South Carolina held a primary a couple days ago. Mark Sanford was up for re-election to Congress. He created a scandal several years ago by claiming to be hiking the Appalachian Trail while actually in Argentina with a mistress. He sometimes opposed the nasty guy.
Four hours before the polls closed the nasty guy tweeted his followers should dump Sanford and vote for challenger Katie Arrington. Sanford lost.
The press, far and wide, jumped on the narrative: Don’t cross the nasty guy! Arrington’s win has national implications!
But others are saying that’s a claim without evidence. Arrington won by 4%. They all voted in the last four hours? There’s also no evidence that a tweet late in the game is a guaranteed career-ender. And those who disapprove of the nasty guy are more motivated to vote.
Which makes Melissa McEwan of Shakesville wonder what is really going on? What is being hidden?
To answer that McEwan notes the results of the 2016 election, even though there have been lots of stories of Russian meddling, has not been audited. Might the local election be an attempt to fudge and that late date tweet a way of providing concealment? Why does the Department of Homeland Security have a big challenge to convince voters their ballots are secure? But bringing up the question implies the vote isn’t secure. If you don’t trust your vote will be counted, why vote? And that is exactly what an authoritarian wants.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment