to overcome it, using benevolence and free will! For details, see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Do_Gooders_Bad/

      1. You’re such a whiny one-trick pony.

        I mean, okay, you could be a zero-trick pony like potus, but comparison to the worst really doesn’t make you any better, senile fella.

        1. You resent the hell out of the fact that many other people are flat-out, better, more honest people than you are, right? More “live and let live”, and WAAAY less authoritarian?
          From the conclusion to the above…
          These findings suggest that we don’t need to downplay personal triumphs to avoid negative social consequences, as long as we make it clear that we don’t look down on others as a result.

          SQRLSY back here now… So, I do NOT want you to feel BAD about YOU being an authoritarian asshole, and me NOT being one! PLEASE feel GOOD about you being an authoritarian asshole! You do NOT need to push me (or other REAL lovers of personal liberty) down, so that you can feel better about being an asshole! EVERYONE ADORES you for being that authoritarian asshole that you are, because, well, because you are YOU! FEEL that self-esteem, now!

        2. Just a yapping little dog trying to get attention. That's all he is.

    2. The story is a perfect example of confirmation bias. First state your desired outcome and then only present evidence that supports your supposition while ridiculing those who may disagree. It is far more in line with something you'd see in Salon. Reason used to be much more intellectually honest, even when I disagreed with the author, I couldn't fault their process. Not anymore.

      1. Trump's Big Lie (stolen elections of course) is the heart and core of ALL of this! And it IS a Big Lie, for all but the utterly deluded! Or for greedy lying lawyer-scum, who will tell ANY lie, even in court, if you PAY them enough!

        https://reason.com/2022/02/11/sidney-powell-disowns-her-kraken-saying-she-is-not-responsible-for-her-phony-story-of-a-stolen-election/?comments=true#comments (Yet another Powell article)

        Sidney Powell Says She’s Not Guilty of Defamation Because ‘No Reasonable Person’ Would Have Believed Her ‘Outlandish’ Election Conspiracy Theory
        Which particular lies are you wanting to hear and believe today, hyper-partisan Wonder Child?

  17. More Democrats think 2016 was stolen by Russia than Republicans think 2020 was stolen.

    Regardless of party, people have lost faith in the integrity of the election process. It's something that should be actually addressed and not swept away.

    But then again, Reason regularly tells readers not to vote

    1. How is it alleged that Rissia stole the 2016 election?

      1. Through democrat fever dreams?

      2. By spending $100k on middle school level cringe worthy memes and hacking voting machines.

        That $100k was really well spent. It caused billions in division.

  18. How worrying are candidates running on a platform of election integrity?

    Depends on what you've been accustomed to getting away with in previous elections.

  19. There is a different take to this: These candidates are campaigning to the far right, but ignoring the vast middle. It's a dangerous strategy that assumes the Democrats will be doing the same by campaigning to the far left. In some cases they will be right, but in others they're going to wonder what happened and start whinging about stolen elections.

    1. ‘The far right’……

      Based on what?

    2. So election integrity is now far right?

      1. Taking 'election integrity' to paranoid extremes is 'far right'.

        1. Define ‘extremes’.

      2. Another leftist yapping dog.

      3. That's brandyshit; the asshole still trying to justify TDS to anyone stupid enough to buy it.
        Brandyshit, please fuck off and die.

        1. I was referring to the gray box formerly known as LyingJeffy. But it works for both.

      4. Claims of a stolen election are far right. Try to keep up.

        1. Wait, so Hillary Clinton, the IC, and MSM are all far right? Holy shit that explains so much…

  20. "Worrying" is such a relative term.

    Personally, I am way more worried about the actual Ministry of Truth that DHS just formed than I am about some guys running for office who may or may not get elected.

    1. Bingo!

  21. So, let's talk about "ballot harvesting" for a moment. That appears to be a main point of contention among those who claim MASSIVE FRAUD in the 2020 election. And, based on the trailer to D'Souza's movie, a big feature of it as well.

    Evidently, in Pennsylvania, "ballot harvesting" is illegal. Only the actual voter may return an absentee ballot.


    And so, there have been these videos, showing what appears to be "ballot harvesting" in Pennsylvania, which has gotten Team Red up in arms about 'massive fraud'.

    So one question is: if it is shown that there is a bunch of ballots that were submitted all by one person, in violation of the "ballot harvesting" law, and if *there is nothing wrong with the ballots themselves*, should the ballots be rejected?

    I would say no - this law appears to be both stupid and unenforceable. Making it illegal for a husband to deliver his wife's ballot to the post office is completely dumb. And how exactly is this law to be enforced - with guards at every mailbox? Is the mail carrier supposed to become the neighborhood snitch if he/she picks up more than one ballot from the same address?

    But even if one were to take the position that even a bad law should be enforced because "the law's the law", then the "crime" here is how the ballots were delivered, not any alleged tampering with the ballots themselves. If the ballots represent the true authentic will of the individual voters, then why shouldn't they be counted, despite how the ballots were delivered? Throw the harvester in jail if you must, but count the ballots.

    Oh, but you might say "what about chain of custody? Huh? If the ballots were delivered via illegal ballot harvesting, then we don't KNOW if the ballots have been tampered with or not. The process of harvesting ballots spoiled the chain of custody and by that reason the ballots should be thrown out." And to that I would argue that worrying about chain of custody of absentee ballots, BEFORE they are delivered to the elections office, is a waste of time. Suppose an individual voter receives an absentee ballot in the mail. That voter is free to do almost anything with that ballot before returning it. He/she might leave it unsecured in the house, at the office, in public, do many possible things with it that would open up the possibility for a bad actor to tamper with the ballot in some way. And yet we largely trust the voter that when he/she returns that absentee ballot, that it reflects the voter's true authentic will, despite the voter's carelessness with his/her own ballot. There is no feasible way to enforce some chain-of-custody rule for individual voters with absentee ballots, nor should we try - it would be ridiculous. If you want to throw out ballots that were harvested because they MIGHT have been tampered with, then you should throw out every absentee ballot as well by the same standard.

    So to the extent that these MASSIVE FRAUD claims have some actual basis, they doubtless rely on the assumption that ballots illegally harvested in places like Pennsylvania are invalid just because of how they were delivered, not based on any evidence of ballot tampering per se.

    1. “So, let's talk about”

      This is how Lying Jeffy starts his bullshit threads of pedantry lately. If you’re in the mood to bang your head against a wall, go ahead and try to have an honest discussion with him. I’ll watch and laugh.

      1. He'll lie and obfuscate and then when called out fucking lie and gas light.

      2. Hard pass. Banging your head against the wall is a good analogy. Watching the same idea present itself in a new thread just makes it that much less enticing.

        Love the premise too. haha.
        Jeff - 'Let's start with the idea that the massive distribution of votes in the middle of the night is really a collection of legitimate votes just waiting to be counted. Doesn't that really show how important it is for everyone to have a vote, no matter how it is collected. Discuss!'

    2. As I've remarked before, fraud isn't the only way to steal an election. For example, if, as a postal employee, you threw out absentee ballots from a neighborhood you knew was predominantly Republican, there wouldn't be a single fraudulent ballot involved, but you'd be criminally steeling the election.

      And, why trust ballots the voter hands in, but not harvested ballots? Because, among other things, the willingness to break the law rationally impugns the honesty of the ballot harvester.

      1. So a wife turning in her husband's ballot in one state is fraud, but a wife turning in her husband's ballot in anther state is not? Which vote was stolen? That's what this bullshit is all about, someone apparently "stole" Trump's rightful win. So which wife in the example was it that STOLE the election?

      2. But the type of fraud you suggest would be easily discovered. Ballots are tracked from send out to recovery by the clerk. This information is usually made available to the voter by web site. If a group of voters reported that their ballots were missing, that the missing ballots were from a limited area, and that all the ballots were handled through the post office, it would not take long to track down the employee.

        1. How would they know their ballots were missing?

          1. I am assuming they checked that there return ballots were received at the clerk's office. I always do that and assume that most people would check. It seems a pretty simple precaution.

    3. "So one question is: if it is shown that there is a bunch of ballots that were submitted all by one person, in violation of the 'ballot harvesting' law, and if *there is nothing wrong with the ballots themselves*, should the ballots be rejected?"

      Why, in the *heck* would you assume there was nothing wrong with the ballots themselves? And how would you show such? That's why ballot harvesting is illegal in these places. Do you trust people breaking the law to not be breaking the law? Without this assumption you've made, your entire comment is worthless.

    4. So political operatives, not husbands and wives, are collecting tens of thousands of ballots, not individual ones, and delivering them en masse in a highly coordinated effort. You think that's normal?

      I would like you to keep in mind that during the 2018 Midterms in North Carolina, a REPUBLICAN candidate was able to exploit ballot harvesting to perpetrate fraud. That outcome was overturned and a new election was held.

      1. That was just and fair because Republicans.

    5. Any ballot that does not follow chain of custody requirements is invalid.

    6. Well, it would be comforting to hear a legitimate reason for what went on.
      A person shows up at the drop box, put on rubber gloves, photographs their pile of ballots, then stuff them into the box. Then they do it at another box. some of them do it at lots of boxes, in multiple districts.

      I just cannot think of a non-fraudulent reason for people to do this.

      Then there is at least one of them who forgot to sign all the ballots, so goes back to her car and signs them (in view of the camera) before continuing.

      I think you are reaching, to imagine that those ballots could be presumed to be legitimate. If you had film of me breaking into a bank vault, and leaving with a bag of money, it would be silly to assume that perhaps I was just withdrawing money from my own account. My breaking into the vault is enough to assume theft, unless very convincing proof of the opposite is offered. Even so, it would still be a crime.

  22. Most non-D voters are not going to be thinking about Trump in November. They will be thinking about inflation, high gas prices, and meddling bureaucrats.

    1. And the Democrat’s blatant pedophile advocacy.

  23. So, lemme get this straight.

    The core of the story here is that a Georgia gubernatorial candidate who won't accept the legitimacy of a recent election's outcome is a problem . . . but it's not about Stacey Abrams, the cinch Democratic nominee? Instead, it's about a has-been who is hugely trailing in the Republican primary polls?

    1. Reason: "All the news that fits, we print".

  24. " the January 6, 2021, election protest in Washington, D.C., that devolved into a riot at the U.S. Capitol. "

    This is simply a lie. It is well established that the people who rioted at the US Capitol initiated the break in while Trump was still giving his speech. The protest didn't turn into a riot, the rioters had planned their riot to take place during the election protest.

    1. Did Reason even report on the people (person?) who were tried and found not guilty (because they'd been invited onto the grounds)?

      1. Not that I’m aware of.

  25. The article does not directly ask, but implies a question about what would these election deniers do if elected? It is one thing to suggest that you would not certify a valid election, it is another thing to actually do that. Let not forget that all those brave Republicans in the House and that Senate who voted not to certify the election had the luxury of knowing their vote did not make a difference.

    A politician may be cynical, but would they throw this country into chaos by denying a valid election? Would they trade a democracy for an appointed leader?

    Frankly I think talk is cheap and that's all I hear.

    1. It's interesting to me that you think acting to resolve these suspicions would throw the country into chaos, but the status quo and continued need to call for transparency and investigation is not throwing the country into chaos.

      You're right that talk is cheap.

      1. I would suggest there is a large difference between throwing out a bunch of BS and throwing out actual people's ballots. Those claiming election fraud in 2020 have not be able to muster the evidence and reasoning for a court case. That would not be the case if you throw out a state's ballots. Every voter in that state would have standing to sue and demand their ballot be accepted.

        Want chaos, if in 2024 states ballots are thrown out everything goes to court. If the court's don't decide by January 2025 who is President? The incumbent or the challenger.

        No, we don't have anything like the chaos we might have if the actual ballots are tossed.

    2. Yep, there are a lot of shitty RINO’s. They believe in ‘moderation’ just like you. I believe in clean elections, and the constitution. So of course, I’m 100% anti democrat (Marxist).

  26. Dear author of this piece:

    "self-serving lies regarding the 2020 election" eh?

    You can't possibly be this stupid, so I am going to have to assume you are actually evil. Everyone with an IQ above 80 is by now well aware that the election was stolen--never mind "fortified."

    Get in the sea.

  27. The irony is lost on a lot of people here. This woe is me, emotional appeal to a sense of truth is filled with lies of its own.

    Rhetorical tricks can always be abused, but if you want to know who is telling the truth, see who isn't afraid to say "I don't know."

    I don't have damning evidence of major election fraud in 2020. I have evidence of many suspicious acts, as many of you have already noted. I also notice a concerning and suspicious reaction to efforts to investigate said acts, along with an irrational and inconsistent push to loosen the standards of election security as much as is possible.

    Boehm, if you REALLY think you are telling the truth, do you at least realize how awful your rhetoric is?

    1. Rhetorical tricks can always be abused, but if you want to know who is telling the truth, see who isn't afraid to say "I don't know."

      There's value in what you just said there. In fact, I would say that this the answer someone should give before being put in charge of an investigation into whether a crime occurred. A crime like, say, election fraud. If the legislative leaders in Arizona and Wisconsin had followed your thinking before they launched their 'audits', then the results might be something that both sides could accept. Instead, Arizona's Republican state senate leadership chose Cyber Ninjas, whose CEO had already publicly expressed support for conspiracy theories about the election. (Having shared on his Twitter account posts from others, such as "With all due respect, if you can't see the blatant cheating, malfeasence and outright voter fraud, then you are ignorant or lying.") Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman had said, "Our elected leaders — your elected leaders — have allowed unelected bureaucrats at the Wisconsin Elections Commission to steal our vote." He said that at a rally shortly after the election in 2020, yet he was still hired by the Wisconsin Assembly Speaker, Robin Vos, to investigate the election results.

      If your journey to find the truth is down a one way street where you only question those walking the other direction, then that isn't skepticism. It is motivated reasoning. Skepticism requires questioning all arguments equally.

    2. There are always shenanigans in US elections. I would assume that most of us who are old enough to have seen a bunch of elections, lots of stuff in the 2020 election seemed sketchy.
      Like stopping the counting in key states on election night. In my state, they changed the law so that poll workers were forbidden from asking for any form of ID. Sketchy.

      Possibly the oddest thing was when the broadcast and print networks immediately and simultaneously started using the same strange wording. "Trump falsely claimed...". The first time I heard it was " Trump falsely claimed today that a vaccine would be ready by the end of the year". That wording implies that you have thoroughly investigated the claim, and found it to be impossible". The vaccine was, in fact, ready by the end of the year.

      When they started using the same wording about the election, even before the results were finalized, that also seemed pretty sketchy. They could not possibly have had time to investigate any of it, but they were all so certain and very on message.

      I lived in the USSR. People there had a pretty good ability to watch or read the news, and figure out the truth from how they approached stories, especially when what they were saying was not the truth. It is not so much what they claimed were the facts, but how they phrased their misrepresentations.
      Watching the US network news election coverage set off my Soviet BS detectors big time. Not only were they lying, but the lie was apparently a very serious one.

  28. As far as Pennsylvania goes, the moron Republican state legislators are the ones that created the mail-in ballot fiasco that Republicans then went on to blame for Trump's loss.

    The law that (unconstitutionally, by the way) created that new class of voters called mail-in electors was passed with overwhelming Republican support and tepid at best Democrat support.

    They made their bed, now they have to lie in it.

    1. It's the Republicans fault cause they didn't STOP-US! /s

  29. The election was rigged. This is a fact, not a claim. On all social media outlets it was a subject of being banned or shadow banned for righting the minimum number of words necessary to accurately describe the obiden foreign/domestic-policy. "Afghan-pederast-heroin-cartel." It's a confirmed coverup of policys in direct relation to one of the candidates. On its face It's election fraud BEFORE the vote got counted. All the other evidence being dismised without a shred of regard after 4 solid years of the most incredulous imprachment shit anyone has ever witnessed, and no one can be bothered to witness any evidence at all? All while arbitrarily declairing "the most secure election in us history" mind you. The whole while catholic mafia junky states like california the biggest electoral college in the land doesnt even respect citizen only voting..... you've got to be shitting me.....

    All that said, trump can't win. Its not because the media sht storm. Its because no one wants to see that junky slime fgt baldwin again.

    And besides that, what two slime fgts would defect to jHoe's handling of swine flu when being demogogued about the supposed covid epidemic? Oh wait wait PANDEMIC my mistake, cuz like everyone had it, right? Never actually hear from any of thise people but everyone had it right? Its not actually hyperbole or anything.... who would cite swine flu epidemic when jHoe's own afghan heroin epidemic killed more people world wide than every other form of death? Hmm? What exact type of slime fgt would do that? (Cough cough pense, cough cough. Trump cough cough cough.)

    Well, i guess if all ya got is a bunch of slime fgts, best be the slime fgts responsable for the slime fgt epidemic.... i mean the victims were only slime fgts.... anyway.

  30. See, this is why you dont lets a filthy catholic greaseball run your country.

    Drug test the fed.

  31. Here's an example of what the Trump side wants. Candidate for Nebraska governor, Charles Herbster on requirements for immigration: "If you want to come in you need to honor God, you need to honor our flag and you need to learn to speak English."

    A requirement to learn English isn't a big deal (at least it would be constitutional), but "honor God" and "honor our flag"? Theocracy and faux patriotism is what these people want. Well, really it isn't even about religion or really loving the country. It is about excluding those that don't conform to their culture from being considered real Americans.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.