Talk:Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Election Integrity" gap[edit]

Just to follow up on this, I really do think this deserves an aricle.

"Far-Right Republicans Press Closer to Power Over Future Elections". June 15, 2022. Midway through primary season, the party has nominated several candidates who deny the 2020 outcome for posts that will have significant sway over the 2024 presidential election

"GOP spends millions on election volunteers to search for fraud". The Washington Post. June 15, 2022. The Republican National Committee's volunteers could lay the groundwork for future court challenges where the Trump campaign came up short in 2020

soibangla (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you may know, there is an extensive effort by the Republican Party to seize control of state/county election administration to ensure what they characterize as "election integrity" in the wake of massive election fraud in 2020. Others might characterize this as Big Lie 2.0, built atop Big Lie 1.0.

This significant matter appears to fall through a gap between this article and Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election. Here we touch upon it in the lead with "Republican lawmakers in several states sought to seize control of the administrative management of elections," while the other article's lead says "Republicans in at least eight states have also introduced bills that would give lawmakers greater power over election administration..." But neither article covers this significant matter in much depth beyond that. There's a gap.

Should we do something to reconcile these two existing articles to include this, or create a new article? Here's some sources for what I'm talking about:

soibangla (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A vital topic. One reasonable existing article to host the development of this material (possibly before spin off) might be Democratic_backsliding_in_the_United_States NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
soibangla and NewsAndEventsGuy In-process draft at Election subversion. rootsmusic (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include “false” in the title?[edit]

Considering was RS says and what the article says, the only place where the claims are not referred to as false is the title. Thoughts on changing this? Tyrone (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. rootsmusic (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Greg Abbott in the list of 'supporters of claims of election fraud'[edit]

To prevent further edit warring, I'd like to discuss this on the Talk page.

The start of the sub-section explicitly states "Note: this excludes Republicans who have only supported Trump's right to legally challenge the election results without explicitly supporting his election fraud claims". The 2 sources provided do not offer sufficient proof that Abbott either publicly or privately supported the claims of election fraud. Source 1 (https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/09/greg-abbott-presidential-election/), in the first words after the headline, says "Abbott didn't raise any accusations of malfeasance in the election." It goes on to discuss this in more detail. Source 2 (https://www.chron.com/news/local/article/Abbott-congratulates-President-Joe-Biden-twitter-15885957.php) actually provides no indication whatsoever that Abbott ever contested election results - it's a short piece on his congratulating Joe Biden on his victory.

Rather than try to dig for a source myself to try and validate this claim, I figure the most responsible course of action is to remove Abbott from this list, until someone comes along with better sources. 71.40.21.238 (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the IP editor is correct. Abbott has come really close to the line, but never explicitly said he thinks that there was widespread fraud in 2020 or that Trump lost because of fraud. He just supports looking for fraud, thinks there's a lot of it, and supports fighting it (e.g., Texas.gov and Politifact). He did congratulate Biden on his win ([1]). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - he seems woefully underinformed as to the actual degree of voter fraud that goes on in the country. "Widespread" is not a word I'd use to describe the scattering of minor cases I've seen. But, that was before the Big Lie of the 2020 election; 1st source is from 2017, and 2nd source was from March 2016. Which is why I didn't think it was quite fair to include him on this article, in light of the header message.
Guy still needs to inform himself better, though. 71.40.21.238 (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
same can be said about ron desantis, which is why he's been removed from the article as well. he's started receiving tremendous amounts of criticism from trumpists insecure about trump's hold on the gop failing after the awful republican performance in 2022 midterms. a primary criticism is that he's somehow establishment?!?!?!? because he doesn't whine about the results 2 years on. Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

apologies from Republicans who pleaded guilty[edit]

Since several defendants in the Georgia election racketeering prosecution amplified or originated conspiratorial claims as part of Donald Trump's false claims of a stolen election, their reactions after pleading guilty will be a confession that they either already knew Trump's big lie was false while perpetuating said big lie or finally realizes today that they were wrong to have done so. As part of their guilty pleas, they'll write apology letters to Georgian voters and possibly testify in court. (Even Jenna Ellis' court statement in pleading guilty confesses wrongfully amplifying Trump's big lie.) Hopefully, their letters or testimonies will fact-check specific conspiratorial claims. rootsmusic (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

With Trump leading the polls for the Republican primary and the general election, it's time to seriously implement Wikipedia's stated policy of NPOV. Why alienate half the country by having this page read like DNC talking points? I am not here to argue that the election was fraudulent. I am just here to restore balance. Existentialist Degenerate (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All analyses and WP:RS refer to these claims as "false" and so do we. We do not give false credence to WP:FRINGE theories or provide WP:FALSEBALANCE. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My edits aren't saying they're "not false." I'm not adding POV one way or the other. Let readers come up with their own conclusions without constantly sceaming, "false, false, false, false..." That's insulting readers' intelligence. Existentialist Degenerate (talk) 15:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'm well aware that no permissible source on Wikipedia is going to validate Trump's claim's here. No where am I attempting to insert those claims in my edits. However, since when is Wikipedia supposed to have a narrative, editorial voice? Wikipedia is supposed to report, for instance, if the New York Times asserts something. But the narrative voice is supposed to report and provide reference, not make its own assertions, even if you feel the claims are as uncontestable as saying 'the sky is blue.' Existentialist Degenerate (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You do not seem to understand how things work here. We do not need to cite that the WP:SKYISBLUE and we do need to report that Trump's assertions are without merit. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Need to add Representatives Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger[edit]

Glaring omissions of the Republican members who agreed to serve on the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. rootsmusic (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republican_reactions_to_Donald_Trump%27s_claims_of_2020_election_fraud&oldid=1212843364"