Politics
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
5 things to watch in Tuesday’s Illinois primaries
The Illinois primaries have seen gobs of spending, both in the highly-watched Senate race and further down the ballot in competitive open House seats.
Groups affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee have poured millions of dollars into key contests, potential 2028er and Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker has found himself at odds with several prominent Black leaders in the state, and generational fights continue to plague the Democratic Party post-2024.
Here’s what Blue Light News is watching today.
Can AIPAC avoid another fumble?
AIPAC faced backlash from moderate Democrats last month after inadvertently boosting a progressive candidate in New Jersey who said Israel has committed a genocide in Gaza. It’s hoping not to make the same mistake again.
The group is facing a major test of its political muscle in Illinois as Democrats increasingly scrutinize Israel and AIPAC itself. It’s spending heavily in several House races, most notably in the contest to replace retiring Rep. Jan Schakowsky in the 9th district.
But Democratic strategists have warned that the group’s attacks on Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss — the grandson of a Holocaust survivor who has criticized Israel — have created a late opening for progressive insurgent Kat Abughazaleh, a Palestinian-American who’s an even more vocal critic, rather than effectively boosting the AIPAC-preferred candidate, state Sen. Laura Fine. AIPAC has made a sharp pivot in the final stretch of the campaign, turning its focus squarely on Abughazaleh instead.
“There’s been a strategy shift,” said a person directly familiar with AIPAC’s thinking, granted anonymity to discuss private conversations. “Our primary goal in Illinois is to prevent potential ‘Squad’ members from being elected to Congress.”
The big question for Tuesday will be whether that change in strategy happened too late to avoid another embarrassment for AIPAC.
Will JB’s involvement help or hurt him?
Pritzker has been vocally supporting, and heavily funding, Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton’s campaign for Senate against Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi and Robin Kelly. That move has rankled some prominent Black leaders.
“A sitting governor shouldn’t be heavy-handing the race,” Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke, whose caucus is supporting Kelly, told Punchbowl earlier this month. “Quite frankly, his behavior in this race won’t soon be forgotten.”
The worry from Black Democrats is that Kelly and Stratton — both Black women — could end up splitting the Black vote, with Pritzker’s endorsement driving that wedge further. That may help Krishamoorthi win the race and kill their chances of electing a Black woman to the Senate this cycle.
Krishnamoorthi has led most public polls of the race and had a big cash advantage early on, allowing him to get up on TV earlier than his opponents. Pritzker’s money has helped Stratton close the gap, while Kelly sits in third in most public polls.
“People are conflicted as to whether or not they should go with the best candidate who they like, or do they go with what the polls are saying as the most viable candidate,” former Democratic Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who supports Kelly, said in an interview last week. “That’s the tension and the conflict that I’m hearing kind of across the board, but particularly among Black Illinoisans.”
What do all the races say about the future of the Democratic Party?
Both the Israel debate and racial tensions — as well as the growing generational divide in the Democratic Party — have dominated Illinois’ primary contests.
Tuesday’s results will be another early test, following Texas earlier this month, for where the party is headed as it still grapples with across-the-board losses to Republicans in 2024.
How do the outside influences fare?
More than $35 million has been poured into TV ads on Illinois races, according to AdImpact, with tech interests leading the way: pro-AI and pro-Crypto industry groups have combined to spend more than $15 million. It’s a dizzying sum that has shocked many veteran Illinois political strategists who are long accustomed to bruising campaigns.
Some candidates have openly courted — and practically begged for — support from these groups. Former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. — who is running to reclaim the IL-02 seat he once held — used AI in an ad to enhance former Rep. Bobby Rush’s voice (D-Ill.) after it was damaged from treatment he underwent to battle throat cancer.
The groups’ huge spending to get allies in Congress could shape the heated policy debate over how to regulate two fast-growing industries. How well their chosen candidates fare will help guide their future spending later this year.
Who turns out?
Turnout among Hispanic voters was a strong point for Democrats in the Texas primary, not to mention several special elections in recent months, driven by backlash to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement along with continued economic uncertainty.
We will see whether that continues in Tuesday’s primaries, particularly in Chicagoland — which was shaken by a deportation blitz of its own last fall but where most of the primaries are for safe blue seats.
There’s also the question of turnout in primaries where support for Israel has been a major issue. A Senate primary should bring voters to the polls across the state, but Blue Light News will be watching for how much higher turnout is in the 2nd, 7th, 8th and 9th districts to gauge how much Democrats’ intraparty disagreements about the issue — and the flood of outside money that has come with that — uniquely drives voting.
Alec Hernández and Jessica Piper contributed to this report.
Politics
AIPAC faces its biggest test this year in Illinois
CHICAGO — The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is making a nearly $22 million bet in Illinois that its money, if not its policy views, can still hold sway in Democratic politics.
In three of the four Illinois House races it’s targeting, AIPAC appears to be using shell PACs to largely conceal where that money is coming from rather than spend from its main super PAC vehicle, United Democracy Project. Like in other recent contests, their ads focus on anything but Israel.
But AIPAC appears at risk of inadvertently helping the candidate most hostile to its views in the race to replace retiring Rep. Jan Schakowsky — just as it did in New Jersey last month. The group has taken a sharp tactical shift in recent days, pivoting from attacking a Jewish candidate who has criticized Israel and focusing instead on a Palestinian-American candidate who has been more outspoken.
Interviews with a dozen Democratic elected officials, candidates and strategists — including both supporters and critics of Israel — revealed growing concerns about AIPAC’s interventions. Strategists warn that AIPAC’s attacks on Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss, the grandson of a Holocaust survivor, created an opening for progressive social media influencer Kat Abughazaleh, a Palestinian-American who is a vocal critic of Israel and appears to have late momentum in the race, over AIPAC’s preferred candidate, more moderate state Sen. Laura Fine. In the past week, the group has pulled down all of its anti-Biss messaging, but it could prove too late.
“There’s been a strategy shift,” said a person directly familiar with AIPAC’s thinking, granted anonymity to discuss private conversations. “Our primary goal in Illinois is to prevent potential ‘Squad’ members from being elected to Congress.”
Tuesday’s primary will be the first test of AIPAC’s political muscle in the 2026 primary season after amassing nearly $100 million in its warchest, even as polls show more and more Democrats have negative views of Israel — and of the group itself.
“AIPAC may deliver another candidate who is plainly not on their agenda and … the concerns about their interventions within the primary electorate are only going to intensify,” said David Axelrod, a longtime Chicagoan and former senior adviser in President Barack Obama’s administration. “These ads are not branded as AIPAC for a reason, so there’s a recognition that they are a controversial presence in Democratic primaries.”
AIPAC recently spent $2 million to sink former Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.) in a special election primary. Malinowski, a pro-Israel moderate who would not support unconditional aid to Israel, lost to Analilia Mejia, a progressive organizer who has said Israel committed genocide in Gaza. The move infuriated centrist Democrats, who saw it as a spectacular self-induced fumble — and are worried it may be happening again.
“No one wants to see another New Jersey 11 … and everyone should be concerned about it happening,” said one Democratic donor adviser close to AIPAC who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the dynamics.
The organization has become increasingly controversial on the left for its full-throated support of Israel’s war in Gaza and is facing a new layer of hostility in the wake of Israel’s joint attack with the U.S. in Iran. Among Democrats, 62 percent think America is too supportive of Israel, compared with just 22 percent who think the support is about right and 8 percent who think it’s not supportive enough, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released last week.
Democratic candidates and strategists expect AIPAC to intervene in a range of House primaries in the coming months, as well as the Senate primaries in Michigan and Minnesota. They’re watching to see how the group’s interference plays with voters amid the backdrop of the war.
“You’re going to see more of this unfortunately” across the country, said former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a noted Democratic strategist now weighing a run for president, of the influx of outside spending — from AIPAC to crypto groups. “Illinois is literally the first stop on the way to an ugly future, where billionaires will be the dominant players and candidates will be pawns in their world.”
In Illinois, an AIPAC-aligned super PAC called Elect Chicago Women, had spent heavily against Biss on TV and digital ads, while also spending more than $4 million on TV ads and mailers boosting Fine. In recent days, another AIPAC-aligned group, Chicago Progressive Partnership, put out ads attacking Abughazaleh and propping up another progressive in the race, Bushra Amiwala, in an apparent effort to split the vote.
Local strategists noted the abrupt shift when the Biss attacks stopped earlier this month.
“It looks like they’re changing their tactics” after the New Jersey backfire, said an Illinois Democratic lawmaker, granted anonymity to discuss the issue candidly. “Is there evidence that [AIPAC] is adapting and taking lessons from the last election? Yes.”
Biss, for his part, predicted there would be “backlash” to AIPAC’s moves in Illinois in future primaries.
“They’ve chosen to make clear that it’s unacceptable to them to have members of Congress who don’t believe in a no strings attached blank check of military aid to the current Israeli government, no matter what they do in Gaza,” Biss said “So that’s what people in the district and around the country will be interested to see what the outcome is.”
Abughazaleh sees the shift to attack her as a sign that AIPAC is “panicking” to control the race. “They’re realizing that they didn’t take us seriously, and that people aren’t looking for the status quo. So they are panicking,” she said in an interview.
Fine has opposed adding conditions to U.S. aid to Israel, though she has expressed general frustration at the role of “dark money” and the lack of transparency from political action committees, saying it’s “a big problem in our political system.”
AIPAC’s super PAC declined to comment on its involvement in Illinois, including its use of pop-up super PACs to filter funds to candidates. AIPAC spokesperson Deryn Sousa said in a statement, “Our members are focused on building strong bipartisan support for the U.S.-Israel partnership in the 120th Congress.”
The group is also spending heavily for its preferred candidates in the races to fill seats left open by Reps. Robin Kelly and Raja Krishnamoorthi, who are running for the Senate, and Danny Davis, who is retiring.
AIPAC’s allies are not confident about their chances in Kelly’s district. The group is backing Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller, but former Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) has been bolstered by more than $1 million in spending from a pro-cryptocurrency super PAC. Plus, he has sky-high name recognition, especially in the wake of the recent death of his father, the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr.
Pro-Israel Democrats feel more confident their preferred candidates can win in two other races.
Chicago City Treasurer Melissa Conyears-Ervin has benefited from nearly $5 million in positive ads from AIPAC’s main super PAC, United Democracy Project, in a crowded 13-candidate primary for Davis’ seat. State Rep. La Shawn Ford has strong name recognition in the district and Davis’ endorsement, but he has struggled to keep up with fundraising.
In Krishnamoorthi’s district, moderate former Rep. Melissa Bean has benefited from nearly $4 million in supportive messaging from the “Elect Chicago Women” group that’s also supporting Fine in the 9th.
AIPAC’s critics argue that the group’s moves in Illinois, particularly concealing the funding sources of its super PACs, demonstrate that “they themselves understand how toxic they are,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of the progressive J Street group, which bills itself as “pro-Israel, pro-peace.”
“In every part of their political work, they’re doing this surreptitiously,” he added.
Jessica Piper and Andrew Howard contributed reporting.
Politics
Right-wing Muslim activist resigns from Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission
President Donald Trump’s so-called Religious Liberty Commission, which is filled with right-wing zealotsappears to be coming apart at the seams.
Last week’s resignation of Sameerah Munshi, formerly the only Muslim woman selected as one of the commission’s advisers, underscores the religious divisions that are causing disarray for the panel and the conservative movement more broadly.
Munshi is a conservative activist who has advocated for allowing parents to opt out of lesson plans related to LGBTQ+ issues, a stance the White House has praised for its rejection of “radical gender ideology.” She said her resignation was due to two things: the commission’s expulsion of conservative activist Carrie Prejean Boller and the Trump administration’s war with Iran.
I recently wrote about how Boller’s removal, which followed a heated argument at a commission hearing over antisemitism, has fueled allegations of anti-Catholicism within the MAGA movement. Boller recently appeared on an episode of Tucker Carlson’s podcast for a chummy chat about her removal. And Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., requested last week that the House Oversight and Judiciary committees review her ouster.
In addition to that, Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission is being sued over its lack of diversity. (The White House has said the panel is intended to reflect a “diversity of faith traditions, professional backgrounds and viewpoints.”)
So Munshi’s resignation is just the latest negative publicity for the commission.
“I resign in protest of two deeply troubling developments: the official removal of Carrie Prejean Boller for her deeply held beliefs about Palestine and the federal government’s illegal war against Iran, undertaken without clear constitutional or congressional authorization,” Munshi wrote on Substack.
“Ultimately, I will have to stand before God and answer to Him for my role in this commission,” she added. “I ask His forgiveness if I have legitimized their evil or the evil of this administration in any way. I ask Him to keep my intentions pure and to guide me toward paths that bring true benefit to my community.”
Boller’s removal has also helped fuel right-wing antipathy toward the Rev. Paula White, who Boller has said was behind a “witch hunt” that led to her ouster. During their conversation, Boller and Carlson took turns bashing White, a controversial preacher of the prosperity gospel who has served as religious adviser to Trump.
Some evangelicals in the MAGA movement were apoplectic when White was chosen to lead the White House Faith Office. And now it appears the chickens have come home to roost as her involvement with Trump’s White House threatens the MAGA movement’s religious coalition.
Ja’han Jones is an MS NOW opinion blogger. He previously wrote The ReidOut Blog.
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
The Dictatorship6 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics11 months agoDemocrat challenging Joni Ernst: I want to ‘tear down’ party, ‘build it back up’
-
Uncategorized1 year ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week






