Election 2024

'No clue yet': 'Bitter' Trump Rust Belt voters slammed for supporting former president again

In the 2024 presidential election, Democratic strategists and Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign were hoping that their "Blue Wall" in the Rust Belt — Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin — would shield them from a Donald Trump victory. But President-elect Trump won all of those states after losing them in 2020.

While Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin have fluctuated between Trump and the Democratic nominee in presidential elections, Ohio has been Trump's strongest Rust Belt state: He won Ohio three elections in a row.

In an article published on January 13, The Guardian's Andrew Gumbel examines the loyalty that many Rust Belt voters have had to Trump even though he didn't bring about the manufacturing revival he promised in 2016.

READ MORE:'Fascist ideology': Veteran actor slams 'orange idiot' Trump for 'nonsense' claims about LA wildfires

A resident of the Youngstown, Ohio area told The Guardian, "We feel left behind. People who've lived here all their lives are working two or three jobs just to pay their bills."

Sonja Woods, a former General Motors worker and a United Auto Workers (UAW) official, told The Guardian, "We've been lied to, let down. It’s disappointing…. Nobody showed up in Youngstown this time, not Trump or Kamala. There are a lot of bitter people, and I'm one of them."

Gumbel explains, "Trump…. comes across as someone who doesn't pretend to be anything other than what he is, and that perceived authenticity counts for more with many Youngstown voters than his character flaws or even his policy positions. They'd rather have his gut instincts, ugly as they often are, over the carefully scripted messaging of a Democrat like Kamala Harris or even a mainstream Republican."

Dave Betras, a former Democratic county chair in Ohio, believes that his party has a major image problem in the Buckeye State.

READ MORE: Could 'lead to bloodshed': Military experts fear Trump’s use of soldiers against civilians

Betras told The Guardian, "American voters have a unique ability to smell b------t, and they smell b------t with the Democrats…. Most Americans think the system is rigged. And Trump shuffled the deck on us. Not only does Trump say this thing is rigged, but he says: 'I know, because I rigged it. I was part of the rigging.'"

Tim O’Hara, a former UAW president in Lordstown, Ohio, agrees that Democrats have let the working class down in the Rust Belt but stresses that supporting Trump is not the answer.

O'Hara told The Guardian, "I never liked Trump even when he was only a builder in New York.… because he stiffed union workers and he generally seemed like a douchebag. One thing I wasn't then and I'm not now is a racist, misogynistic, uninformed dips--t who enjoys supporting a rapist, felon, traitor.… These people have no clue yet what they've done, but they will find out."

READ MORE: 'It is tremendous': Kremlin insiders explain how Trump is already helping advance Putin's goals

Read The Guardian's full article at this link.

'Dark and challenging times': Here’s a glossary for 'Trump’s return to power'

Donald Trump's second term as president is less than a month away, with the president-elect scheduled to be inaugurated on January 20, 2025. And when he is sworn in, Republicans will have small majorities in both branches of Congress.

Salon's Chauncey DeVega hasn't minced words in his anti-Trump articles, many of which have attacked him as a dangerously authoritarian.

In an article published on December 27, DeVega offers a "Words of the Year" listicle for "Donald Trump’s imminent return to power and the very dark and challenging times that may lie beyond in the country's worsening democracy crisis."

READ MORE: 'Cracks are showing': Why 'messy mix' of 'contradictions' may sink Trump’s coalition

The terms in DeVega's listicle include: (1) "weathering," (2) "witnessing," (3) "dread," (4) "corporeal politics," (5) "anticipatory obedience," and (6) "malignant normality."

DeVega describes "weathering" as "the impact of chronic stress and other negative factors on a person's mind, body and overall wellbeing."

"The American people are going to experience great weathering from a resurgent Trump Administration, the MAGA Republicans and the larger 'conservative' movement and its allied forces," DeVega warns. "This weathering will also impact those people who voted for Trump — his 'working-class' supporters in red state America will be particularly vulnerable."

DeVega describes "corporeal politics" as "the relationship of the body to politics" and "anticipatory obedience" as "a temptation to surrender in advance" when " societies that are under siege from fascist and other such authoritarian, illiberal, and antidemocratic forces."

READ MORE: GOP trifecta to feature legislative attacks on voting rights

"The reasoning here is that preemptive surrender and compliance will somehow create safety," DeVega explains. "This is largely an illusion."

According to DeVega, the "malignant normality" concept "helps to explain Donald Trump and the MAGA movement and larger right-wing's hold on power and the country's political imagination."

The Salon journalist laments, "This state of malignant normality will likely endure long into the future because the collective relationship between truth and reality has been so disrupted by right-wing malign actors and such forces as disinformation, propaganda, social media, the algorithm, digital media echo chambers, conspiracism, closed epistemes and alternate realities, a failing public education system, a weak Fourth Estate and the death of local newspapers and other legitimate news sources, and perhaps most importantly the Trump-MAGA political experience-infotainment machine and pseudo-religion."

READ MORE: 'Has MAGA been duped?' Trump fans freak out over new plan from unelected 'DOGE twins'

Chauncey DeVega's full article for Salon is available at this link.

Top Trump campaign strategists explain why 2024 was a 'black swan election'

When Chris LaCivita was hired as co-manager for Donald Trump's 2024 presidential campaign, Democratic strategists expected the veteran GOP operative to play hardball. LaCivita was behind the Swift Boat Veterans strategy, which attacked 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's military record and helped President George W. Bush win a second term.

Republicans have lost the popular vote in most of the United States' post-1980s presidential elections, but there were two exceptions: Bush in 2004 and Trump in 2024. And LaCivita was a part of both campaigns.

During an interview with Politico's Jonathan Martin published in Q&A form on December 19, LaCivita and GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio discussed Trump's narrow victory over Vice President Kamala Harris. And Fabrizio explained why he considered 2024 a "black swan election."

READ MORE:'We want retribution': Atlantic staffer warns MAGA is even more disturbing in-person

Fabrizio told Politico, "If you look at all the events that took place and said, now we're going to have an election and just one of them is going to occur — you'd say, 'Wow, that’s incredible.' You have two assassination attempts. The incumbent candidate leaving in the middle of the race. You had his replacement being chosen without getting a single vote. You had all of these different things happening — candidate getting indicted, candidate getting convicted. Those were all challenges that we faced."

Fabrizio added, "Nothing was inevitable to us. We knew that the environment was primed for us to be victorious. But it was us — think about a farm, right. You got all of this fertile land but if you don’t farm it right, you're not going to get a crop."

During the interview, Fabrizio recalled discussing the popular vote with Trump.

Fabrizio explained, "So, the president asked me Election Day, he said: 'What about the popular vote?' I said: 'Well, sir, popular vote is tough.' It really depends on what happens in states like New York and California. Because it all depends on what their margins are, how much we lose them by."

READ MORE: 'No real mandate': Baptist minister dispels a major GOP myth about Trump's election

Fabrizio and LaCivita recalled that when President Joe Biden dropped out of the race and Harris became the nominee, they didn't take her campaign lightly.

Fabrizio told Politico, "I would say, the first couple of weeks after he dropped out, Harris just took off like a rocket…. Her image changed 20 points. But what happened is — I used to describe it like a wave coming up on the shore, and the wave hit its high-water mark and then it just receded back. And so, the one thing she was never able to do was close the sale…. Because they just didn't really have a coherent message. "

According to LaCivita, Trump's television background proved advantageous in the 2024 election.

LaCivita told Politico, "Donald Trump is a man who has made a large part of his living in a visual medium: TV. He understands that politics is a visual medium. And som he looks at everything through the prism of that. And your average candidate for public office doesn’t look at the world that way."

READ MORE: MAGA Republicans ramp up plan to 'indoctrinate' public schools with Christian nationalism

Read the full Politico interview at this link.


'Didn’t play the same': Republicans see 'resurgent faith' in democratic institutions after Trump win

During the 2024 U.S. presidential race, Democratic elections lawyer Marc Elias often warned that if Vice President Kamala Harris won, Donald Trump would try to overturn the election results just as he did in 2020. And radio host Charlamagne tha God went a step further, predicting that the "corrupt" U.S. Supreme Court would respond to a Harris victory by handing the election to Trump.

But Trump narrowly won the election, picking up 312 electoral votes and defeating Harris by roughly 1.5 percent in the popular vote (according to the Cook Political Report). And Democrats, unlike Trump and his MAGA allies in 2020, didn't make any false voter fraud claims.

Harris gave a gracious concession speech, joining President Joe Biden, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) and others in acknowledging Trump as the legitimate winner.

READ MORE: 'Damning information mounts': Trump's 'worst' nominees could be in for a rude awakening

According to the New York Times' Charles Homan, a YouGov survey shows "stark differences in how Republican and Democratic voters have handled recent losses."

The survey, Homan reports, shows that Americans "are more confident in the country's election system than they have been at any time since the 2020 election."

But according to Brendan Nyhan, who teaches government at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, the survey results don't necessarily mean that GOP election denialism has gone away — only that Republicans are more likely to respond favorably when they win.

Brendan Nyhan, told the Times, "The increase is heartening…. But there's also bad news, which is we now have to wonder if Republicans will only trust the system if they win."

READ MORE: 'How long it’ll be until he sues an economist': Experts blast Trump's lawsuit against pollster

Nyhan, comparing responses to the 2024 and 2020 elections, pointed out that "it didn't play the same as it did in 2020."

Homan's reporting indicates that GOP election denialism could make a comeback in the future if Democrats enjoy some major victories and Republicans are disappointed — as election denialism has become very "ingrained" in the Republican psyche since 2020, and Trump's 2024 victory doesn't necessary mean it has gone away.

According to Homan, "The centrality of election denialism to the post-2020 Republican Party raised concerns that mistrust of the election system had become deeply ingrained on the right, enough so that it could outlast Mr. Trump's own presence in politics."

Democrats were disappointed by the 2024 election's outcome but aren't claiming the election was stolen from Harris. Homan observes, "Surveys taken since Donald Trump’s win show a resurgent faith among the president-elect’s supporters, and little Democratic appetite for conspiracy theories."

Homan reports, "Eighty-nine percent of all respondents recognize Mr. Trump’s victory in last month’s election as legitimate, according to the Bright Line Watch survey. Only 65 percent said the same of Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s victory in 2020 in the group’s survey that November."

Homan notes that a Pew Research poll released in November "found similar results," with 84 percent of Democrats saying they believed the election was conducted "very" or "somewhat" well.

READ MORE: Trump Cabinet appointments putting Mike Johnson’s 'wafer-thin' House majority 'in peril'

Read the full New York Times article at this link (subscription required).

'National laughingstock:' Election denialism has staying power even after Trump’s win

President-elect Donald Trump may have quieted his lies about widespread voter fraud after his win last month, but the impact of his effort to cast doubt on the integrity of American elections lingers on.

Although this post-election period has been markedly calmer than the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election, there were isolated flare-ups of Republican candidates borrowing a page from Trump’s playbook to claim that unsatisfactory election results were illegitimate.

In Wisconsin, Republican U.S. Senate challenger Eric Hovde spread unsubstantiated rumors about “last-minute” absentee ballots in Milwaukee that he said flipped the outcome of the race. Though he conceded to incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin nearly two weeks after the election, his rhetoric helped stoke a spike in online conspiracy theories. The Milwaukee Election Commission disputed his claims, saying they “lack any merit.”

In North Carolina, Republican state Senate leader Phil Berger told reporters last week he feared that the vote-counting process for a state Supreme Court seat was rigged for Democrats. Karen Brinson Bell, the head of the State Board of Elections, skewered Berger for his comments, saying they could inspire violence.

And in Arizona, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Kari Lake, who has spent two years disputing her defeat in the 2022 governor’s race, hasn’t acknowledged her Senate loss. While she thanked her supporters in a video posted to X, the platform formerly called Twitter, she stopped short of conceding to Democratic U.S. Rep. Ruben Gallego.

After a bruising 4 years, a hope for normalcy in American elections

Republicans’ disinformation campaigns have caused Americans’ confidence in elections to plummet and exposed local election officials to threats and harassment, and some observers worry about a return of the GOP’s destructive rhetoric the next time they lose.

“We have to turn this rhetoric down,” said Jay Young, senior director of voting and democracy for Common Cause, a voting rights group. “There cannot be this continued attack on this institution.”

Still, many politicians who either denied the 2020 election results or criticized their local voting processes won election. In Arizona, for example, voters chose state Rep. Justin Heap, a Republican, to lead the election office in Maricopa County, home to Phoenix and the largest jurisdiction in the critical swing state. Heap ran on a “voter confidence” platform and suggested at a Trump rally that Maricopa’s election office is a “national laughingstock.”

Trump tapped former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi to oversee the U.S. Department of Justice. Bondi, a Republican, served as an attorney for Trump while he disputed the results in 2020. She could use her position as U.S. attorney general to prosecute election officials involved in that election, as Trump promised in an X post in September.

While the rhetoric around stolen elections has been somewhat muted among the GOP ranks since Trump’s victory, conservatives attempted to flip the “election denial” script on Democrats in at least one race.

We have to turn this rhetoric down.

– Jay Young, Common Cause’s senior director of voting and democracy

In Pennsylvania, Democratic U.S. Sen. Bob Casey refused to concede defeat until last Thursday, two weeks after The Associated Press called the race for Republican challenger David McCormick. Casey lost by fewer than 16,000 votes, less than half a percentage point.

Casey said he wanted to see the results of an automatic recount and various court cases filed on his behalf, but Republicans jumped on his refusal to bow out quickly.

Bob Casey concedes in Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senate race

Last week, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican who resisted pressure from Trump in 2020 to “find” votes after he lost the state, lambasted Casey for not conceding the Senate race.

But Kathy Boockvar, president of Athena Strategies and former Pennsylvania secretary of the commonwealth told the Capital-Star that comparisons between what the Casey campaign was doing and Republicans’ efforts to overturn results in the 2020 election were not valid; under Pennsylvania law, a recount is automatically triggered when the margin of votes is under 0.5%, as it was in the Casey-McCormick race.

She added that the practice of “calling” elections has “done more damage to perceptions of elections than a lot of other things, because people think that when the Associated Press calls an election or Decision Desk calls an election, that that has any official relevance, and it has none,” she said. “The Associated Press and others ‘calling’ of elections exist solely for the purpose of feeding people’s need for quick answers to a process that is not designed to be quick for good reasons.”

Even as Republicans mostly toned down their rhetoric this year, some left-wing social media accounts repeated a debunked conspiracy theory that Starlink, the internet provider owned by billionaire and Trump supporter Elon Musk, changed vote counts.

Those posts, however, aren’t comparable to GOP election denialism, according to the University of Washington’s Center for an Informed Public, which fights strategic misinformation.

“While the claims are similar, the rumoring dynamics on the left are markedly different due to the lack of endorsement or amplification by left-leaning influencers, candidates, or party elites,” the center posted last week.

Young, of Common Cause, said it’s clear that election disinformation of any kind has a devastating impact on the local officials tasked with administering the vote.

Threats to election workers continued even after Election Day. Bomb threats were called into election offices in California, Minnesota, Oregon and other states, forcing evacuations as workers were tallying ballots.

But this was just a slice of the onslaught many officials faced over the past four years. Local election officials need the resources to beef up the way they fight disinformation and physical attacks, Young said.

“We should be doing better by them,” he said.

Kim Lyons of the Capital-Star staff contributed.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: [email protected]. Follow Stateline on Facebook and X.

Pennsylvania Capital-Star is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Pennsylvania Capital-Star maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kim Lyons for questions: [email protected]. Follow Pennsylvania Capital-Star on Facebook and X.

No landslide: Analysis further shreds claim that Trump election victory is a 'mandate'

Many supporters of President-elect Donald Trump have repeatedly described his narrow victory over Vice President Kamala Harris as a "mandate," and some have even used the word "landslide."

But according to Cook Political Report, the size of Trump's win is hardly a "landslide." Although Trump performed well in the Electoral College — winning 312 electoral votes compared to 226 for Harris — he won the popular vote by roughly 1.5 or 1.6 percent.

President Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932 were landslides; Trump in 2024 was a narrow win of less than 2 percent.

READ MORE:'Up to us to stop him': Petition to block Trump Cabinet picks gets 44K signatures in 5 days

In an article published by the conservative website The Bulwark on November 29, journalist Will Saletan lays out some reasons why it's misleading to describe Trump's victory over Harris as a "mandate."

"It's normal to say you have a mandate after winning an election," Saletan explains. "Trump's staff did as much after the 2016 election, when he didn't even win the popular vote. If the claim is believed this time around, it could intimidate Democrats and embolden Republicans in Congress. But when you look closely at what voters actually think, there's no mandate for a Trump agenda."

Saletan continues, "Two massive polls of the 2024 electorate — the network exit poll and the VoteCast survey used by Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and other outlets — show that Trump won the election because voters rejected the status quo and had positive memories of his first term. But on most issues, they oppose what Republicans want to do in his second term.

The Bulwark journalist delves into specific issues, noting that the majority of voters, according to polls, disagree with Trump's policies on abortion and health care. And on energy, most voters favor expanding the use of green energy, including wind and solar — while Trump is heavily focused on fossil fuels.

READ MORE: How Don Jr. is making sure Trump picks 'absolute warriors for the movement' to his Cabinet

"No serious person disputes that Trump won the election," Saletan argues. "He got the Electoral College and a plurality of the popular vote. But that doesn't mean most people who cast ballots in this election were giving him a mandate to pursue his party's agenda. According to the only surveys that polled them, they weren't."

READ MORE: 'Encouraging decision': Here are the Trump Cabinet picks Russia is most excited about

Will Saletan's full article for The Bulwark is available at this link.

Experts sound alarm on Trump’s 'dark money' transition team

Donald Trump has been quick to announce his Cabinet nominations over the last two weeks, but the president-elect has been slow to reveal the "names of the donors who are funding his transition effort," according to a Sunday New York Times report.

The Times reports:

The current Trump transition, like its predecessors, is set up as a 'dark money' nonprofit. Those groups typically do not have to disclose their donors, even to the Internal Revenue Service. But unlike Mr. Trump’s team this year, earlier transitions accepted financial support from the General Services Administration, which oversees much of the transition process. In exchange for that federal money, they agreed to conditions that other dark-money nonprofits do not have to follow, like capping individual contributions at $5,000 and disclosing the names of their donors.

Trump's refusal to sign "an agreement with the [President Joe] Biden administration that imposes strict limits on that fund-raising in exchange for up to $7.2 million in federal funds earmarked for the transition," makes him "the first president-elect to sidestep the restrictions," the report notes.

READ MORE: Ex-FBI official explains why it doesn’t get 'much more disturbing' than Trump’s AG pick

This lack of transparency from the incoming president is "provoking alarm among ethics experts."

Although Trump Education Secretary nominee Linda McMahon and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick — both of whom helm the MAGA transition team — claim the president-elect will sign the agreements, "Trump’s transition team, formally known as Trump Vance 2025 Transition Inc., has revealed nothing about how much money it hopes to raise, who has contributed to the fund or how it is spending the money," the Times reports.

“When the money isn’t disclosed, it’s not clear how much everybody is giving, who is giving it and what they are getting in return for their donations," said Heath Brown, a professor of public policy at John Jay College of Criminal Justice public policy Professor Heath Brown. "It’s an area where the vast majority of Americans would agree that they want to know who is paying that bill."

READ MORE: How GOP lawmakers are 'privately' pushing back on full Trump House takeover: report

The New York Times' full report is available here.

Trump team 'fuming' as margin of victory dwindles after Election Day: 'Delegitimize his mandate'

In a Friday, November 22 post on X, formerly Twitter, Donald Trump spokesperson Karoline Leavitt angrily railed against the New York Times and Politico for reporting that the president-elect's margin of victory had decreased in the vote count since Election Day.

Leavitt tweeted, "New Fake News Narrative Alert!…. The fake news is trying to minimize President Trump's massive and historic victory to try to delegitimize his mandate before he even takes the Oath of Office again."

But in fact, the Times and Politico's reporting was accurate. Vote counting since Election Day has demonstrated that although clearly defeated Vice President Kamala Harris, his victory was far from a landslide.

READ MORE:House passes bill 'giving Donald Trump unlimited authority' to target political enemies

According to Cook Political Report's vote tracker, Trump won 312 electoral votes compared to 226 for Harris and he carried Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada and other key swing states. Trump won the popular vote as well, but not by huge margins.

Cook's national vote count, as of November 22, shows that Trump defeated Harris by roughly 1.5 percent in the popular vote.

President Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984 and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932 were landslides; 2024, Cook data demonstrates, was a close election in which Trump enjoyed a narrow victory.

The New Republic's Malcolm Ferguson, on November 22, explained, "It's no surprise that Trump and his team are fuming: Since November 5, Trump's margin of victory has narrowed considerably…. Trump and his supporters have been pushing the landslide narrative ever since he defeated Harris…. Trump likes the landslide narrative, true or not (not), because he thinks it gives him more ground to stand on for his insane agenda. But his mandate is much weaker than he'd have you believe."

READ MORE: 'Wrong': Christian GOP senator fears 'slippery slope' of OK school chief’s Bible push

That same day, The New York Times' Peter Baker reported, "By traditional numeric measures, Mr. Trump's victory was neither unprecedented nor a landslide. In fact, he prevailed with one of the smallest margins of victory in the popular vote since the 19th Century and generated little of the coattails of a true landslide."

Baker added, "The disconnect goes beyond predictable Trumpian braggadocio. The incoming president and his team are trying to cement the impression of a 'resounding margin,' as one aide called it, to make Mr. Trump seem more popular than he is and strengthen his hand in forcing through his agenda in the months to come."

READ MORE:Ron DeSantis slams the door on Matt Gaetz's hopes of being a senator

Election Day bomb threats sent to two different AZ counties were identical

Bomb threats sent to Maricopa and Pima counties on Election Day contained identical language, according to copies of the threats obtained through public records requests.

Arizona was one of several states where polling places or election facilities were subject to bomb threats on Election Day. Ten of the state’s 15 counties received bomb threats that day, according to Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes.

Officials deemed the threats “non-credible” and during Election Day they stressed that no voters were in immediate danger or were kept from voting because of the threats. However, some locations had to evacuate, including in Maricopa County when a threat was aimed at the Superior Court building, where Recorder Stephen Richer’s Office is located.

On the night of the election, Richer was seen evacuating his office in response to one of the threats. Election offices in Cochise, La Paz, and Maricopa counties also evacuated, however, many others did not.

Cochise, Coconino, Gila, La Paz, Maricopa, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, Yavapai and Yuma counties all received Election Day bomb threats.

A threat emailed to Maricopa County, and obtained by the Mirror via a public records request, shares identical language to one obtained by VoteBeat in Pima County also through a public records request.

The email, with the subject line “My manifesto,” comes from an email account with the name “maga_alex” which is similar to the one received by Pima County with the same subject and a sender named “maga_sam.” Both emails have the same wording except for a change in the address where they claimed a bomb had been planted.

“It will not cause much damage to the building but there will be many wounded people when it explodes,” maga_alex said in the email to Maricopa. “I plan on remotely detonating the device as soon as there is a large police presence.”

Maricopa County Spokesman Fields Moseley told the Mirror in a written statement that the county’s training and technology prevented the possibility of the email harming the county’s tech.

“Maricopa County employs multiple intrusion prevention and detection security controls across all technology layers including email. Along with technology controls, Maricopa County performs security awareness training and simulated phishing testing,”Moseley said in the statement. “It was because of this training that the email was caught, reported and addressed rapidly and efficiently. While the email content is a threat, the email itself wouldn’t have harmed technology resources.”

Moseley said that the county could not comment further due to the on-going law enforcement investigation.

The FBI previously said on Nov. 5 that the emails “appear to originate from Russian email domains” and none of the threats were deemed credible. When asked for an update or if the FBI had engaged with the two email providers for the threats made public through records requests, the FBI deferred to their Nov. 5 statement.

The two email domains in the public records releases belong to companies called Mailum and CyberFear. Neither company responded to a request for comment.

At first glance, the websites appear to be different email services, however, when signing up for CyberFear, users are directed to Mailum, where they can choose between a @CyberFear.com email or a @Mailum.com email address.

Additionally, when viewing the source code on Mailum’s website, code for an analytics tool with the username “CyberFear” is visible.

Both companies bill themselves as privacy email options akin to ProtonMail or Tutanota that offer end-to-end encryption and “spy-proof” email services. The emails operate as a paid subscription model and in a post to the BlackHatWorld Forum in 2020, a now defunct account appearing to belong to CyberFear claimed that the service could send mass emails to up to 50 recipients.

Other states seemingly had it worse than the Grand Canyon State, like Georgia, which reported over 60 bomb threats on Election Day. An analysis of the threats by NBC News found that many targeted largely Democratic areas.

The Arizona Secretary of State’s Office said that it is continuing to work with law enforcement to investigate the threats. Despite the threats, elections across the country ran relatively smoothly.

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: [email protected]. Follow Arizona Mirror on Facebook and X.

The Democratic Party needs a backbone

I have an admission for you: I never took even a single second to consider the terrible residue of a Democratic loss in this month's elections, precisely because of the terrible things that happened last week.

When others brought it up, I would simply defer and say something that tasted like this: “I can’t allow myself to go there, because the consequences will be too grave to even imagine. My focus and energy need to be on ONE thing: WINNING. We must get Kamala Harris into the White House. Losing is just too devastating to contemplate.”

Now that might sound naive and foolish, and I guess I get that, but I am not built to consider losing. As a half-decent athlete in my younger days, and a high-octane competitor always, there has never been a game, or a contest, or a political battle that I engaged in when I ever considered losing.

I grew up in the days of Hall of Fame football coach and Democrat, Vince Lombardi, who famously said, “Winning is not a sometime thing; it's an all the time thing.”

ALSO READ: How to find hope in a near-hopeless time

I went onto become a sports writer and then a sports editor before shifting to news, so I’ll spare you the 172 clichés that apply to what just happened in America.

And before I leak too much testosterone all over this page, I am not for one minute comparing some football game to the most important election in American history.

What I am telling you is that a lot of people laid their time, treasure, heart, and soul on the line the past eight years, only to end up right back where we started.

This wasn't just some gut-wrenching loss, it was the end of an America that fancied itself a place that doled out liberty and justice for all. Instead of being a beacon for democracy across the world, we now provide safe harbor for murderous fascists.

This could not have been conceivable even 10 years ago.

I am not writing to knock you further into despair today, good people. I’m really not. I have written during the past week that there are ways out of this, because there simply have to be. Namely, we must not submit.

Except that is exactly what many in our Democratic leadership seem to be doing right now, and it is positively blowing my mind.

While we are being steamrolled by Trump and his nuclear-powered propaganda machine fueled by greedy, blood-thirsty billionaires, Democratic leaders are pointing fingers, and climbing over one another to tell us all what went wrong in the election.

While they draw attention to themselves in all the wrong ways, the morbid Trump is settling in to what he hopes will be a long and comfortable dictatorship, and picking one revolting loyalist after another to staff his cabinet and inflict as much pain on us as possible.

Consider what happened on Wednesday alone:

Joe Biden symbolically surrendered to the repulsive Trump in front of a roaring fire in our White House (talk about a terrifying metaphor), and actually said, “Welcome back!” This is the guy Biden himself has warned about in the starkest terms, and over and over again.

This is the guy who instead of gracefully conceding defeat attacked our country, did nothing about it for hours, and then told the people who did it that he loved them.

HE TOLD THE PEOPLE WHO ATTACKED US THAT HE LOVED THEM.

The is the guy who is a convicted felon, and a rapist. But, sure, how do you take your coffee, Donald? Would you like some cookies with your shit-eating grin?

And of course, Trump’s billionaire boss, the absolutely repulsive Elon Musk, was in tow, because, well, that’s completely normal ...

And forget the fact, the America-attacker has NOT yet signed (nor will he) the Presidential Transition Ethics Agreement as required by law ...

He deserves nothing but scorn, not public congratulations and warm welcomes by the fire. And if Biden just HAD to do this, why so damn soon? My God, most of us haven’t gotten over the shock yet.

Some never will.

Then there’s news Special Counsel Jack Smith will be quitting, rather than making Trump fire him, and that is pathetic. And has anybody heard from Merrick Garland since he crawled underneath his bed? He, more than anybody, is responsible for this terrible mess we are in by failing to do the most important part of his job: protecting America.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who I like very much, is literally everywhere saying we need to take the high prices in America more seriously, as if Vice President Harris didn't talk about this endlessly on the campaign trail. Unlike her ghastly opponent she actually had a concrete plan to help correct this, and not some bullshit “concept” of one. Again, why so soon, my good man?

Fully five people in Democratic “leadership” have let it leak that they will be running for president in 2028, as if there will even be an election in 2028. They will get no mention here.

Talk about grave-dancing …

And, hey, go ahead and slam me for not considering the consequences of a Trump win, but at least I got the same memo that Harris did. We both understood Trump is a fascist, and is not really keen on elections.

Frankly, she is one of the few who has accorded herself well though this ordeal, and while I have no proof of this, it is starting to feel to me like she is being hung out to dry. Nancy Pelosi can’t stop letting it be known that Biden should have stepped down sooner, and there should have been a primary to determine our Democratic candidate for president.

She might be right about that, but she is dead wrong for intimating we would have got a better candidate than Harris, who ran just one helluva campaign, and is a top-notch person. I’d still run through a brick wall for her, because she is everything right about the nasty world of politics.

Ya know … I’m not advocating a violent attack on America like Trump did, but I am advancing the fact that the Democratic Party needs to stand up straight and tall, and show some damn backbone and grit.

We are fully capable of doing both a thorough autopsy on our terrible loss, while sending the message loud clear that we still have plenty of damn fight left, and aren’t going anywhere — that fascism has no place in America.

There is a prevailing feeling among many outside the Beltway that our leadership has abandoned us, at the very time we need them most, and this will not be forgotten.

It feels like a catastrophic storm has come ashore, is gaining steam and will slowly and methodically wipe out everything in its path. I cannot tell you how many hardworking and good-hearted Democrats who have told me, “Fuck it. I’m done.”

This is how a bad situation gets even worse.

I talked with one of the smartest people I know about this Wednesday night. Christopher Webb is a Democratic Strategist in California, and he’s seeing and hearing the same things I am among the Black community, who are the greatest patriots among us:

“Black folks are tired right now. Sick and tired! Especially Black women. They do the heavy lifting every election cycle. They always lead the way, and this time we had a supremely qualified Black woman nominee, but we had to watch her torn down by racism and misogyny coming from the right. We constantly had to hear that she’s dumb. Where are her policies? She’s a DEI hire. She’s trash. She slept her way to the top. Black women activists put anger aside and pushed back with the facts: Kamala is supremely qualified, and here’s why. She’s here to fight for us. Here are her policies. But it didn’t matter.
Post-election, there’s a lot of anger, frustration, and even hopelessness within our community.
We love the party, but it feels like the party does not love us back.”

“But it feels like the party does not love us back …”

Man, this makes my blood boil. That Democratic leadership I have been trying to slap some sense into here need to hear this. We ALL need to hear it.

I want to add that Christopher said he’s “more than ready” for the fight ahead.

Me too.

While, I totally get the inclination to bolt, I am not done. I will stand here and fight, but I need to know just who in the hell is with us. I need to know who is out there speaking for our concerns and not capitulating to fascists.

We cannot surrender. There is no “waiting it out.” We must take the fight to these bastards right now, because we — not them — stand for what is most certainly good and right in this country.

Or as Lombardi said: “Winners never quit, and quitters never win.”

NOW READ: America is at a crossroads

D. Earl Stephens is the author of “Toxic Tales: A Caustic Collection of Donald J. Trump’s Very Important Letters” and finished up a 30-year career in journalism as the Managing Editor of Stars and Stripes. You can find all his work here.

A TX election official feels the strain of unrelenting scrutiny from right wing skeptics

BRYAN, Texas — At election time, Trudy Hancock spends a lot of time in her car, delivering equipment to polling sites scattered around Brazos County and visiting poll workers who need her help in the field.

She keeps the car radio on, and always tuned to Christian music.

Recovering from a tiring Election Day last week, the longtime county election administrator recalled hearing one song that resonated with her. It’s called “The Truth,” and opens with the lyrics:

How many times can you hear the same lie

Before you start to believe it?

At her desk that morning, she recited a version of those lyrics as best as she could remember them, softly, haltingly.

“But I know the truth,” she added, as she tried to hold back tears. “It gets hard.”

There are reasons why the song hit home. After decades of working in elections, and years of hearing people lie about them, Hancock and her staff members are starting to sometimes doubt themselves. Like election officials around the country, they’ve repeatedly tried to reassure a small group of right-wing skeptics that the county’s elections are safe and secure. They’ve tried to answer their questions, accommodated their demands, educated them about the law, and offered them opportunities to see firsthand how the process works.

“They won’t accept our answers, because it’s not the answers that they want,” Hancock, 60, said. “There’s just no end to it.”

Election Day in Brazos — a Republican stronghold around 100 miles northwest of Houston, and home to Texas A&M University — went pretty smoothly this time. Minor technical issues were resolved early on. Few locations had long wait times.

Hancock knows the truth. But she also knows that it won’t be enough to quiet the skeptics, who were questioning election processes right up to the start of early voting this year, and haven’t stopped.

Now that the 2024 election is over, Hancock is about to decide whether she can keep doing the job.

The requests keep coming

Since January, Hancock and her staff have hosted at least three public meetings where they’ve gone over, in detail, how the voting equipment works, and every single step of the election process. They’ve explained to the group of concerned residents that voter roll maintenance is done daily by staff members whose sole job is to make sure such lists are accurate.

Following the March primary election, Hancock invited some residents who have been coming to Commissioners Court to take part in the state-mandated partial hand count, which is done by every county after each election to check the accuracy of the voting equipment. The Secretary of State’s office selects the races to be hand-counted.

In an effort to increase transparency, Hancock got state permission to hand-count additional races. One of the critics of her office, resident Catherine Viens, participated in the count, which took a few days to complete and showed no discrepancies.

But the requests kept coming. They asked Hancock to guard against double voting — though there’s no evidence of that happening at large scale — by purchasing special ballot paper that’s preprinted with sequential serial numbers, starting with 1.

The paper cost taxpayers $14,000 and, according to Hancock, doesn’t really improve security. It creates waste, because leftover ballots can’t be reused in the next election. On top of that, the county workers have to spend more time and resources redacting the printed numbers to protect voters’ ballot secrecy.

Hancock agreed to it anyway for the presidential election. But it didn’t seem to bring anyone peace of mind.

During a state-mandated logic and accuracy test of the electronic equipment, which is open to the public, the group repeatedly asked, “Are the machines connected to the internet?” And each time the answer was the same, “no,” said Thomas Cavaness, the Brazos County Democratic Party chair, who participated in the test.

The testing should have taken 45 minutes to an hour, Cavaness said, “but instead it took us three hours to finish, because they kept asking questions.”

False claims fly at an October meeting

The questions have been pouring in for at least a year now, from several Republicans in Brazos who speak out regularly at Commissioners Court meetings. They’ve urged elected officials to take steps that include eliminating the use of electronic voting equipment like ballot-marking machines and electronic poll books. They have falsely claimed the equipment is connected to the internet and vulnerable to hacking.

At an October meeting, days before the start of early voting, four people spoke, asking commissioners again to endorse their efforts. Brazos resident Cynthia Wiley expressed her frustration with what she said was a lack of action.

“You’re our only recourse to express our concerns,” Wiley told the commissioners, citing voter registrations she’s unsuccessfully challenged. “And you guys have direct authority over the election administrator.”

Hancock has said her office is following the legally mandated procedures. Federal law prevents election officials from systematically removing people from the voter rolls 90 days ahead of a federal election. In addition, state law requires election officials to notify voters and give them a chance to respond and correct any errors before they can be removed from the rolls, but Wiley said she wanted the elected officials to instruct Hancock to investigate the registrations of the voters she had challenged right away.

At the same meeting, Viens asserted that the county had no emergency plan in case the power went out. Hancock said that’s false: The county has for years been prepared to handle power outages, violence, or natural disasters on Election Day, and Hancock had generators and other materials ready to go in case something went wrong. Viens has requested a copy of the plan.

Another resident who frequently speaks at the meetings is Walter Daughterity, a retired computer science professor at Texas A&M. Daughterity often appears on the video platform of MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, well-known as a promoter of election conspiracy theories, and at other venues pushing for hand counting of ballots. Daughterity has asserted that Brazos’ voting machines are connected to the internet and not certified by federal officials. County and state officials have said those assertions are not true.

At the October meeting, he listed six urgent priorities for the Commissioners Court. He did not respond to Votebeat’s request for comment.

Mark Holtzapple, a chemical engineering professor at Texas A&M, has echoed Daughterity’s claims. At that meeting, he claimed that “ballot boxes are insecure,” because “the hinge on the locked box is on the outside, and all you have to do is unscrew one bolt” to get around the lock and security seal on it.

In an email to Votebeat, Holtzapple said he and the other residents are “not accusing anyone of anything. Rather, we are simply concerned citizens who want to improve election security, an essential condition for a properly functioning republic.”

The professors’ advocacy has spurred pushback from some of their colleagues at the university. Hank Walker, a computer science and engineering professor, wrote an email to Hancock in August to thank her and the staff for “performing so professionally with people who question your integrity.”

“I have known Walter and Mark for 30 years,” he said in an email to Votebeat. “They have good intentions, but they are wrong.”

Days after the public meeting where the activists spoke, Brazos County Judge Duane Peters asked Hancock to publicly respond. But when Hancock presented at the following Commissioners Court meeting, none of the residents who had complained were there.

The four residents later requested a separate in-person meeting with Peters and Hancock. She repeated what she had explained earlier. Holtzapple told Votebeat that the hourlong meeting “was not sufficient time to fully resolve the issues and generate an action plan.”

The residents compiled a 50-page document that lays out the issues they brought up at the meeting and how the county responded. They expect another meeting.

Viens said in a text message to Votebeat that her confidence in the process “will not be restored until the county complies with the Texas Election Code.” She specifically wants to see the county eliminate countywide voting, and use only hand-marked paper ballots.

Wiley, who along with Viens worked as a polling place supervisor during elections this year, including during the presidential election last week, said she does not trust the electronic voting equipment. “Once you click or insert your choices on paper into the machinery, who or what is really casting our votes?” she wrote in an email to Votebeat. She also echoed Viens’ request to help restore her confidence in the election process.

Holtzapple acknowledged that Hancock and her staff have made efforts to address the concerns he and others have raised, but said he still wants a more extensive dialogue, more substantive responses to the questions he’s raising about election security, and more responsiveness directly to the people who raise concerns.

For example, when a resident challenges a voter registration, “there should be a closing of the loop, that there should be respect shown from the government to the citizens for taking that time to identify people who possibly should be removed from the voter rolls.”

Peters, the county judge, described some of the residents’ actions and comments as a “constant barrage … I catch it, too,” he said. “And they expect me to change the system and go to something that I think is way less secure than the system we’ve got.”

“So I can understand why Trudy and her staff would be stressed to the limit,” Peters added. “It hasn’t impacted their work ethic, but I know it gets discouraging.”

A demanding Election Day: ‘They don’t understand’

Hancock was born and raised in neighboring Robertson County, and still lives there with her husband. Her first experience in elections was as a poll worker in her community back in the late 1980s, she said.

She spends her free time scrapbooking and screenprinting T-shirts. She often makes those for her staff, featuring messages such as “election squad,” and also makes them for friends and family at their request.

“It’s a fun outlet for me,” Hancock said.

She’s most proud of her two teenage grandchildren. On the night before Election Day, she was exhausted, but agreed to have them over for dinner. She made them pumpkin bread and brought some to the office the next day.

In the early morning hours of Election Day, Hancock had already answered dozens of phone calls from election workers at polling places who needed her help. If they were short on election supplies, she hopped in her small red SUV to deliver them herself, toting extra yellow traffic cones and curbside voting signs. Technical issues with the equipment? She knew whom to call. There was no problem Hancock and her staff did not resolve quickly.

Krystal Ocon and others in Hancock’s office fanned out across the county, and fielded questions from election workers in a text thread that kept her phone dinging throughout the day.

Ocon, 39, is the Brazos County elections coordinator, and unofficially Hancock’s second in command. She was born and raised in Brazos. For the past 20 years, she’s worked on every aspect of elections in the county. She knows the process thoroughly.

Throughout the day, Hancock relied on Ocon to give voters and election workers direction, and to help when needed, such as when a line of college students began to form outside of the polling location at the elections department. Many of them hadn’t updated their voter registration and would have to cast a provisional ballot, which takes more time. There was only a couple of hours left before polls were set to close.

“Look at that line!” Ocon said, before swinging into action.

She quickly gave the waiting students directions: where to stand, what type of ID they needed to have ready, the forms they might need to fill out if they weren’t registered in the county. She told them what their options were and what would happen next.

Collectively, the Brazos County elections department staff has more than 60 years of experience. So Ocon is frustrated by the constant requests and skepticism from the activists. She worries that it could discourage the staff and weaken the department.

“They don’t understand how much time and care it takes to do this job,” Ocon said.

She points out that she’s had to miss Halloween events with her daughter multiple times over the years in order to manage early voting and meet state-mandated election deadlines.

“Do they honestly think that I am going to take time away from my family to hack the machines, change votes, and go to jail?” she said. “Heck no. So yeah, I take all of this very personally.”

Poll watchers act ‘like detectives’

The tension between the small group of Republican activists and the county elections department penetrated decisions over how to best manage polling place staffing during this year’s elections.

Hancock said the Republican Party in Brazos, now led by Ross Ford, refused to collaborate with her staff to assign work sites for election judges, who supervise polling locations.

In the past, Hancock and her staff were able to assign workers appointed by the party to locations where they’d be a good fit. “For example, a location that gets a lot of voters needs an experienced team, and so we’d assign workers based on that,” Hancock said.

This year, the party made those placement decisions on its own, which by law, it’s entitled to do. In some cases, it assigned inexperienced workers to locations staffed only by other inexperienced workers, which led to some delays on Election Day. At one location, election judges were unsure how to process voters with out-of-state IDs or how to process provisional ballots.

And Republican poll workers said they were struggling to deal with the party’s own poll watchers.

“These poll watchers feel more like detectives than observers,” said Bill Edison, a Republican election judge in Brazos who has been a poll worker for more than a decade.

“Nearly all the poll watchers, except for one I had on Election Day, were from the Republican Party. And they’re trolling Republican judges, in a town basically where they own the county politically,” he said. “It doesn’t make any sense.”

Ford, the party leader, said the party has been unhappy with Hancock’s staff’s previous placement of workers at polling sites. “I know she’s very dedicated, but we feel like we need to assert ourselves and make sure that we’re doing things right,” Ford said.

The activists say they’re working on behalf of voters who lack confidence in the process. Most voters Votebeat spoke with on Election Day didn’t express such doubts.

At the Brazos Center, one of the busiest polling locations in the county, voters cast their ballots within minutes. Voters walking out and back to their cars said they had confidence in the election process. They were unaware of any issues between conservative activists and the elections department, they said.

“Things are working the way they’re supposed to,” said Brazos voter John Borden.

“The process was smooth and fast. The workers are friendly,” said Omero Lara.

Amanda Cross, who said she hasn’t always had confidence in the outcome of past elections, said she trusts how the process is handled locally. When asked if she’d heard of any problems with the elections office or anyone questioning the reliability of the voting equipment, she said “never.”

It was Donald Trump who helped fuel a movement of election suspicion after his loss in the 2020 presidential election. Hancock doubts his 2024 victory will slow that movement down. Just the day after the election, Hancock was hearing more questions from Daughterity.

“This is the new normal, and that scares me,” Hancock told Votebeat that day. “The distrust in our process and our people. The distrust in everything.”

When asked how she planned to move forward, she said, “by retiring.”

The timeline for that will depend on the results of a stress test she had scheduled for this month, after the election.

“No matter how much I love this job, you’ve got to decide whether it’s worth risking your mental and physical health,” she said. “And that’s where I am.”

Natalia Contreras covers election administration and voting access for Votebeat in partnership with the Texas Tribune. Contact Natalia at [email protected]

Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization covering local election integrity and voting access. Sign up for their newsletters here.

'The intellectual dark web just won the election!' Meet the coalition of Rogan, RFK Jr, Gabbard and Musk

Every US election throws up a cast of figures adjacent to the campaign who endorse one candidate or another. Kamala Harris had a long line of celebrity backers, from Beyoncé to Bruce Springsteen.

Donald Trump had his own celebrities, such as Hulk Hogan, but he was also supported by a group of converted Democrats: Joe Rogan, Tulsi Gabbard, (just chosen as Trump’s director of national intelligence), Robert F. Kennedy Jr (Trump’s pick to head the federal health agency), and Elon Musk, who has been selected to co-lead Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency.

These figures are notable not just because they switched sides, but because they were part of an immensely popular online phenomenon born in the mid-2010s: the intellectual dark web. (Not to be confused with the dark web.)

After Trump’s victory, I found myself exclaiming: my God, the intellectual dark web just won the election! Though the name is now rarely used, understanding the phenomenon can help us understand what just happened.

The intellectual dark web became increasingly well known during the first Trump presidency. It gained mainstream attention through a 2018 New York Times article, which described it as “a collection of iconoclastic thinkers, academic renegades and media personalities who are having a rolling conversation – on podcasts, YouTube and Twitter, and in sold-out auditoriums – that sound unlike anything else happening, at least publicly, in the culture right now”.

Many of these figures, the Times noted, were building their own media channels. It identified The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, which has an audience in the tens of millions, as a focal point. “People are starved for controversial opinions,” Rogan has said. “And they are starved for an actual conversation.”

In the week before the election, podcast episodes with Trump, JD Vance and Musk gained 80 million views on YouTube alone. Interestingly, in the week after the election, MSNBC’s viewership was down 39% and CNN’s down 22%, compared with their October averages. The audience of Fox News jumped 39% in the same period.

What was the intellectual dark web?

In the mid-2010s, longform podcasts became an unexpected success. Rogan’s was one of the most successful. His conversations with academics, politicians and media personalities went for hours and were uncensored, and his approach was very different from the heavily produced interviews of mainstream media.

The “core” of the intellectual dark web included Rogan, psychologist and bestselling author of 12 Rules for Life Jordan Peterson, neuroscientist Sam Harris (who voted for Hillary Clinton), and Eric Weinstein, managing director of Peter Thiel’s venture capital firm until 2022 (and a Bernie Sanders supporter).

However, there were 50 or more others like Musk and Gabbard who appeared on Rogan’s podcast (and those of other core figures), who had similar values and concerns.

Musk and Gabbard both first appeared on Rogan’s podcast in 2018. Musk has appeared five times and Gabbard seven times. Kennedy Jr, a latecomer, has appeared once so far, in June 2023.

Gabbard, a former congresswoman for Hawaii, even announced her resignation from the Democratic party on Rogan’s podcast, in October 2022. “The people in charge of the Democratic party… have created this cult-like atmosphere,” she said. “The Democratic party of the past – the party that I joined – doesn’t exist anymore. The party of JFK, of Dr Martin Luther King … The big tent party that welcomed and encouraged this marketplace of ideas.”

The rise of podcasting coincided with campus politics spilling over into the wider world. “Cancel culture”, which grew out of this, has often been mentioned on Rogan’s podcast as a problem.

For the intellectual dark web, the worst aspects of campus politics are driven by postmodernism’s degradation of traditional liberal values. Once, the great liberal objective was to try to grasp the truth – the nature of reality. This was done through open and civil discussion, and by drawing on reasoning and evidence.

Postmodernism, ‘woke’ and disputed realities

The 1960s saw the rise of poststructuralism, which led to postmodernism from the 1980s. The latter was influenced by the ideas of French philosopher Michel Foucault, who was concerned with dissecting power. Foucault believed power “produces reality”.

Postmodern thinking argues there is no objective truth: apparent claims to it are always related to power. Postmodernism became the unofficial philosophy of identity politics – what many now refer to as being “woke”.

For postmodern thinkers, the task of the intellectual activist is to prevent or transform the speech of the powerful. The introduction of gender-neutral pronouns (they/them) and, relatedly, the term “Latinx” (a gender-neutral term for Latino) are examples. For postmodern and “woke” thinkers, the “truth” that matters belongs to those without power in our society. According to this way of thinking, the less power you have, the greater your worth, and vice versa.

“There’s no real world. Everything’s a social construct,” Peterson said of postmodernism. “And it’s a landscape of conflict between groups.”

The intellectual dark web’s criticism of “woke” politics is centred on this disputed reality (and ideas about power) – spanning issues as diverse as biological sex and gender, debates over police violence and Black Lives Matter, and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) policies. While they accept that social norms influence us, they object to the idea that language conjures reality into existence.

These kinds of discussions had, for decades, been routinely shut down in universities. For example, last year, students called for the cancelling of “gender-critical feminist” Holly Lawford-Smith’s course on feminism at the University of Melbourne, due to her arguments for the significance of biological sex.

And these opinions (which are associated with conservatism) are rarely heard in the liberal mainstream media, where conservatism is the enemy.

Free speech as the path to truth

The intellectual dark web championed free speech as the pathway to truth.

Intellectual dark web thinkers do not believe in gender as a social construct: they see it as a biological reality, with real implications for men, women and relationships between them.

Louise Perry, author of The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, who has appeared on intellectual dark web podcasts, argues gender difference is not just physical, but psychological – and that women do not benefit from casual sex, despite liberal feminism encouraging it. Peterson exhorts men to follow a middle path between emasculation and being like the misogynist influencer Andrew Tate.

Yes, the manosphere is real: Rogan’s audience is mostly male, as is Peterson’s. And Rogan’s guests are also mostly male. But the term “manosphere” is inherently dismissive. It ignores concerns that seemed to resonate with many US voters.

The intellectual dark web, in its commitment to reality, also bemoans the postmodern devaluation of merit. “I think the pathology that’s at the core of the culture war is an attack on competence itself,” says Peterson.

For me, Raygun’s recent performance at the Olympics, which was internationally criticised as poor, is a clear example of the postmodern devaluation of merit. As Rogan said: “It’s an offense to actual breakdancers that that lady did that. Actual high-level breakdancing is an athletic art form.”

This devaluation of merit is at the core of the intellectual dark web’s criticisms of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Black economist Glenn Loury, a member of the intellectual dark web, argues such initiatives don’t even help those they are designed to help. “I hate affirmative action,” he says. “It is a substitute for the actual development of the capacities of our people to compete.”

In such ideas, there is a recurring tension between creating equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. For instance, US President Joe Biden was urged to pick a Black woman as vice president and promised to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court – both of which he did. He has been criticised for making these choices based on identity rather than merit.

These are complex discussions: there is a long history of Black people and women suffering discrimination when they have merit. But, arguably, the Democratic party has increasingly become concerned with a superficial equality of outcome, at the expense of the party’s erstwhile base: workers.

As US Senator Bernie Sanders said following Trump’s election win: “It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them.”

Rogan endorsed Sanders, who appeared on his podcast in 2019, as the Democratic candidate for the 2020 presidential election.

In 2020, at the height of the Black Lives Matter protests, Sam Harris spoke some then-taboo truths about the absurdity of calls to defund the police in the US. “Having a police force that can deter crime, and solve crimes when they occur, and deliver violent criminals to a functioning justice system, is the necessary precondition for almost anything else of value in society,” he said.

“Woke capitalism” is a concept that circulated within the intellectual dark web. It argues that identity politics might seem radical, but in fact works hand-in-glove with the corporate world. Rather than actually improving the lot of workers, many corporations prefer to make costless gestures by running diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

Where to now?

While Trump won for many reasons, including immigration and the economy, my sense is that Trump, forever the populist, harnessed a widespread dissatisfaction with a form of identity politics promulgated by a quite often well-paid, white-collar class: psychologist Steven Pinker’s “chattering class”.

The intellectual dark web, which can be seen as a broad populist movement spanning the left and right, has been going on about identity politics and its postmodern roots for more than a decade. Now, its ideas and figures have helped elect a president, and some of them – Musk, Gabbard and Kennedy Jr – have roles in Trump’s administration.The Conversation

Jamie Q Roberts, Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Revealed: Ten Arizona counties were targeted by Russian hoax bomb threats on Election Day

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes revealed Tuesday that two-thirds of Arizona’s counties — twice as many as was previously known — received bomb threats on Election Day.

The FBI said on Election Day that “several states” received bomb threats against particular polling locations and that the threats originate from Russian email domains. None of the threats have been deemed credible.

During a roundtable discussion with journalists, Mayes elaborated on those threats when asked by the Arizona Mirror, adding that 10 of Arizona’s 15 counties had received threats. She said that a county supervisor in La Paz County called her personally after they received one.

The counties that received threats were Cochise, Coconino, Gila, La Paz, Maricopa, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, Yavapai and Yuma.

“It is a really troubling sign of where we are as a country,” Mayes said. “It has a very disruptive effect.”

Mayes said that the non-credible threats did not impact the election as a whole, but many places across the country and in Arizona had to undergo evacuations due to the threats. Mayes said that officials in La Paz County had to evacuate on Election Night as ballots were starting to arrive to be tabulated.

“We were dealing with that on a real-time basis with local law enforcement,” she said, adding that Arizona’s Counter Terrorism Information Center was helping coordinate efforts.

Other states seemingly had it worse, like Georgia, which reported over 60 bomb threats. An analysis of the threats by NBC News found that many targeted largely Democratic areas.

The Arizona Secretary of State’s Office said it “does not have any additional info to add.”

On the night of the election, Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer was seen evacuating his office due to one of the threats. Despite the threats, elections across the country ran relatively smoothly.

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: [email protected]. Follow Arizona Mirror on Facebook and X.

Trump victory was 'slim' and not the 'historic mandate' Republicans claim, analysis shows

President-elect Donald Trump last week declared he had won a “historic mandate,” but as states continue to count votes, his margin continues to shrink, debunking his claim.

Most notably, according to the California Secretary of State’s Office, there are more than 2.6 million votes left to be counted in the Golden State, out of a total of more than 13 million.

The Republican Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, also wasted no time claiming a “mandate” for the GOP, just as Trump did.

“The American people have spoken and given us a mandate. We will be prepared to deliver on day one. With Republicans in control, we will secure the border, grow our economy, restore American energy dominance, and end the radical woke agenda. America’s best days are ahead of us,” he claimed.

As recently as Monday, New York Republican Party chair Ed Cox also called it a “historic mandate.”

READ MORE: ‘No Excuse’: Dems Have Just Weeks to Get Dozens of Biden’s Judicial Nominees Confirmed

The results are clear: Donald Trump won the White House and Republicans are projected to have a majority in the House and the Senate—but any claim to a “mandate,” or a “historic” election is false, say critics.

“Yes, Trump won, but it is not a mandate,” declared former Under Secretary of State Richard Stengel, a former managing editor of TIME magazine. “His very slim popular vote margin seems outsized only in comparison to the fact that Rs seldom win the popular vote. He got fewer votes than last time. He won because of the millions of folks who chose not to vote—hardly a mandate.”

“As blue Western states and cities finish counting votes, it looks like the popular vote ‘landslide’ projected for Donald Trump last week turned out to be a trickle,” writes The Nation‘s Joan Walsh. “When all the votes are counted, he will end up with a margin of roughly two points over Vice President Kamala Harris. Presidents Lyndon Johnson in 1964 and Richard Nixon in 1972 won more than 60 percent of the popular vote; Ronald Reagan in 1984 won 58 percent. Those were landslides.”

Walsh acknowledges that the results are not “good news” for Democrats.

READ MORE: ‘What Illegal Corruption Looks Like’: Trump Blasted for ‘Already Breaking the Law’

“But it’s not the top-to-bottom repudiation of Democrats as it first looked like, and the way to respond is not to launch a civil war within the Democratic Party,: she notes. “Unfortunately, that has already begun. Centrists blame the doctrine of ‘woke,’ with particular ire for trans Americans (we see you, New York Rep. Tom Suozzi); leftists say Democrats abandoned the working class (we hear you, once again, Senator Bernie Sanders). Both positions are wrong. Others point fingers at the Harris campaign. Meanwhile, much of the media hypes Trump’s win as a landslide, which would seem to validate his racist, anti-worker agenda.”

Currently, according to the Cook Political Report’s vote tracker, Donald Trump is beating Kamala Harris by about 3.2 million votes, or 2.17%. Those number will change, of course, but the margin will likely stay about the same if not narrow.

“When the votes are all counted,” The Washington Post’s Philip Bump notes, “Trump will likely end up with the narrowest margin of victory since 2000. And it’s probably in large part because a lot of 2020 Biden voters stayed home.”

“It is likely that,” he continues, “when all of the votes are counted, Trump will have received about half of the votes cast, beating Vice President Kamala Harris by about a percentage point. As a function of the two-party vote, Trump’s popular vote victory — his first — will probably be the smallest since Al Gore received more votes than George W. Bush in 2000.”

Focusing on swing states, as Vice President Harris did during her 107-day campaign, Bump adds, “while most non-swing states probably saw drops in turnout, it is likely to be the case that most of the seven swing states — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — will have seen increases in vote totals. It’s another indication that the Harris campaign’s intense focus on those states provided a boost to her candidacy, albeit a fruitless one. (Last week, we noted that the shift in the presidential vote margin in the swing states was smaller than other states, which suggests the same thing.)”

READ MORE: ‘Tenfold Increase in Number of Deportations’: Trump Hands Stephen Miller Top Policy Post

How 'media consumption' sheds light on shocking election outcome

On Election Night 2024, Democrats were not only disappointed by President-elect Donald Trump's decisive victory over Vice President Kamala Harris, but also, by Republicans retaking the U.S. Senate. Moreover, vote counting indicates that Republicans are likely to hold their small majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Many Democratic strategists have been asking: What went wrong?

In an article published by Politico on November 9, Steven Waldman (president of the group Rebuild Local News) stresses that media consumption played an influential role in the election's outcome.

READ MORE:D.C. pizzeria owners scrambling after Trump 'congratulations' blows up in their face

"The exit polls did not ask about media consumption, so we need to look for indirect clues," Waldman explains. "NBC asked the question in April, when President Joe Biden was still in the race, and the results were dramatic. Among people who got their news from 'newspapers,' Biden was winning 70-21. Among people who got their news from 'YouTube/Google,' Trump led 55-39."

Waldman adds, "The exit polls this week did show that some of the biggest shifts in voting patterns came among young people and Latinos, two groups whose media consumption differs from the national average."

Waldman points out that Biden, as a presidential candidate, "won 18- to 21-year-olds by 60-36 percent," whereas Harris won that demographic by "only 55-42 percent."

"There's no group where the information consumption has changed more than young people," Waldman notes. "While 3 percent of seniors get their information from social media, 46 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds do."

READ MORE: 'My family in danger': Democratic congressman reveals chilling details of 'potential plot'

Read Politico's full report at this link.

George Will: Trump’s victory continues GOP’s 'eight years of self-degradation'

Conservative Washington Post columnist George Will has been a scathing critic of President-Elect Donald Trump and the MAGA movement's influence on the Republican Party.

In his November 6 column, Will argues that Trump's victory over Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election continues the "eight years of self-degradation" the GOP has suffered thanks to Trump.

"Conducting a thorough autopsy on the cadaver of Kamala Harris' campaign will require the scalpel of voting data not yet sharpened," Will argues. "Two things, however, are obvious. Democrats should have remembered the ancient axiom 'be careful what you wish for.' And they should have remembered the warning attributed to their hero Franklin D. Roosevelt regarding Gen. Douglas MacArthur: 'Never underestimate a man who overestimates himself.'"

READ MORE:Challenging Fascism: Why traditional methods aren't working — and what might

Will is not only critical of Trump and the MAGA movement — he is also critical of the Harris campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC), accusing them of "self-sabotage."

"A wit once asked, can the phrase 'insipid beyond words' be applied to words?" Will writes. "Harris segued from vapidity ('joy!') to hysteria ('fascism!'), from Beethoven ('Ode to Joy,' without the music) to Wagner ('Götterdämmerung,' staged for swing states). She mocked Trump for being such a feeble president that he could not even build his border wall. Simultaneously, she intimated that in a second term, the triumph of his Hitlerian will would steamroller America's democratic institutions. Perhaps voters detected a contradiction."

Will, now 83, isn't optimistic about the next four years.

"It has been said that the future is a mirror without glass in it," the conservative columnist writes. "But Trump's scatterbrained approach to almost everything makes it likely that he will fail to do much of what he has vowed to do. Then, in 2028, Americans get to do this again. That is the good and bad news."

READ MORE: Trump has 'less than a 75 percent chance' of 'making it through second term': doctor

George Will's full Washington Post column is available at this link (subscription required)

Pennsylvania will keep its divided legislature thanks to split-ticket voters

Pennsylvania’s red shift in the 2024 election wasn’t isolated to the presidential race.

Statewide races for attorney general, auditor general and state treasurer all went to the Republican candidates, and the AP declared Republican David McCormick the winner against Democratic incumbent Bob Casey in the state’s U.S. Senate race – although the very tight margin, which could trigger an automatic recount.

Pennsylvania was and still is the swingiest of the swing states. In fact, going into the 2024 election, it was the only U.S. state to have a divided legislature. Republicans had a majority in the Senate, but Democrats held a one-vote majority in the House.

Surprisingly, the composition of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, including its split control, has remained largely the same after the 2024 voting.

As a Philadelphia-based political science professor who focuses on state and local politics, I believe Pennsylvania’s General Assembly remained so stable in the face of statewide electoral upheaval for three reasons: a lack of competitive state legislative districts, the small size of those districts and the fact that some Pennsylvania voters still vote for the representative and not the party despite the country’s stark political divide.

Two men in dark suits shake hands on a debate stage

Slight churn in PA Senate

Let’s look at the light churn in the state Senate first.

Democrat Patty Kim won the 15th Senate district in Dauphin County, which had previously been held by a Republican who retired.

Meanwhile, 29-year-old Republican challenger Joe Picozzi beat incumbent Democrat Jimmy Dillon in a tight race in the 5th Senate district in Northeast Philadelphia. Picozzi is poised to become the first Republican state senator to represent Philly in over 20 years.

The other senators who were up for reelection kept their seats. So, with one Democratic pickup and one for the Republicans, control of the state senate remains unchanged.

A few tough races in the PA House

All 203 seats were up for grabs in the House. While the vast majority had clear front-runners, there were some tough races. These were most notably in the “collar counties” that surround Philadelphia.

One was the 172nd House district, which covers a part of relatively Republican northeast Philadelphia but also extends into neighboring Montgomery County. This was the district where incumbent Kevin Boyle – the brother of U.S. Rep. Brendan Boyle – lost the Democratic primary after he had an outburst at a bar that made news headlines. So there was no incumbent in the race. The Democratic candidate, Sean Dougherty, squeaked out a victory with a less than 500-vote margin.

Then there was the 144th House district in Bucks County, a swing county that flipped red in terms of having more registered Republican voters than Democrats just a few months before the election.

Two years ago, Brian Munroe, a Democrat, narrowly won his seat – a seat that had been held by a Republican for over half a century. He faced another competitive race in 2024 and appears to have defeated his Republican challenger, Daniel McPhillips, by about 1,000 votes.

What clinched Democrats’ one-vote majority in the state House was the race in the 72nd House district in deep-red Cambria County.

Cambria is a county in the middle of the state that favored Trump by 36 percentage points. Yet in the 72nd district, Democratic incumbent Frank Burns beat his challenger, Republican Amy Bradley, by nearly 1,000 votes.

This was a close race, but what is amazing is that it was competitive at all. In 2020, Burns won with 52.7% of the vote, despite more than two-thirds of voters in the county choosing Trump that year.

Man with beard and wearing black Pittsburgh Pirates ballcap casts ballot behind screen that says 'I Voted!'
A voter casts his ballot in Pittsburgh in Allegheny County, the only county in western Pennsylvania that sided with Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. Rebecca Droke/AFP via Getty Images

Some voters still split their ticket

Probably since the 1960s, but definitely since the 1990s, Americans have become more partisan. This typically means that they are more likely to vote a party ticket and not split their ticket.

In 2020, for instance, survey data from the Pew Research Center found that only 4% of voters who supported either Biden or Trump supported a Senate candidate from the opposing party.

And, to a great extent, this was also the case in the election on Nov. 5 in Pennsylvania. In all of the statewide races, the winning and losing candidates’ percentages were within 4 percentage points of their fellow partisans up and down the ticket.

But a few Democrats in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives won in their elections despite the fact that they are in relatively deep-red parts of the state. This includes Frank Burns in the 72nd district and also Robert Matzie in the 16th district in Beaver County. Beaver County sits on the western edge of the state between Allegheny County and Ohio in strongly Republican country – it voted for Trump by 21 points. Yet, Matzie beat his Republican challenger, Michael Perich, by more than 1,500 votes.

Small districts, microcommunities

Part of the explanation for why at least some Democrats can buck the red wave is Pennsylvania’s relatively small state House districts.

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives has 203 members in 203 districts. Since the state population is about 13 million, each district has close to 64,000 people in it. Compare that with the Ohio legislature, where each of the 99 state House districts has about 119,000 people. In New York state, each state House district has about 134,000 people.

As a result, Pennsylvania’s small House districts can capture microcommunities that are politically distinct from their surrounding areas. Take, for instance, Matzie’s 16th district in Beaver County, on the border with Ohio. The district went overwhelmingly for Trump, but it also includes a small portion of the county that lies close to Pittsburgh and includes the old industrial town of Aliquippa. It’s not a Democratic stronghold, per se, but it’s more Democratic than the rest of the county and elected a Democratic mayor, Dwan Walker.

Similarly, the 72nd district is in Cambria County, which went to Trump by 36 points, but the district itself includes Johnstown, which is the largest city in the county. Johnstown’s population of about 18,000 represents about a third of the district, and residents lean slightly more Democratic. Like Aliquippa, it also has a Democratic mayor.

A 203-member Pennsylvania House of Representatives is expensive, especially since each legislator has a reasonably generous budget that includes money for staff and a district office. But these smaller districts can provide more fine-grained representation for Pennsylvanians, who, despite the red shift, are more likely to be registered Democrats than Republicans – though Democrats certainly feel like a minority for now.The Conversation

Richardson Dilworth, Professor of Politics, Drexel University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Jim Jordan cornered on CNN over 2024 election fraud accusations – until Trump won

Confronted on CNN on Sunday morning, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) didn't have much to say when asked what happened to Republican party accusations that the 2024 election would be rife with fraud –– until Donald Trump won.

Speaking with host Dana Bash, the verbose Jordan continuously changed the subject after she pointed that, on election night, former president Trump was still claiming the the election was going to be stolen from him.

"Let's talk about the election," Bash began. "In the run-up to the election, even on election night itself, Donald Trump baselessly accused Democrats of cheating. As soon as a results started to come in and show it going his way he stopped – nothing about that. I haven't seen you or your colleagues claiming any election irregularities , no rampant voting brought this time. It seems to me that Republicans claim voting fraud and election integrity when you lose and not when you win."

"No, I mean, again, as I said before, this election I think was the greatest political comeback we've ever seen," he replied while grinning. "He [Trump] did something that even Teddy Roosevelt could not do for goodness sake and the country--"

"But you think it was a free and fair election?" Bash cut him off.

Jordan replied by pointing to a interview with a Latino voter who chose Trump because he didn't believe the Democrats were in his corner.

That led Bash to follow up with, "But last time around he claimed –– your leader claimed that there were problems with fraud," as Jordan talked over her.

"But last time around it wasn't so much about the policy differences or the personality differences, there were false claims about election fraud when Donald Trump lost" Bash lectured him "This time Donald Trump won and you think the election was free and fair. You see there is a little bit --"

"I think the Democrats have to ask why we go from getting anyone 81 million to 71 million. What happened to those 10 million people. Maybe it's not smart to run an election where you have no policies, " he replied.

The persistent Bash asked, "Why was it different from 2020 when he lost? Is that the only difference?"

"There were concerns about 2020 with all the mail-in voting that happened in Pennsylvania, they came in without any signature verification which is require," the Ohio Republican attempted. "There were all kinds of concerns with how the 2020 election was run but—"

"There was no widespread fraud," Bash shot back, cutting him off.

Watch below or at the link.

- YouTubewww.youtube.com

'Detached from reality': Harris campaign staffers blast post-election 'happy talk'

After Donald Trump's decisive victory in the United States' 2024 presidential election, Vice President Kamala Harris gave a concession speech that her admirers praised as dignified and hopeful.

But according to Axios' Alex Thompson and the Daily Beast's David Gardner, some Harris campaign staffers had a problem with the speech's, at times, upbeat tone — especially in light of Trump's threat to target his enemies for retaliation.

One of those staffers, quoted anonymously, told Axios, "It was detached from the reality of what happened. We are told the fate of democracy is at stake, and then the message was, 'We'll get them next time.'"

READ MORE:'Listen here, sweetheart': Possible Trump AG pick threatens NY’s Letitia James with 'prison'

During a conference call, Harris told staffers, "Yeah, this sucks…. We all just speak truth, why don't we, right? There's also so much good that has come of this (campaign)."

But some Harris staffers, according to Gardner, resented Harris' "happy talk" following Trump's victory.

Another Harris staffer, also quoted anonymously, told Axios, "People are depressed and frustrated about the overconfident leadership of the campaign."

Someone who worked on President Joe Biden's reelection campaign before he exited the race told Axios, "How did you spend $1 billion and not win? What the f***?"

READ MORE: Path forward' to Democrats winning may come sooner than you think: analysis

Read Axios' full report at this link and the Daily Beast's coverage here (subscription required).


Jon Stewart’s election postmortem: Trump 'used our electoral system as it is designed'

Donald Trump's critics on both the left and the right were hoping that Election Night 2024 would bring a repudiation of the former president.

Instead, Trump's detractors — from Democratic strategist James Carville to author Mary Trump (his niece) to conservative attorney George Conway — were horrified when Trump enjoyed a decisive victory over Vice President Kamala Harris despite awaiting sentencing on 34 criminal charges and promising to rule like an autocrat if given a second term.

Comedian/late-night television host Jon Stewart weighed in as well, expressing shock that Trump is returning to the White House without engaging in the type of election denial that characterized his 2020 loss to now-President Joe Biden.

READ MORE:'Listen here, sweetheart': Possible Trump AG pick threatens NY’s Letitia James with 'prison'

On his podcast "The Weekly Show," Stewart explained, "Each one of those scenarios, it was, 'How is Donald Trump going to finagle his way back into the White House? How is he going to use undemocratic principles? What measure of intimidation and underhanded shenaniganery will this man use to worm his way back into the Oval Office?' And it turned out, he used our electoral system as it is designed."

Stewart compared Trump's 2024 victory to "vertigo" (the physical condition, not the 1958 Alfred Hitchcock film).

"I'd love to sit back and think about the autopsy and where you move from there, but I think I still feel as though I'm in that moment of vertigo to some extent," Stewart told "Weekly Show" listeners. "In the same way that I, when I decided to stop drinking I didn't do it while the room was still spinning. I didn't stop doing booze and drugs in that moment of lying on the floor facedown trying to wonder if I just move my hand here, will the room stop. And I think that’s a wise way of looking at it."

Stewart went on to say, "I think you have to be more clear-eyed, have your balance, and your feet underneath you before you can start really thinking about what it was that made what you think your worldview is, and the things that you were certain about, not certain."

READ MORE: Path forward' to Democrats winning may come sooner than you think: analysis

'Don't clap': Ted Cruz’s daughter 'spotted grimacing' over lavish Trump praise

When the Associated Press (AP) called Texas' 2024 U.S. Senate race for incumbent GOP Sen. Ted Cruz, he was ahead of Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas) by 9 percent.

Cruz, once a scathing critic of President-elect Donald Trump, is now an ardent supporter. But the senator's 16-year-old daughter, Caroline Cruz, according to the Independent in the U.K., was "spotted grimacing" in response to some of his lavish praise of Trump.

At an event in Houston, the daughter told her mom "Don't clap for that."

READ MORE:Path forward' to Democrats winning may come sooner than you think: analysis

The Independent's James Liddell reports, "Cruz took to the stage in Houston to address supporters as he celebrated his third term in the Senate after defeating Democratic challenger Colin Allred with 53 percent of the vote, after the former NFL linebacker hoped to flip the seat for the first time since 1994."

Liddell adds, "Surrounded by his campaign team and loved ones, the Senator made a segue to spur on Trump — prior to the president-elect garnering the all-important 270 Electoral College votes on Wednesday morning — drawing a round of applause."

During his Election Night speech in Houston, Cruz told attendees, "It also looks very likely that we're going to have a Republican Senate next year. I believe, and I hope and pray, that Donald Trump will be elected president of the United States."

Republicans flipped the U.S. Senate. And Trump, voted out of office in 2020, enjoyed a decisive victory over Vice President Kamala Harris on Election Night. In addition to winning the electoral vote, Trump appeared to win the popular vote — unlike 2016 and 2020.

READ MORE: 'Listen here, sweetheart': Possible Trump AG pick threatens NY’s Letitia James with 'prison'


Watch the video below or at this link.

@wbrcnews Ted Cruz’s 16-year-old daughter is going viral on TikTok for her expressions during her father’s victory speech mentioning Donald Trump. #WBRC #TedCruz #News #DonaldTrump
♬ original sound - WBRC 6 News
@2024 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.