Exposing Extremism in Elections | Summer 2024
Executive Summary
The Exposing Extremism in Elections report documents how extremist narratives, once largely relegated to the fringe, are making inroads into mainstream politics, specifically electoral campaigns. The report highlights campaign communications that employ narratives and rhetoric crafted by extremist movements and the political hard right. While some candidates in the dataset may have connections to SPLC-designated hate and antigovernment groups, this report does not seek to classify them as extremists. Instead, it shows how extremist rhetoric and narratives have seeped into mainstream politics and are now being peddled in electoral campaigns.
The report analyzes a snapshot of campaign communications from candidates at all levels of office issued in March and April 2024. In total, we analyzed 136 campaign communications from 108 different candidates. Communications from candidates for federal office are most common (43%), followed by state-level candidates (37%), and candidates for local office (20%).
More than half of the campaign communications come from candidates in either the Southeast (31%) or Southwest (25%). One hundred eighty-four extremist narratives are represented in the 136 communications, demonstrating how extremist ideologies frequently overlap and reinforce one another in campaigns. Forty-three hate and antigovernment groups are represented among the candidates for office. In many cases, a single candidate is connected to multiple organizations. Three candidates represented in the dataset were prosecuted for their involvement in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.
The analysis of campaign rhetoric from 2024 shows:
- White nationalist ideology is being laundered through campaign rhetoric that targets multiple marginalized communities, most notably immigrant, Jewish and LGBTQ+ communities.
- Anti-LGBTQ+ ideology animates rhetorical attacks on public education.
- Christian supremacist rhetoric reinforces antigovernment conspiracies and advances an agenda to diminish bodily autonomy of pregnant and LGBTQ+ people.
- Election fraud conspiracies and constitutional sheriff ideology are predominant components of antigovernment rhetoric in 2024.
While the report covers a broad spectrum of electoral rhetoric, it is not exhaustive. The goal is to capture a sample of narratives and demonstrate the influence extremists are having in the 2024 election cycle. The narratives tracked are tied to extremist ideologies monitored by the SPLC’s Intelligence Project and correspond with rhetoric weaponized against marginalized peoples and communities. In turn, this data shows a notable footprint of extremist narratives being perpetuated by candidates in American elections and the threat posed to multiracial, pluralistic democracy.
- Rhetoric derived from white nationalist ideology is the single largest category of extremist campaign rhetoric (about 28.4% of cases).
- In more than two-thirds of cases (68.8%) when anti-immigrant, antisemitic or anti-LGBTQ+ narratives appear in campaign rhetoric, the language is derived from white nationalist ideology like the “great replacement” conspiracy theory, scapegoating of Jewish people for white social or political grievances, and the demonization of LGBTQ+ people.
- Anti-immigrant rhetoric is the second largest category of extremist campaign rhetoric (about 20.3% of cases).
- Of the anti-immigrant rhetoric, claims of a migrant “invasion” (78% of cases) and the U.S.-Mexico border being “flooded” with immigrants (13% of cases) are the most common.
- When candidates employ anti-immigrant rhetoric, it frequently occurs in conjunction with anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric (about 10.8% of cases), anti-student inclusion rhetoric (18.9% of cases) and antigovernment conspiracy theories (about 10.8% of cases).
- Explicit anti-Muslim tropes were less prevalent and sometimes coded as candidates sought to paint pro-Palestinian protesters as terrorists and continue a trend of faux hypersensitivity to antisemitism by employing antisemitic tropes about George Soros.
The Intelligence Project found frequent overlap of white nationalist rhetoric with anti-immigrant and anti-LGBTQ+ narratives.
“It is clearly unsustainable, an unrelenting flow of migrant crossings all along the border. Joe Biden created this invasion. Who’s in our corner? Alex Mooney, to restore border security and rule of law. Mooney’s landing body blows. Build the wall, stop the drugs, beat the cartels down and block Biden.” – Political ad for Alex Mooney, Senate candidate, West Virginia, District 2
“The U.S. is facing an invasion, caused by the inaction of both the Biden administration and a complacent Congress. As the crisis at our borders escalates, it’s not just the administration to blame but do nothing career politicians. For the sake of American jobs, national security, and the rule of law, we need urgent action to bring this situation under control. It’s time for new leadership that prioritizes America first. #immigration #algop #al06 #alpolitics” – Gerrick Wilkins, candidate for U.S. House of Representatives, District 6, Alabama
“MY PROMISE TO YOU IS TO OPPOSE … the Foreign invasions of America.” – Darrell McClanahan III, candidate for Missouri governor
“Our nation cannot withstand another 4 years of Joe Biden’s presidency. We HAVE to send President Trump and America FIRST fighters to D.C. to stop the invasion at our border and TAKE BACK our country. Vote MIKE ROGERS on March 5!” – Mike Rogers, candidate for U.S. House of Representatives, District 3, Alabama
“I am committed to protecting the well-being of our children with my 'Leave Our Kids Alone' initiative. It deeply concerns me that children from kindergarten to high school are being exposed to early sexualization, often at the taxpayers' expense ... The situation at our southern border is not only a humanitarian crisis but also a cover for human smuggling and sex trafficking by criminal cartels. The influx of drugs has resulted in tragic overdose cases among Americans. While the current administration plays politics with this issue, I will ensure that our courageous law enforcement officers have all the necessary resources to secure the border effectively.” – Summara Kanwal, candidate for Texas House District 76, campaign website
“Let’s just call border security for what it is human trafficking, drug smuggling and illegal immigration with the intent to turn them into illegal voters.” "I will not be silent about this one. I will defend our nation’s children from grooming, perverts who seek to sexualize children for their own personal gain. Gender affirming care is only a way for fully grown adults to profit off of children suffering. As your congressman I will never vote for any policy, rule, or law that will allow the sexualization of Gods most cherished gift.” - Ryan Zinke, candidate for Texas 19th Congressional District in 2 campaign statements issued on January 15, 2024: [1] [2].
Concerned with the rise of illegal immigration and drug trafficking, Robert intends to make Fountain Hills as safe as possible in light of the failed boarder [sic] policies of the current federal executive administration. “The plot for a New World Order as set forth by the World Economic Forum which is being implemented by various compromised bad-actors [sic] of our federal government must be resisted and defeated at all turns if we are to preserve our Constitutional Republic.” Wallace reminds the people of Fountain Hills that, “We are not [sic] a ‘Democracy,’ but a Constitutional Republic.” With a background in advocacy, Robert serves as the Arizona State Chapter lead for Gays Against Groomers, an organization of gay individuals standing against the wave of indoctrination, sexualization and mutilation of minors being done in the name of LGBTQIA+ inclusiveness...Wallace consulted with Sheriff Joe Arpaio about the rise in safety concerns, drug trafficking, and illegal immigration...“Let’s all work together to address...dangerous drugs like fentanyl that are pouring across our borders with heaps of unchecked military-aged insurgents.” – Robert M. Wallace, candidate for Town Council of Fountain Hills, AZ
“Don’t forget I’ll likely get voted into office on March 5. Long term goals are to ban same sex marriage (never should have been legalized) and trans will be illegal. Yes illegal. I will also exile all Jews.” – Lori Kauffman, candidate for Massachusetts Republican state committee, 1st District
Of the anti-immigrant rhetoric examined, many of the claims were of a migrant “invasion” happening and the U.S.-Mexico border being “invaded” and “flooded” with asylum seekers. Migrant “invasion” and “invader” rhetoric feeds into larger “great replacement”-style conspiracy theories that suggest mostly nonwhite immigrants are flooding the U.S. and pose a cultural threat to the dominant culture and white demographic. Anti-immigrant, white nationalist and neo-Nazi groups tracked by the SPLC often deploy the same “invasion” and “invader” rhetoric used in candidates’ communications. The rhetoric has repeatedly been linked to gun violence targeting Black and Brown people in the United States.
At all levels of public offices, candidates couched “invasion” ideas with other rhetoric claiming this to be part of an intentional and coordinated effort to erode border security and admit migrants as part of a nefarious plot to prioritize them over U.S. citizens, a common strain of replacement-style thinking. Such rhetoric included:
- Falsely claiming the migrant “invasion” is being “orchestrated” by the Biden administration.
- Saying that the current situation at the border is the result of Biden’s “failed” policies and the border being “flooded” on purpose.
- Saying the Biden administration’s goal is to “prioritize” migrants over U.S. citizens in an act of “betrayal.”
- Candidates promising to “end” the invasion and restore border security if elected.
White supremacist ideology is laundered through anti-immigrant and anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric. Nearly three-quarters (72.2%) of rhetoric tracked stemmed from white supremacist ideology. This rhetoric frames immigrants as invaders and a foreign threat and LGBTQ+ people as a threat to society. It tracks with broader fearmongering around the alleged threats these communities pose to the dominant culture and population that is steeped in white supremacy. One candidate, Darrell McClanahan III, who was an “honorary” member of the Ku Klux Klan and League of the South, two SPLC-designated hate groups, vowed to oppose the “Foreign invasions of America.” The same candidate also promised to end the “Evil Indoctrination in our Public Education System and in America” and “The Woke Agenda,” according to his campaign website.
There was significant overlap between candidates who pushed anti-immigrant narratives also peddling anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric and anti-student inclusion narrative as well as antigovernment conspiracy theories as part of their campaign. At least three candidates with ties to the hate group Proud Boys peddled rhetoric fearmongering about the federal government becoming tyrannical as well as “critical race theory” and diversity, equity and inclusion showing up in school curricula.
Of the candidates’ communications tracked, anti-Muslim rhetoric and tropes were low, representing about 1.6% of cases. This signifies the opportunistic shifting of extremist campaign narratives from previous election years when overt anti-Muslim rhetoric was more pronounced. Instead, in the wake of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, American anti-Muslim campaign rhetoric is sometimes coded with a small number of observed candidates painting pro-Palestinian protesters as terrorists. Still, notable anti-Muslim rhetoric that was documented included:
- Claiming the repeal of the Trump-era Title 42 policy is giving way to unvetted migrants who may be on the terrorism watch list now entering the country, creating a “situation” worse “than we were on 9/11.”
- Framing Muslims as a foreign threat and calling to “ban travel from dangerous Muslims countries.”
- Lamenting the phrase “radical Islamic terrorism” being stricken from discussions around the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as part of a greater “radical leftist agenda” in public school curricula.
- Candidates (about 1.1% of all cases) opportunistically using the Israel-Hamas war as a wedge issue, including framing protests in support of the Palestinian people as “pro-Hamas” and anti-American.
- More than one-third of the campaign communications we analyzed invoked either anti-LGBTQ+ ideology (about 19.1% of cases) or anti-inclusive education (about 18.0% of cases) – a subcategory of antigovernment ideology.
- In 41.1% of cases in the dataset, examples of these two narratives appear together.
- Candidates frequently claimed children are being indoctrinated by “Marxism” or “wokeism” in public schools (60% of cases involving anti-inclusive education rhetoric) or “sexualized” by school officials including teachers (36.3% of cases).
- In more than half the cases (55.5%), the candidates using these narratives were either endorsed by or affiliated with hate groups like Gays Against Groomers or antigovernment groups like Moms for Liberty.
The Intelligence Project identified considerable overlap in campaign communications' anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-inclusive education narratives.
“I will explain how these pornographic books [“All Boys Aren’t Blue”] and sexualized content have already transformed the student body. … All the revealing clothing and talk about sex is linked to the fact there is a sex-focused culture in America. It’s only exacerbated by the fact that there are detailed, illustrated sex books in our libraries, among 350 other similar and inappropriate books, which are destroying the innocence of children. All children do not deserve to [be] … sexualized through being subjected to pornography.” – Brayden Myer, candidate for Manitowoc, Wisconsin, School Board.
“Once elected, he will continue to advocate for parental rights in the statehouse and encourage parents to sue districts that are indoctrinating children.” “I truly appreciate your endorsement [from Gays Against Groomers] and recognition of our shared commitment to safeguarding children.” – Christopher-Aaron Felker, candidate for Burlington, Vermont, City Council.
"The material we’re talking about now in the books, it used to be the thing about, like a Playboy magazine – and that’s not for gay, that’s for straight people, but it’s the same idea – you couldn’t have that in a library at school before, and it really doesn’t make sense to me to have it there.” – Gregg Mele, candidate for U.S. Senate, New Jersey.
“Jim believes our schools should educate – not indoctrinate – America’s youth and set them up for success in the real world. Jim is staunchly opposed to Critical Race Theory and other liberal propaganda, like the 1619 Project, being pushed onto elementary school children at the cost of basic subjects like reading and math. Jim firmly believes that all students should have access to a great education that fits their unique, individual needs, and that parents – not government bureaucrats – know what is best for their children. … Jim led nearly 200 House Republicans in a discharge petition to force a vote on legislation that would cut federal funding to any school that forces female athletes to compete against biological males. In the Senate, Jim will always stand up for common sense and that includes keeping boys out of girls’ sports.” – Jim Banks, Candidate for U.S. Senate, Indiana.
“We are proud to endorse Kimberly Beltran for Miami-Dade School Board in District 9! She has committed to us to: Oppose any initiatives that glorify or promote the sexualization of children. Oppose any display or the inclusion of sexually explicit material in the classroom or on campus. Oppose any queer theory or gender ideology from instructional and supplemental materials. Encourage families experiencing a child’s gender confusion to seek therapy – not mutilation. Provide community resources for families with children wishing to de-transition.” – Gays Against Groomers endorsement of Kimberly Beltran, candidate for Miami-Dade School Board.
“Everywhere I go, people are telling me how alarmed they are about critical race theory that’s teaching children to hate our country. … DEI really stands for discrimination, exclusion and indoctrination. Incredibly, this divisive programming has even been used to teach our preschoolers in North Carolina, things like men can get pregnant and causing them to feel shame for the color of their skin. … The top priority for my administration will be to eliminate all programs that divide children based on race or gender.” – Michelle Morrow, candidate for North Carolina Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Of the anti-LGBTQ+ narratives, the most common depict LGBTQ+ people as threats to children, society or public health (58%). Of the anti-inclusive education narratives, the most common falsely claim public schools indoctrinate children into “Marxist” and “woke” ideologies (60%).
At all levels of public office, candidates in the dataset who use this rhetoric typically called for stopping the “war on children” and “safeguarding children” from threats posed by LGBTQ+ people or from teachers. Candidates often:
- Falsely claim transgender athletes pose threats to cisgender girls in school sports.
- Conflate sex education and books about LGBTQ+ people with pornography.
- Make conspiratorial claims that children are being targeted, unwittingly “transed,” or “sexualized” by unionized teachers spreading “gender ideology” in public schools.
- Demand governments respect “parental rights” – an ambiguous frame traditionally used by segregationists that has been reinvigorated by far-right movements to oppose anti-racist education and establish policies that jeopardize the well-being of LGBTQ+ kids.
The considerable overlap we identified in the anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-inclusive education narratives show that pairing these two rhetorical devices gives candidates a way to both frame a public policy problem (i.e., threats to children) and advocate for authoritarian government interventions to address the problem. Specifically, anti-LGBTQ+ narratives frequently occur in campaign rhetoric alongside calls for banning or even burning books; eliminating the federal Department of Education; eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs; and banning social and emotional learning curricula in schools.
Candidates Repeat Pseudoscientific Claims to Dismantle LGBTQ+ Health Care
- More than one-third (38.2%) of anti-LGBTQ+ narratives invoked false and harmful pseudoscientific claims about LGBTQ+ identity and LGBTQ+-affirming health care.
- Rhetoric includes conspiracies and graphic rhetoric falsely equating LGBTQ+ health care with “child mutilation” and pathologizing LGBTQ+ identity while promoting pseudoscientific “cures.”
Anti-LGBTQ+ pseudoscience has infiltrated domestic and international politics, spurred by a far-right cottage industry dedicated to its proliferation. Candidates in U.S. elections are building campaign messages on false claims about LGBTQ+ identity and health care.
Consistent with the increase in laws banning gender-affirming health care for young people, for example, campaigns using anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric appear to lean equally into narratives that falsely suggest permissive state governments are allowing doctors to “mutilate” or “sterilize” children (11.1% of cases), that LGBTQ+ identity can be cured through therapy (11.1%), that transgender identity is a phase (11.1% of cases), or that transgender identity spreads in public places and online through “social contagion,” like a disease (3% of cases).
In addition to fueling bans on LGBTQ+ health care, similar pseudoscientific rhetoric is helping fuel authoritarian policies including banning reproductive health care, limiting travel for LGBTQ+ and reproductive health care, and creating invasive monitoring regimes for tracking pregnancies, menstruation and LGBTQ+ health care.
The next section addresses Christian supremacist rhetoric in 2024 campaigns and its intersections.
- Nearly 11% (10.9%) of election narratives in the dataset use Christian supremacist language that advocates replacing American constitutional and legal traditions with Christian theology or ultra-conservative interpretations of the Christian Bible (85.7% of cases) or characterizes political opponents as actual demons (14.2% of cases).
- Roughly equal proportions of election narratives are derived from male supremacist ideology, which seeks control of women and pregnant people (7.6%) or draws on antigovernment and other far-right conspiracy theories (7.1%) such as QAnon conspiracies, fears of ceding U.S. sovereignty to “globalist” forces, or fears of government confiscating guns.
- More than three-quarters of the time (85.7% of cases), male supremacist rhetoric appeared in the dataset alongside Christian supremacist rhetoric to advance attacks on abortion, instrumentalizing abortion as a mechanism of control over pregnant people and their bodies.
- About one-quarter (23%) of the time that conspiracy propaganda was used by campaigns, it appeared alongside Christian supremacist language about the work of actual demons to suggest “dark forces” have infiltrated the media, education systems, and government and are intent on replacing “true” American beliefs and values.
- In more than one in 10 cases (15.6%), candidates using Christian supremacist narratives or promoting conspiracy propaganda are affiliated with hate or antigovernment groups.
In the majority of cases, male supremacist rhetoric appeared in the dataset alongside Christian supremacist rhetoric.
“From now, until November 5th is our chance to stand for unborn babies, and for children who are being seduced into transgender cruelty and sexual perversion. From now, until November 5th we can lift up our voices coast to coast, and boldly declare: ‘If you vote for Biden and baby-killing democrats, you have blood on your hands. It’s like voting for someone who would kill Jesus in the womb.’” – From the presidential campaign site of Randall Terry.
“This is war against good versus evil and the believers need to not be cowards. ... The laws that are contrary to the word of God, we need to push against it. And I don’t care if they want to call it Christian nationalism, this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. This is a Christian nation.” – Mark Burns, candidate for U.S. Congress.
“Fighting back against the radical left is nothing new for me. I wrote the book 'They are coming for your children: The Fight We Must Win.' As your county commissioner, I won’t be shy about exposing those looking to harm our children.” – Drenda Keesee, candidate for Knox County, Ohio, commissioner. The book includes the language: “From transgenderism, to critical race theory to sex-trafficking, Satan is bent on destroying this generation because they are destined to bring in worldwide revival and usher in the return of Jesus Christ.”
“From the highest office to the lowest: lies, deception, evil motives, greed, power, one world order. Demonic realm is at work. The people controlled by this evil spirit are like puppets...the aim is to control the world.” – Diane Mullins, candidate for Ohio State House of Representatives.
“WHEREAS, to murder any preborn image-bearer is a sin, violating both the natural law of retributive justice as set forth in the Noahic covenant, as well as the sixth commandment forbidding murder, and as such is ultimately an assault on God’s image, seeking to usurp God’s sovereignty as Creator (Gen 9:5-6; Exodus 20:13; Proverbs 6:17), and WHEREAS, God establishes all governing authorities as His avenging servants to carry out His wrath on the evildoer; and commands these authorities to judge justly, neither showing partiality to the wicked, nor using unequal standards, which are abominations, and not wielding the sword of justice in vain (Psa 82; Prov 20:10; Rom 13:4), and...” [continued]
WHEREAS, governing authorities at every level have a duty before God to uphold justice by asserting their God-ordained and constitutional duty to establish equal protection under the law for all, born and preborn, by intervening, ignoring, or nullifying iniquitous decisions when other authorities, such as the Supreme Court, claim to authorize injustices such as the intentional taking of innocent human life (Daniel 3; 1 Kings 12; 2 Kings 11; Jeremiah 26:10-16; 36:9-31; 37:11- 21; 39:7-10)...RESOLVED, that the messengers of the SBTC meeting in Flint, TX, November 8-9, 2021, do state unequivocally that abortion is murder, and we reject any position that allows for any exception to the legal protection of our preborn neighbors from prenatal murder, that compromises God’s holy standard of justice, or that promotes any God-hating partiality (Psa 94:6; Isa 10:1-2; Prov 24:11; Psa 82:1-4).” – Brent Money, Daniel Alders, Jay Dean, Janis Holt, Matt Morgan, John Guerra, Wesley Virdell, Shelley Luther, Mitch Little, Tom Craddick, Brandon Grable, Claudio Gutierrez, candidates for Texas House of Representatives.
Almost two-thirds (63.1%) of Christian supremacist rhetoric in campaigns referred to the concept of “fetal personhood” – a legal argument grounded in conservative Christian theology used to outlaw abortion and allow states to regulate pregnancy, including banning in vitro fertilization and contraception.
Nearly equal proportions of the conspiracy propaganda in campaigns appeared alongside anti-LGBTQ+ (21%), anti-student inclusion (21%) and anti-immigrant (28%) narratives to suggest LGBTQ+ people, “woke” educators, and immigrants, respectively, are party to the conspiracy to replace “true” American culture.
Candidates using Christian supremacist narratives or conspiracy propaganda in the dataset are most frequently associated with Proud Boys (two occurrences), National Socialist Movement, Gays Against Groomers and Moms for Liberty (one occurrence each).
- About one-in-five (19.5%) campaign communications use antigovernment and election denial conspiracy theories or stem from constitutional sheriff ideology.
- Of these categories of campaign rhetoric, the most common are alleged election fraud, unsecure elections, and ideas mirroring the “Big Lie” (41.6% of cases).
- Sheriff candidates who use constitutional sheriff rhetoric are affiliated with the antigovernment Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (CSPOA) in 42.8% of cases in the dataset.
Candidates pushed campaign rhetoric in line with antigovernment conspiracy propagandists. 7.14% of campaign communications fit into this category. This rhetoric included ideas that the U.S. government is becoming tyrannical and is capitulating to “globalism.” Other rhetoric touched on the state and federal government being too overzealous, especially when it comes to gun safety and land usage. Narratives that showed up in campaign messaging included:
- Claiming the U.S. federal government is using “fear and chaos” to drive citizens to accept its “totalitarian” and “pagan New World Order.”
- Saying a new world order is being driven by the World Economic Forum (WEF), which resulted in calls to “destroy the WEF.”
- Pushing the ideas of the U.S. government being tyrannical and ignoring the rights of its citizenry, especially when it comes to the Second Amendment, with one candidate saying they are “against ALL Federal and state gun laws.”
- Calling for county supremacy over the federal government and that the U.S. government is overreaching with land ownership.
There was noted overlap between antigovernment conspiracy theories and anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ+, and anti-student inclusion narratives espoused by candidates. In past major election cycles, the SPLC Action Fund tracked candidates pushing QAnon conspiracies and other ideas that cultural institutions are being infiltrated by dark forces.
Instead, candidates pushing antigovernment conspiracy theories also peddled anti-student inclusion ideas (about 15% of cases) like public schools indoctrinating with “woke” ideology and so-called “anti-American” ideas around diversity, equity and inclusion.
Anti-immigrant narratives were present among those peddling antigovernment conspiracy theories (21.2% of cases), including claiming the U.S. government is intentionally failing to “stop the flow of illegal immigrants” into the country.
Constitutional Sheriff
Of candidate communications tracked, 4.3% adhered to extremist constitutional sheriff ideology, or used campaign rhetoric that aligns with the ideology.
- Candidates for sheriff said they would refuse to enforce laws they view as “unconstitutional,” an idea with roots in the Christian identitarian principle of “posse comitatus” (the power of the county), which also typically holds sheriffs to be the ultimate law of the land.
- Rhetoric also included a distrust of the federal government, including claims of government “overreach” and that the federal government is failing to preserve the rights and safety of its citizens.
- One candidate described themselves as a “constitutional sheriff" during a candidate forum.
- 50% of candidates using rhetoric derived from constitutional sheriff ideology have connections to the extremist groups Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and Idaho Constitutional Sheriffs.
Election Fraud Conspiracy Theories
8.1% of candidate communications analyzed pushed conspiracy theories of election fraud, unsafe ballots, and “Big Lie” narratives that suggest the 2020 election was rigged. This includes:
- Supporting efforts aimed at “decertifying the fraudulent 2020 presidential election,” in support of Donald Trump being the winner.
- Claims of ongoing “election fraud” as evidenced by Trump losing the 2020 election.
- Saying the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection was justified and lamenting the arrests of rioters as overzealous.
- Conspiracy theories that ballot drop boxes are “less secure and ripe for voter fraud” and that “ballot harvesting” and ballot “mules” have become an issue.
- Claims of mail-in voting and absentee ballots being part of a way to “cheat” in an election.
Illustrations by Ben Jones
