10 ms·

Arizona’s top prosecutor concealed records debunking election fraud claims

88 points by bediger4000 4y ago

metadat 4y ago
JS-free archive link: https://archive.today/i6U7B https://archive.today/i6U7B
lettergram 4y ago
Lol man, this stuff is so political (obviously), it’s painful to find the truth without watching the trial (which I did). Many Republican elected officials were in a lawsuit opposing election fraud claims. This story seems suspect imo — as most of the party was on the other side fighting the election fraud claims. Further, of the 30 or so claims only a handful made it to court. The primary ones (1) there was no chain of custody on hundreds of thousands of ballots (2) there were minimal to no signature verification and (3) hundreds of thousands were unable to vote on the AZ Election Day causing a suppression of the vote. Only number 3 was litigated, and of that it was effectively admitted to but argued “well, they could have voted earlier”. Aka “too late, nothing we can do to fix it”. Quite literally the appellate court cited that they should have brought the claims earlier. In either case, without actually reviewing the evidence in court it’s a bit painful.
- andrewclunn 4y ago
  Good thing the official running the election wasn't up for election themself. I mean that would make mass issues on election day look like intentional tampering to those "crazy conspiracy theorists."
- Akronymus 4y ago
  > Quite literally the appellate court cited that they should have brought the claims earlier. didnt they bring claims before the election about it that got thrown out because no injury yet? Or am I confusing things?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    In the period when cases were being brought after the 2020 election, there was a pervasive talking point that the cases were not being heard on their merits, and were being dismissed for "mere" procedural reasons like standing. Notwithstanding that the cases notably refused to allege election fraud (Rudy Giuliani famously refused to make a claim of fraud in front of a judge, but claimed fraud profusely in front of TV audiences), in the years since every election has been looked at fully and thoroughly. All ok the claims made in the last months of 2020 have been shown to be baseless. Not just Arizona -- Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan all had zero fraud of the kind alleged.
  - blacksqr 4y ago
    Arizona state law requires that challenges to existing election procedures must be brought before the election. From the appellate decision: "at best, Lake’s signature-verification claim attacked Maricopa County’s process for verifying signatures that first-level reviewers questioned—a challenge to the County’s election procedures, not a claim that the overall procedures were violated. Accordingly, the superior court correctly concluded that Lake’s contest attacked the manner of holding an election"
    - Akronymus 4y ago
      ah yes, thats the one I was thinking of.
  - blacksqr 4y ago
    Before the election Lake et al. brought a lawsuit to bar use of voting machines. Suit was thrown out because judge ruled they offered only conjecture and speculation, no evidence, and lawyers were sanctioned for lying to the judge.
- tootie 4y ago
  I don't know what any of that has to do with this story. It just says the AG for the state spent thousands of person-hours on his staff to investigate election fraud based on any and every angle they could find and ended up with nothing which he kept under wraps for as long as he could. There doesn't seem to be much mystery to what happened or why.
- blacksqr 4y ago
  It's hard to discern just what side of the issue you're on. In any case, if your beef is with decisions of the courts, the linked article is not about that but the investigations of the staff of a Republican attorney general. That staff, not the courts: stated "virtually all claims of error and malfeasance were unfounded" "systematically refuted accusations of widespread fraud and made clear that none of the complaining parties — from state lawmakers to self-styled “election integrity” groups — had presented any evidence to support their claims." "did not uncover any criminality or fraud having been committed in [early ballot handling and verification] during the 2020 general election." stated "virtually all allegations [of improper signature verification, misuse of drop boxes and incomplete access to records] had been deemed unfounded" "did not find that the county had mishandled ballots" stated “No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification review.” emphasized that, “no evidence of election fraud, manipulation of the election process, or any instances of organized/coordinated fraud was provided by any of the complaining parties.” "reported that three high-profile Republican officials — who had publicly made fantastical claims of fraud — did not reiterate those assertions under questioning by agents, when they were subject to a state law prohibiting false reporting to law enforcement."
  - lettergram 4y ago
    You’re kind of making my point, I don’t care what staffers say — all these parties are opposed to one another already in court and politically. My beef is that none of this was litigated in a jury trial and that claims are dismissed via legal methods imposed by judges. For instance, before the election stuff is dismissed as “no injury” after the election it’s “no way to rectify”. Just debate the issue publicly; present the evidence from both sides (not hearsay, which is all this article is). I’m frustrated because a “democracy” only functions when the vast majority of the citizens feel empowered. Currently approximately half of the population feels disempowered. That’s a recipe for disaster and I’d like someone to adjudicate the issues before what happens next.
    - blacksqr 4y ago
      > You’re kind of making my point As I said in the first sentence of my post, it's hard to discern your position exactly, so I'm not surprised. > none of this was litigated in a jury trial To get a jury trial, you have to state an actionable claim of damages backed by evidence, which plaintiffs largely failed to do. In general plaintiffs didn't ask for jury trials, but for injunctions, for which one has to make a case to a judge. Juries don't issue injunctions. > claims are dismissed via legal methods imposed by judges In the case brought by Kari Lake, not by judges, but Arizona law, which requires that challenges to existing election procedures be brought before the election. Lake brought hers after the election. Ergo, dismissed. > hearsay, which is all this article is An official document release by the current attorney general of an investigation done by the attorney general's office. The opposite of hearsay: direct reports by the people who did the investigation. > a “democracy” only functions when the vast majority of the citizens feel empowered. What's more empowering than being able to vote? Which the released report as well as Arizona court cases showed citizens were able to do freely and fairly. > I’d like someone to adjudicate the issues "adjudicate" = "have a judge decide". Which has happened dozens of times, all claims disproven and dismissed.
- blacksqr 4y ago
  > Quite literally the appellate court cited that they should have brought the claims earlier. From the appellate decision: "The superior court dismissed eight of the ten counts for failure to state a claim, for undue delay, as duplicative, as outside the scope of an election contest, or for some combination thereof." "her request for relief fails because the evidence presented to the superior court ultimately supports the court’s conclusion that voters were able to cast their ballots, that votes were counted correctly, and that no other basis justifies setting aside the election results." https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2023/1%20CA-CV%2022-0779%20and%201%20CA-SA%2022-0237.pdf https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2023/1%...
LatteLazy 4y ago
Now watch nothing happen to them.
- ajross 4y ago
  The alleged behavior isn't a crime. Basically he made public statements in line with Trumpist allegations (implying that there were serious problems with the election), then failed to release the internal report finding that the election results were correct and its administration was perfectly routine (which isn't to say "free of all problems", obviously). That left it to his successor (a democrat) to release the report, which I believe happened fairly routinely. It's... bad. It's spin. Doing it this way makes something that should be a public good (we all want fair elections, right?) into a partisan football. But it's not criminal. FWIW: it's also not popular. Note that the reason for that party switch in the SoS office is that Brnovich lost his reelection campaign, owing in no small part to his engagement with fringe conspiracist politics. So in some sense he absolutely did get punished.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    > It's... bad. It's spin. Doing it this way makes something that should be a public good (we all want fair elections, right?) into a partisan football. But it's not criminal. The parent didn't say anything about criminal penalties, they said watch nothing happen. Yes, it's not criminal, but as you say it's also bad and not something we want to happen in our society. And yet, nothing will happen to him. Nothing. He won't be shunned by his political party for his actions, because they support the Big Lie. The problem we have today is that it's completely acceptable to lie to everyone and anyone about elections being stolen, and no one will do anything about that because "it's not a crime". Even when those lies lead to an assault on the electoral process by the loser of the election, it's still apparently not punished. And so the attempts continue. Today, insurrectionists are in control of the US House of Representatives. People who worked to overturn the free and fair election in 2020 are now sitting members of Congress, chairing committees, and directing investigations into political rivals and private citizens. Again, not a crime for the people to elect insurrectionists who aspire to overthrow American democracy. Just don't be surprised when American democracy is eventually overthrown. No one will be prosecuted for overthrowing democracy when that day comes (prosecutions will indeed follow, just not against the insurrectionists). > FWIW: it's also not popular. Note that the reason for that party switch in the SoS office is that Brnovich lost his reelection campaign, owing in no small part to his engagement with fringe conspiracist politics. So in some sense he absolutely did get punished. Actually, he was shunned by his constituents because he wasn't denying elections hard enough; his primary challenger Blake Masters won because his fidelity to the Big Lie was more authentic than Brnovich's. Trump endorsed Masters over Brnovich because Brnovich refused to decertify the Arizona results. That was the end of his political career. Now, it's true Master's eventually lost. But at the same time, 46% of voters cast a vote in favor of election denialism. Run an election that close enough times and eventually the election denier wins. When election deniers are in control of elections, that's when we need to really question the legitimacy of the elections they manage.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
moronicQ 4y ago
[dead]
bastardoperator 4y ago
I'm not shocked by republicans anymore, I just assume they're always lying or cheating at this point. You could say the same for every politician, but they seem to specialize in it.
- tpoacher 4y ago
  I'd call 'hostile media bias' on this one. I have the same impression about all parties, but with a bias towards liberal politicians instead (without identifying as republican as far as i'm concerned). Perhaps this in itself is evidence I'm more conservative leaning without realising it. I wouldn't know. PS: Not an American
  - bediger4000 4y ago
    How is the article exhibiting hostile bias? It reports facts about Arizona's previous secretary of state's public comments being opposite what that SoS knew to be facts.
    - tpoacher 4y ago
      The hostile media bias (or effect) refers to the bias of the recipient, not the bias of the media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect I.e. "hostile media" bias, not hostile "media bias". It is the phenomenon whereby an otherwise neutral article could be perceived as equally hostile or biased by either political side, based on their own biases and expectations regarding media agendas.
  - gamblor956 4y ago
    WaPo is a moderate-right newspaper by American standards, and was a conservative newspaper when originally purchased by Bezos. So you're arguing that a conservative newspaper is biased against...conservatives?
    - stuckinhell 4y ago
      The Washington Post is in no way socially conservative, but it does often push pro big business/amazon polices.
Karellen 4y ago
Your Honor, I object! And why is that? Because it's devastating to my case! Overruled. Good call.
debacle 4y ago
There's no substance here. Something can be wrong and legal, something can be litigious and cordial. This feels like a hit piece trying to get ahead of the cases that will be shortly heard in AZ regarding the 2022 election. There are a lot of people chasing ghosts with regards to election fraud, but it's pretty clear that signature verification for electronic voting isn't cutting it right now. That's not a political argument, it's a statistical one.
- briffle 4y ago
  Are we to agree with you that its clear because your a known expert in the field? Many people don't think its clear, that you can't have more verification without disenfranchising many, many voters. (My grandmother is 90, legally blind and hasn't had a drivers license in 10 years. How is she supposed to show ID to vote?) What is your alternative?
  - junofan 4y ago
    Last 4 of social? There’s gotta be some middle ground. People need to compromise. Also, I think it’s fine for a citizen to have an opinion on how our democracy should work without being a “known expert in the field.”
  - debacle 4y ago
    I didn't say anything about voter ID. Please take your strawman elsewhere.
    - Arainach 4y ago
      The content explicitly asked what your alternative is. That is the most commonly suggested alternative in public discourse; what's your solution if not that?
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  Every one of the 2022 election cases heard so far has been thrown out because they're all as baseless as the 2020 batch. It's relentless bad faith by either dumb people or malicious ones, including Brnovich.
jimt1234 4y ago
Unfortunately none of this matters. The narrative has been firmly established. Republicans overwhelmingly believe the 2020 presidential election was rigged. Furthermore, this story won't show up in any conservative press, so Republicans will never see it anyway.
- jfengel 4y ago
  To support "overwhelming": the number is around 70%, as of the latest polls I could find (October 2022): https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/10/31/two-years-after-election-turmoil-gop-voters-remain-skeptical-on-elections-vote-counts/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/10/31/two-years-af... To pollsters, 70% is an overwhelming number. An election is called a "landslide" when you reach 55%. It's well outside of any conventional margin of error. When it comes to ideology like this, I'm never sure of the degree that people tell the pollsters the truth. Not that they lie, per se, but that they will repeat the expected answer without giving much thought as to their own opinion. Nonetheless, this is an extraordinary number. It means that over 2 in 3 Republicans already believe that democracy has failed, and presumably believe that it will happen again. That is a dangerous proposition.

88 points by bediger4000 4y ago

JS-free archive link: https://archive.today/i6U7B https://archive.today/i6U7B

Lol man, this stuff is so political (obviously), it’s painful to find the truth without watching the trial (which I did). Many Republican elected officials were in a lawsuit opposing election fraud claims. This story seems suspect imo — as most of the party was on the other side fighting the election fraud claims. Further, of the 30 or so claims only a handful made it to court. The primary ones (1) there was no chain of custody on hundreds of thousands of ballots (2) there were minimal to no signature verification and (3) hundreds of thousands were unable to vote on the AZ Election Day causing a suppression of the vote. Only number 3 was litigated, and of that it was effectively admitted to but argued “well, they could have voted earlier”. Aka “too late, nothing we can do to fix it”. Quite literally the appellate court cited that they should have brought the claims earlier. In either case, without actually reviewing the evidence in court it’s a bit painful.

andrewclunn 4y ago
Good thing the official running the election wasn't up for election themself. I mean that would make mass issues on election day look like intentional tampering to those "crazy conspiracy theorists."
Akronymus 4y ago
> Quite literally the appellate court cited that they should have brought the claims earlier. didnt they bring claims before the election about it that got thrown out because no injury yet? Or am I confusing things?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ModernMech 4y ago
  In the period when cases were being brought after the 2020 election, there was a pervasive talking point that the cases were not being heard on their merits, and were being dismissed for "mere" procedural reasons like standing. Notwithstanding that the cases notably refused to allege election fraud (Rudy Giuliani famously refused to make a claim of fraud in front of a judge, but claimed fraud profusely in front of TV audiences), in the years since every election has been looked at fully and thoroughly. All ok the claims made in the last months of 2020 have been shown to be baseless. Not just Arizona -- Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan all had zero fraud of the kind alleged.
- blacksqr 4y ago
  Arizona state law requires that challenges to existing election procedures must be brought before the election. From the appellate decision: "at best, Lake’s signature-verification claim attacked Maricopa County’s process for verifying signatures that first-level reviewers questioned—a challenge to the County’s election procedures, not a claim that the overall procedures were violated. Accordingly, the superior court correctly concluded that Lake’s contest attacked the manner of holding an election"
  - Akronymus 4y ago
    ah yes, thats the one I was thinking of.
- blacksqr 4y ago
  Before the election Lake et al. brought a lawsuit to bar use of voting machines. Suit was thrown out because judge ruled they offered only conjecture and speculation, no evidence, and lawyers were sanctioned for lying to the judge.
tootie 4y ago
I don't know what any of that has to do with this story. It just says the AG for the state spent thousands of person-hours on his staff to investigate election fraud based on any and every angle they could find and ended up with nothing which he kept under wraps for as long as he could. There doesn't seem to be much mystery to what happened or why.
blacksqr 4y ago
It's hard to discern just what side of the issue you're on. In any case, if your beef is with decisions of the courts, the linked article is not about that but the investigations of the staff of a Republican attorney general. That staff, not the courts: stated "virtually all claims of error and malfeasance were unfounded" "systematically refuted accusations of widespread fraud and made clear that none of the complaining parties — from state lawmakers to self-styled “election integrity” groups — had presented any evidence to support their claims." "did not uncover any criminality or fraud having been committed in [early ballot handling and verification] during the 2020 general election." stated "virtually all allegations [of improper signature verification, misuse of drop boxes and incomplete access to records] had been deemed unfounded" "did not find that the county had mishandled ballots" stated “No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification review.” emphasized that, “no evidence of election fraud, manipulation of the election process, or any instances of organized/coordinated fraud was provided by any of the complaining parties.” "reported that three high-profile Republican officials — who had publicly made fantastical claims of fraud — did not reiterate those assertions under questioning by agents, when they were subject to a state law prohibiting false reporting to law enforcement."
- lettergram 4y ago
  You’re kind of making my point, I don’t care what staffers say — all these parties are opposed to one another already in court and politically. My beef is that none of this was litigated in a jury trial and that claims are dismissed via legal methods imposed by judges. For instance, before the election stuff is dismissed as “no injury” after the election it’s “no way to rectify”. Just debate the issue publicly; present the evidence from both sides (not hearsay, which is all this article is). I’m frustrated because a “democracy” only functions when the vast majority of the citizens feel empowered. Currently approximately half of the population feels disempowered. That’s a recipe for disaster and I’d like someone to adjudicate the issues before what happens next.
  - blacksqr 4y ago
    > You’re kind of making my point As I said in the first sentence of my post, it's hard to discern your position exactly, so I'm not surprised. > none of this was litigated in a jury trial To get a jury trial, you have to state an actionable claim of damages backed by evidence, which plaintiffs largely failed to do. In general plaintiffs didn't ask for jury trials, but for injunctions, for which one has to make a case to a judge. Juries don't issue injunctions. > claims are dismissed via legal methods imposed by judges In the case brought by Kari Lake, not by judges, but Arizona law, which requires that challenges to existing election procedures be brought before the election. Lake brought hers after the election. Ergo, dismissed. > hearsay, which is all this article is An official document release by the current attorney general of an investigation done by the attorney general's office. The opposite of hearsay: direct reports by the people who did the investigation. > a “democracy” only functions when the vast majority of the citizens feel empowered. What's more empowering than being able to vote? Which the released report as well as Arizona court cases showed citizens were able to do freely and fairly. > I’d like someone to adjudicate the issues "adjudicate" = "have a judge decide". Which has happened dozens of times, all claims disproven and dismissed.
blacksqr 4y ago
> Quite literally the appellate court cited that they should have brought the claims earlier. From the appellate decision: "The superior court dismissed eight of the ten counts for failure to state a claim, for undue delay, as duplicative, as outside the scope of an election contest, or for some combination thereof." "her request for relief fails because the evidence presented to the superior court ultimately supports the court’s conclusion that voters were able to cast their ballots, that votes were counted correctly, and that no other basis justifies setting aside the election results." https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2023/1%20CA-CV%2022-0779%20and%201%20CA-SA%2022-0237.pdf https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Div1/2023/1%...

LatteLazy 4y ago

Now watch nothing happen to them.

ajross 4y ago
The alleged behavior isn't a crime. Basically he made public statements in line with Trumpist allegations (implying that there were serious problems with the election), then failed to release the internal report finding that the election results were correct and its administration was perfectly routine (which isn't to say "free of all problems", obviously). That left it to his successor (a democrat) to release the report, which I believe happened fairly routinely. It's... bad. It's spin. Doing it this way makes something that should be a public good (we all want fair elections, right?) into a partisan football. But it's not criminal. FWIW: it's also not popular. Note that the reason for that party switch in the SoS office is that Brnovich lost his reelection campaign, owing in no small part to his engagement with fringe conspiracist politics. So in some sense he absolutely did get punished.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  > It's... bad. It's spin. Doing it this way makes something that should be a public good (we all want fair elections, right?) into a partisan football. But it's not criminal. The parent didn't say anything about criminal penalties, they said watch nothing happen. Yes, it's not criminal, but as you say it's also bad and not something we want to happen in our society. And yet, nothing will happen to him. Nothing. He won't be shunned by his political party for his actions, because they support the Big Lie. The problem we have today is that it's completely acceptable to lie to everyone and anyone about elections being stolen, and no one will do anything about that because "it's not a crime". Even when those lies lead to an assault on the electoral process by the loser of the election, it's still apparently not punished. And so the attempts continue. Today, insurrectionists are in control of the US House of Representatives. People who worked to overturn the free and fair election in 2020 are now sitting members of Congress, chairing committees, and directing investigations into political rivals and private citizens. Again, not a crime for the people to elect insurrectionists who aspire to overthrow American democracy. Just don't be surprised when American democracy is eventually overthrown. No one will be prosecuted for overthrowing democracy when that day comes (prosecutions will indeed follow, just not against the insurrectionists). > FWIW: it's also not popular. Note that the reason for that party switch in the SoS office is that Brnovich lost his reelection campaign, owing in no small part to his engagement with fringe conspiracist politics. So in some sense he absolutely did get punished. Actually, he was shunned by his constituents because he wasn't denying elections hard enough; his primary challenger Blake Masters won because his fidelity to the Big Lie was more authentic than Brnovich's. Trump endorsed Masters over Brnovich because Brnovich refused to decertify the Arizona results. That was the end of his political career. Now, it's true Master's eventually lost. But at the same time, 46% of voters cast a vote in favor of election denialism. Run an election that close enough times and eventually the election denier wins. When election deniers are in control of elections, that's when we need to really question the legitimacy of the elections they manage.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

moronicQ 4y ago

[dead]

bastardoperator 4y ago

I'm not shocked by republicans anymore, I just assume they're always lying or cheating at this point. You could say the same for every politician, but they seem to specialize in it.

tpoacher 4y ago
I'd call 'hostile media bias' on this one. I have the same impression about all parties, but with a bias towards liberal politicians instead (without identifying as republican as far as i'm concerned). Perhaps this in itself is evidence I'm more conservative leaning without realising it. I wouldn't know. PS: Not an American
- bediger4000 4y ago
  How is the article exhibiting hostile bias? It reports facts about Arizona's previous secretary of state's public comments being opposite what that SoS knew to be facts.
  - tpoacher 4y ago
    The hostile media bias (or effect) refers to the bias of the recipient, not the bias of the media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_media_effect I.e. "hostile media" bias, not hostile "media bias". It is the phenomenon whereby an otherwise neutral article could be perceived as equally hostile or biased by either political side, based on their own biases and expectations regarding media agendas.
- gamblor956 4y ago
  WaPo is a moderate-right newspaper by American standards, and was a conservative newspaper when originally purchased by Bezos. So you're arguing that a conservative newspaper is biased against...conservatives?
  - stuckinhell 4y ago
    The Washington Post is in no way socially conservative, but it does often push pro big business/amazon polices.

Karellen 4y ago

Your Honor, I object! And why is that? Because it's devastating to my case! Overruled. Good call.

debacle 4y ago

There's no substance here. Something can be wrong and legal, something can be litigious and cordial. This feels like a hit piece trying to get ahead of the cases that will be shortly heard in AZ regarding the 2022 election. There are a lot of people chasing ghosts with regards to election fraud, but it's pretty clear that signature verification for electronic voting isn't cutting it right now. That's not a political argument, it's a statistical one.

briffle 4y ago
Are we to agree with you that its clear because your a known expert in the field? Many people don't think its clear, that you can't have more verification without disenfranchising many, many voters. (My grandmother is 90, legally blind and hasn't had a drivers license in 10 years. How is she supposed to show ID to vote?) What is your alternative?
- junofan 4y ago
  Last 4 of social? There’s gotta be some middle ground. People need to compromise. Also, I think it’s fine for a citizen to have an opinion on how our democracy should work without being a “known expert in the field.”
- debacle 4y ago
  I didn't say anything about voter ID. Please take your strawman elsewhere.
  - Arainach 4y ago
    The content explicitly asked what your alternative is. That is the most commonly suggested alternative in public discourse; what's your solution if not that?
mikeyouse 4y ago
Every one of the 2022 election cases heard so far has been thrown out because they're all as baseless as the 2020 batch. It's relentless bad faith by either dumb people or malicious ones, including Brnovich.

jimt1234 4y ago

Unfortunately none of this matters. The narrative has been firmly established. Republicans overwhelmingly believe the 2020 presidential election was rigged. Furthermore, this story won't show up in any conservative press, so Republicans will never see it anyway.

jfengel 4y ago
To support "overwhelming": the number is around 70%, as of the latest polls I could find (October 2022): https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/10/31/two-years-after-election-turmoil-gop-voters-remain-skeptical-on-elections-vote-counts/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/10/31/two-years-af... To pollsters, 70% is an overwhelming number. An election is called a "landslide" when you reach 55%. It's well outside of any conventional margin of error. When it comes to ideology like this, I'm never sure of the degree that people tell the pollsters the truth. Not that they lie, per se, but that they will repeat the expected answer without giving much thought as to their own opinion. Nonetheless, this is an extraordinary number. It means that over 2 in 3 Republicans already believe that democracy has failed, and presumably believe that it will happen again. That is a dangerous proposition.