Politics

We research rumors. Here’s how the right’s election denial machine has evolved since 2020

Published

1 year ago

November 11, 2024

We research rumors. Here’s how the right’s election denial machine has evolved since 2020

Since 2020, many voters have been increasingly primed to see elections as unfair and potentially rigged. Lasting election denialism has fanned mistrust in election administration, particularly among Republicans. After Donald Trump questioned or rejected the validity of results of both 2016 and 2020 contests, it could be especially difficult for his supporters to accept a potential loss in such a tight race in 2024.

As researchers of rumors and rumoring, we study how people make sense of what’s going on in highly uncertain scenarios like elections. In the coming days, we expect thousands of rumors to circulate on (and off) social media. Though some may be built around kernels of fact, misleading rumors distort the truth and context, obscure solutions, and fuel conspiracy theories of an intentional voter fraud scheme.

Fledgling versions of this infrastructure were present in the 2020 and 2022 elections.

What is striking about the 2024 election is not the prevalence of rumors, but the maturation of an “evidence generation infrastructure,” consisting of political organizations, partisan media, social media, technological platforms, and a growing legal apparatus. The collaboration is loosely organized, but also strategic, and works both to promote “proof” of fraud and motivate political and legal action to contest the results. Fledgling versions of this infrastructure were present in the 2020 and 2022 elections — but now the machinery is well-oiled and ready for action. It operates through three C’s: convince the public of election fraud, collect perceived “evidence” of alleged fraud and contest election processes and results using this “evidence.”

Last week, we saw the “three C’s” at work. On Tuesday, Pennsylvanians faced long lines at the Bucks County election office to register for a mail-in ballot before the deadline that afternoon — inciting rumors online.

Law enforcement had told people in the queue that they were closing the lines down early — an action that goes against the standard protocol of letting those in line before a deadline stay in line to vote. Aspiring voters quickly posted videos of their arguments with police and poll watchers. Political actors and influencers packaged these videos and promoted them, misleadingly, as evidence of a larger, nefarious effort by Democrats to rig the election. They urged those in line to submit reports to election integrity groups. To counter these claims, a few voices on the left baselessly accused the right of hiring actors to play police officers.

Ultimately, Trump’s campaign filed and won a lawsuit that extended the deadline for those in line. Influencers celebrated the win and the work of watchdogs, who posted the videos and made them go viral.

Like many voting-related rumors, this one was based upon a real issue, and one that was eventually remedied. But the misleading narrative that closing the lines down was an intentional effort to suppress Republican votes as part of a larger conspiracy? That unfounded story is likely to persist.

At their best, election integrity observers can serve to quickly surface real issues. At their worst, they can incite misleading or baseless rumors that can increase mistrust in election procedures. Self-described election integrity organizations, many of which are sympathetic to Trump, have developed new tools and repurposed existing infrastructure to encourage the capture and digital sharing of “evidence” of perceived election fraud — evidence often intentionally mischaracterized to peddle a narrative that the election is rigged.

Starting in 2020, political actors built an infrastructure to recruit poll watchers, primed them to suspect mass voter fraud and encouraged them to report even routine procedures and minor issues as conspiracies. We’ve seen previously that this reporting sparks misleading claims that can spread rapidly online rapidly and support lawsuits, affidavits, and other actions that spiral into further rumoring. Even when individual rumors fade or are debunked, the overall narrative of a rigged election lives on.

The lasting election denialism sown by this “evidence generation infrastructure” in 2020 altered election administration, enfranchisement, and election trust — often for the worse. After four years of development, this infrastructure is already exacerbating the cycle of convincing the public of voter fraud, encouraging them to collect evidence, and then mobilizing political and legal action to contest procedures and results. The Trump campaign and Republican partisans have already begun filing lawsuits claiming voter fraud in swing states, many of which are “zombie lawsuits” likely less intended to remedy a specific problem than to cast doubt on election outcomes more generally.

Partisan operatives have already succeeded in convincing the public that the election is fraudulent.

Given this robust infrastructure and the Trump campaign’s considerable resources for its legal funds and “election integrity” efforts, we have already seen hundreds of pre-election lawsuits and we expect to see many more. In key races, candidates or political groups who already subscribe to the “rigged election” theories may begin organizing protests at vote-counting centers or even attempt to overturn the results.

Tensions are running high as we inch closer to Election Day. Depending upon the outcomes and margins of key races, they could get worse. Partisan operatives have already succeeded in convincing the public that the election is fraudulent. We will see these operatives collect and spread misleading or untrue “evidence” of rigging. And, using this election denial machine, some MAGA partisans are primed and ready to contest outcomes. Let us hope they don’t go so far as to contest democracy itself.

Danielle Lee Tomson

Danielle Lee Tomson is the research manager at the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public.

Stephen Prochaska

Stephen Prochaska is a graduate research assistant at the Center for an Informed Public and a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Washington Information School.

Kate Starbird

Kate Starbird is a co-founder of the Center for an Informed Public and a professor in the University of Washington’s Department of Human Centered Design & Engineering

Politics

Former ICE official falls short in Ohio battleground district GOP primary

Published

1 hour ago

May 6, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Former ICE official Madison Sheahan lost a GOP primary in a battleground Ohio House district on Tuesday, a relief to Republicans who worried she could sabotage their chances of flipping the seat.

Former state Rep. Derek Merrin won the GOP nomination in the 9th Congressional District for the second cycle in a row, and will face Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur in November. He lost to Kaptur by less than one percentage point in 2024.

Republicans see the seat as a prime pickup opportunity after the Ohio legislature redrew the state’s congressional map to make the district more favorable for Republicans.

Merrin’s victory comes with a sigh of relief from Republicans in the state who raised concerns about Sheahan’s background — she served as former deputy ICE director under former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem — being a soft target for Kaptur in a general election.

Sheahan drew attacks from fellow Republicans in the primary for her role in overseeing President Donald Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement operations in major cities, which triggered violent confrontations and protests.

Those clashes culminated in the killing of two American citizens by immigration officials in Minneapolis. Sheahan launched her campaign days after the killing of Renee Good, but before the death of Alex Pretti.

Trump didn’t endorse ahead of the primary, but the race was defined in part by candidates seeking to be the most MAGA candidate in the field. Sheahan ran TV ads touting her role at ICE and her connection to the Trump administration. Merrin went up with an ad in the race’s final days highlighting the endorsement he received from Trump during his 2024 campaign.

Kaptur starts the general election fight with a significant resource advantage over Merrin. Federal Election Commission filings from mid-April showed Kaptur with $3.1 million in cash on hand, dwarfing Merrin’s $189,000 in reserves.

Both the DCCC and the NRCC are expected to invest significantly in the race.

Politics

‘The Kamala Harris problem’: Vance’s 2028 hopes hinge on Trump, Iowa Republicans say

Published

2 hours ago

May 6, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

DES MOINES, Iowa — Vice President JD Vance was greeted warmly by Republicans in Iowa on Tuesday, with would-be caucus goers and strategists optimistically curious about his potential as a 2028 presidential contender.

But first, they’re hoping he can help turn the economy around.

Vance’s fate is unavoidably linked to President Donald Trump’s. He’ll either carry the mantle of Trump’s accomplishments all the way into his own term in the White House — or be dragged down by Trump’s dismal approval ratings, which have spiraled amid an unpopular war in Iran and voters’ economic pessimism.

During Vance’s first trip as vice president to the early caucus state — where he was campaigning for Republican Rep. Zach Nunn at a rally in a manufacturing warehouse in this battleground House district — Vance’s close ties with Trump were on full display. He credited the president repeatedly for tariffs, tax cuts and agriculture industry aid. And he avoided any mention of 2028.

But his association with Trump’s agenda presents a high-risk, high-reward proposition that could make or break his political future, operatives and rallygoers said.

“That’s the risk of being part of an administration,” Iowa GOP strategist David Kochel said. “This is the Kamala Harris problem.”

Rep. Randy Feenstra, who is running for governor, said in between shaking hands with attendees that Iowans “absolutely” associate Vance with Trump and expressed confidence that the White House can deliver outcomes that benefit the state.

“We’re all in this together,” he said. “We trust Trump and the vice president and what they’re doing, and things are going to be great.”

Republicans in Iowa are loath to turn their back on Trump, the 2024 caucus winner who remains deeply popular among the base. Faded Trump-Vance campaign signs still line the rural roads around the state, and Iowa Republicans said they remained largely optimistic that Trump, with Vance by his side, can steer the economy in the right direction.

In a brief post-rally interview, Nunn said part of the benefit of the vice president’s trip was allowing Iowa Republican officials to “share what they want to see out of the next leader in 2028.”

But Americans’ patience for the administration’s economic policy to have a positive effect is wearing thin. A Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos poll released on Sunday found 65 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of the economy and 76 percent disapprove of Trump’s handling of cost of living issues. And even as Vance blamed former President Joe Biden’s administration for the teetering economy, an April POLITICO Poll found 46 percent of Americans feel Trump bears at least some responsibility for the state of the economy.

And the economic effects of Trump’s policies are particularly hard felt in Iowa’s vast agriculture industry. Trump’s tariff regime blocked off markets that had been reliable purchasers of U.S. agriculture goods, while the war in Iran has spiked the cost of diesel, which farmers depend on heavily.

Jake Chapman, a former president of the Iowa Senate who has advised multiple Republican presidential candidates in Iowa, said the conflict and the trade negotiations with other countries are top of mind for Iowa Republicans.

“A lot of people are thinking about foreign policy in particular, and how that impacts ag inputs and our agriculture economy,” he said.

In his speech, Vance acknowledged that the Trump administration hasn’t fully delivered on its economic promises. “We got a lot more work to do,” Vance told the crowd of hundreds. “We recognize that work. We’re excited about that work. That’s why you sent us to Washington, D.C.”

Still, those negative feelings towards Trump appear to be spilling over to Vance. That same poll found 48 percent of Americans disapprove of Vance — slightly worse than other senior Trump administration officials, including FBI Director Kash Patel, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and fellow potential 2028 candidate Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Rubio’s ascension in the 2028 shadow primary — both in the eyes of Americans and in standing with Trump’s inner circle — further complicates Vance’s path to the nomination. Eric Branstad, the son of former Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad and adviser to Trump’s three presidential campaigns in Iowa, said Vance’s portfolio may not resonate with Iowans as much as Rubio’s in an administration juggling multiple high-profile foreign conflicts.

“They’ve watched the secretary of state completely perform. He’s been put in all of the tough spots, and he has overperformed,” Branstad said. “The vice president is performing great. It’s just not been as noticeable as the secretary of state.”

Vance, however, has gotten an early start on building a campaign infrastructure, should he so choose to activate it. He has been a frequent surrogate and fundraiser for the GOP’s midterm operation and has campaigned for Republicans in battleground seats around the country. On Tuesday, he voted in Ohio’s competitive 1st District GOP primary and headlined a fundraiser in Oklahoma before travelling to Iowa.

“He’s the man who’s leading the charge to win the midterms,” Nunn said during his remarks.

Even as Vance stayed focused on this year’s elections on Tuesday, some Republicans are ready to look beyond the midterms. GOP gubernatorial candidate Adam Steen said on the outskirts of the rally he thinks Iowa Republicans are eager to organize around the next generation of party leadership.

“I don’t know why not just start talking about 2028,” Steen said. “We need to know who we’re going to be getting behind. And if they did that now, I don’t think it’d offend anybody. I think it’d be a great thing.”

The vice president’s office declined to comment on Vance’s thinking about a future presidential campaign.

Whether or not the vice president can carry the ideological torch for Trump’s political movement may depend on how closely Vance — or any 2028 hopeful — can align with Trump. Iowa GOP Chair Jeff Kaufmann said at the rally he doesn’t believe the next Republican presidential nominee necessarily has to appeal directly to Trump’s base to be successful.

“The Republican Party is multifaceted,” Kaufmann said. “We have MAGA voters… We have Christian evangelicals, we have business, we have Libertarians. I think all of them together are going to unite around some of the basic principles that everybody shares.”

Yet being Trump’s vice president brings certain advantages with Republican voters. Even if Vance isn’t afforded the goodwill that brought the president a dominant wire-to-wire favorite in the 2024 Republican primaries, Kochel said Vance “gets one of the gold tickets” in the contest.

“[Vance] will be the front-runner going into any caucuses that we have here in Iowa,” GOP governor candidate and state Rep. Eddie Andrews said on the sidelines of Tuesday’s rally.

But Iowa caucusgoers are notoriously scrupulous when vetting future world leaders. And Nunn acknowledged that Vance will at some point need to forge his own path to leading the party.

“Nobody can walk in Donald Trump’s footsteps, because it’s Donald Trump,” Nunn said.