The Mercury News

Parroting Trump's Big Lie is costly for GOP hopes

- By Mark Z. Barabak Mark Z. Barabak is a Los Angeles Times columnist. © 2023 Los Angeles Times. Distribute­d by Tribune Content Agency.

In the Book of Republican Sorrows, 2022 merits a whole chapter of its own.

With inflation scraping the sky and President Biden's approval ratings deep in the dumpster, the GOP was primed to seize control of the Senate, blow the doors off the House and greatly raise its ranks in state capitals across the country.

None of that happened. One big reason was the lousy crop of candidates fielded by the GOP, many of whom sacrificed truth and personal integrity by parroting former President Trump's “Big Lie” about the 2020 election being stolen.

Shameful, yes. But did their bad behavior make a difference in the 2022 midterms? A new study, conducted by researcher­s at Stanford's Graduate School of Business, suggests: Indeed it did.

Assaying the general election results in 85 races across the country, the study found that election-denying Republican­s received 2.3% less support in statewide contests than Republican­s who stood fast and refused to indulge Trump's insidious blather.

That may not sound like a lot. But it was the difference in several close contests involving prominent election deniers, including races for U.S. Senate and secretary of state in Nevada, and governor and attorney general in Arizona. In each of those elections, scoundrels and cheats — let's call them what they are — went down to narrow, deserved defeat.

Looking ahead, the study notes the 2.3% underperfo­rmance penalty for lying about the election was also larger than the margin of victory in several 2020 presidenti­al battlegrou­nds — including Georgia, Pennsylvan­ia and Wisconsin — “suggesting that nominating election-denying candidates in 2024 could be a damaging electoral strategy for Republican­s.”

Much was said and written following the midterm elections, in a collective exhalation of relief, after the highest-profile election deniers were defeated in several key states. And the outcome was important and beneficial.

The Stanford study, though, takes a bit of gloss off the uplifting narrative — voters rise up, save democracy! — suggested by that (mostly) happy ending.

As researcher­s pointed out, the falloff in votes for those knifing our country in the back “is small enough to suggest that many voters were willing to continue to support Republican candidates even if they denied the results of the 2020 election.”

Not a great testament to truth, justice and the American Way.

On the other hand, as the study's co-author, Stanford political scientist Andrew Hall, emailed in a follow-up interview, “It is probably unrealisti­c to expect large numbers of voters to sacrifice their priorities on other pressing issues (like the economy, social issues, etc.) to punish these candidates.”

“It is perhaps heartening,” he said, speaking from a glass-half-full perspectiv­e, “that a small but consequent­ial group of people did change their votes.”

Don't count on candidates disavowing Trump's Big Lie because, oh, let's say, it's the right thing to do.

Many in the GOP were perfectly fine with Trump exploiting the presidency for personal profit, blackmaili­ng a foreign leader to boost his reelection prospects (impeachmen­t No. 1) and inciting a violent raid on the Capitol to overturn the results when he lost the race (impeachmen­t No. 2).

It was only after Trump helped deliver November's crashingly disappoint­ing election result that a greater number of Republican­s summoned the courage and voice to speak up and began distancing themselves from the disgraced ex-president and his reverse-Midas touch.

The Stanford study adds weight to the perception that Trump and candidates in his thrall will suffer for perpetuati­ng their con and corroding our system of democracy, and that's a good thing.

The penalty paid by election deniers wasn't as large as it could or should have been, given the magnitude and significan­ce of their deceit.

But even if the disincenti­ve against doing so is relatively small — shaving just 2.3% off a candidate's support — it could make a big difference.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States