The Spreading, or How The Conspiracy Theories End Messily

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has been the Managing Editor of Ordinary Times since 2018, is a widely published opinion writer, and appears in media, radio, and occasionally as a talking head on TV. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter@four4thefire. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast. Subscribe to Andrew'sHeard Tell Substack for free here:

Related Post Roulette

51 Responses

  1. Oscar Gordon says:

    Part of the problem is that the nuts believe the people controlling the elections in a given state are anti-Trump and thus willing to lie to steal the election. And given that the people in control of the election are also the people who audit the results, once you assume bad faith on the part of those people…

    Not that I think the hard core conspiracy nuts will be satisfied, but states could allow for neutral third party audits. If a race is close enough (for whatever value of ‘close enough’ you want), a state could (with proper controls) allow each party to hire an established firm (think, Ernst & Young, or KPMG, etc.) to audit the results. I would absolutely put the cost of such an independent audit on the Party, not the taxpayer, and any discrepancies could be sorted out in court.Report

    • DavidTC in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

      Why would the conspiracy nuts trust a random third party over their own party’s elected officials?Report

    • Douglas Hayden in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

      There’s nothing the states could do to end this circus outside of naming Trump as El Presidente Por LIbre. We’ve long passed the part where the effort on accepting the defeat falls on anyone outside his base.Report

    • They don’t want a neutral audit. None of them are asking for anything like that. They are demanding that the party be given unfettered access to rummage through the voting materials, making up reasons to reject ballots as they go.

      There’s no such thing as GAAP for elections. If KPMG or Ernst & Young told me that they could waltz in on Nov 10 (for example), analyze our election system, determine what and how to audit, and provide meaningful results by the Nov 30 certification date, I’d tell them they were incompetent and throw them out.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Michael Cain says:

        I would like the electronic voting boxes to be using open source software.

        I mean, it’d be nice.

        Barring that, I’d not mind if they put somebody like Bally’s in charge of normalizing the things (or any one of the slot machine people trusted by Vegas).

        It’s not that I don’t trust the intentions of the people who currently make the electronic voting machines, mind. It’s that I don’t know their competence levels and if they’re adjacent to some of the stuff I saw at the various global conglomerates I worked at in the 90’s, then…

        Well. If they’re adjacent to those, then I have concerns. Not about their intentions, of course.Report

        • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird says:

          Nope. Step one — secure and guarantee the accuracy of the voter registration systems. Nothing you can do futzing around on the voting side of the process is as significant as striking a half-million names from the poll books in a swing state in one swoop. There’s reasonable evidence that foreign hackers have penetrated some systems to the read level but not the write level (yet).Report

          • Oscar Gordon in reply to Michael Cain says:

            Of course, doing that gets everyone’s hackles up about disenfranchising voters (who obviously can’t be bothered to keep their registration current).

            Now when you cull/purge the lists 2 months before the election, that’s an issue, but at the start of an election year, it’s reasonable to run a purge and tell everyone to double check their information in the system.Report

        • DavidTC in reply to Jaybird says:

          There is no hypothetically possible way to confirm that the software a computer claims to be running is the software actually running on that computer without dismantling that computer completely, and electron-scanning the chips and magnetic media that holds the software, and even then you can’t really do it.

          I’d actually rather we _didn’t_ pretend that the software was the slightest bit secure in any manner at all, and just treat it as ‘a thing that runs a printer and people need to check the output’.

          What I’d much rather see is a computer that printed ballots that printed the names in a font that is human _and_ machine readable.

          And we just scanned those to give the immediate total, and then hand-counted them later.

          Instead what we just got in Georgia, where we stupidly print names and barcodes that could differ, and scanning those. This is is admittedly much better than the previous thing where the machines just stored the totals, but I’d prefer to actually be able to look at the part of my ballot that counted.

          Also…we end up having to count those by hand _anyway_, so I have no idea what this ‘barcode’ idea is.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to DavidTC says:

            There is no hypothetically possible way to confirm that the software a computer claims to be running is the software actually running on that computer without dismantling that computer completely, and electron-scanning the chips and magnetic media that holds the software, and even then you can’t really do it.

            While true, I think that it would be nice to at least make the bad guys falsify a boot screen and, at the same time, would allow for the dispassionate eggheads to say “I’ve looked at the source code and, other than the fact that the person who commented it is lazy and illiterate, it’s secure enough for jazz.”

            And, honestly, that’d be good enough for all but the nuttiest nutters out there.Report

      • Oscar Gordon in reply to Michael Cain says:

        I saw one person asking for a neutral audit, which is what made me think of it.

        If there isn’t a GAPP or similar, how can states claim to audit the results? There has to be something they are looking at. If the state has a process, and that process is generally held as acceptable, then it shouldn’t be a problem for an independent firm to conduct an audit using those accepted methods.

        If we are operating under the assumption that the people in the states election office can not be trusted.

        For the most part, I find claims of potential fraud to be far too reliant on magical thinking or wide ranging conspiracy (i.e. enough people in the state election office are willing to commit felonies just to ensure a person wins/loses). I don’t know of any state that is not using ballots with unique IDs and the subsequent tracking data, and most are tightening up voter rolls to eliminate bad data, so inserting ballots into the mix should be very, very difficult (fraudulent/harvested ballots should be easy to spot and remove). Ergo, fraud has to come from officials willing to overlook fraud, or somehow usurp the existing controls to perpetrate it themselves.

        For a state like GA, where the GOP has held control for the past 16 years, I find it VERY unlikely that the DNC has inserted enough party loyalists into the machinery to control elections like that.

        For the conspiracy nuts, I expect even a neutral third party won’t be satisfactory unless it gives them the answer they want. They’ll find some other rationalization.Report

        • Colorado has a state-wide risk-limiting audit system (first in the country). We win awards for security and accuracy. But the entire process was built around vote by mail after consulting with experts. From the registration database to verifying people get the right ballot to matching envelopes to names and addresses to verifying signatures to checking scanners before, during, and after counting, to post-election clean-up. Tennessee, with about the same population, does 2% VBM normally. A comparable audit system for Tennessee is going to be very different.Report

          • Oscar Gordon in reply to Michael Cain says:

            I know WA has something similar, although that doesn’t stop people from believing that because the state is heavily left, the election system is forever rigged.Report

        • It looks like of the states that have post-election audits of one kind or another, only New Jersey and New Mexico really specify that independent/professional auditors participate. The rest are Sec State, State Election Boards, or combinations of Sec State and county and municipal voting boards/registrars. It isn’t clear that those entities couldn’t commission a guide on best practices from some audit firms and conduct their post-election audit accordingly.

          https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/post-election-audits635926066.aspx#state%20reqsReport

  2. Great piece. I do worry about what will happen after the Pence Gambit fails. I expect more open calls for Trump to just stay in the White House.Report

    • North in reply to Michael Siegel says:

      Trump won’t. He’s a showman but when it comes to putting his own keister at risk he’s never been willing to come even close to that line. I have no doubt at all he’ll vacate the White House and continue loudly extorting his marks.. err I mean his base.. for money but Trump absolutely won’t do something that risks having the Parks Service perp walk him out of the White House and potentially into a jail cell on national TV.Report

      • InMD in reply to North says:

        For the low price of $199.99 per month you can subscribe to the Project MAGA network. Your subscription includes MAGA coins made of pure solid copper mined right here in the USA! Show your dedication to the real president of the United States, Donald Trump, with my fine line of Donald Trump apparel. I’m telling you when the liberals see you wearing this great ‘Build the Wall’ cardigan they’ll lose their minds!

        And that’s not all! For an additional $69.99 upgrade your membership to deluxe and get early access to tickets to my rallies at the finest gas stations, truck stops, and adult lounges in this fine country. We need you more than ever to make America great again!*

        *Terms and conditions may apply, not available in the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone.Report

  3. Michael Cain says:

    I know it’s improbable Trump will attempt, on one basis or another, to deploy the military, assert a state of emergency, and claim to continue to be President. Nevertheless, in the last ten days or so, we’ve had a bunch of former general officers make statements that the military should stay out of deciding elections, and all of the living former Secretaries of Defense sign a letter saying the same. Those people take the possibility Trump will issue the orders and enough troops will be deployed seriously enough to make those statements.Report

    • North in reply to Michael Cain says:

      Thank goodness they do. That kind of signaling makes it less likely that Trump would even consider trying.Report

    • Oscar Gordon in reply to Michael Cain says:

      The trick is getting enough of the officer corps to risk Court Martial to obey him after noon on Jan 20. The president stops being CIC at that time, unless he has been confirmed for a second term.

      He doesn’t just get to keep being POTUS if the results are in flux. Him and Pence are both out and the order of succession takes over.Report

      • Why wait? Why not declare martial law on Jan 15, take Congress, the Supreme Court, and Biden/Harris into protective custody with no media access, and then declare the Constitution suspended?

        Watch out for the colonels. It’s always those career-limited colonels who seem to be the bad guys.Report

        • Oscar Gordon in reply to Michael Cain says:

          Again, the officer corps is A) educated and often very aware of what the law allows (this is why the shite coming out of Flynn’s mouth is so abhorrent, the ash-hole fecking knows better), and B) usually not willing to risk prison if they get it wrong. Those career limited O5/O6 officers might be bitter, but they still want to be able to retire with honors and benefits. Being on the wrong side of such a fight is a great way to lose everything you’ve built up over the decades.

          And all for someone who eagerly and very publicly tosses people under the bus if it serves his purposes, or he decides they aren’t loyal. Such does not sit well with people in uniform.Report

        • Oscar Gordon in reply to Michael Cain says:

          PS I don’t think a declaration of martial law stops or presses pause on the transfer of power. Trump still stops being POTUS at noon on Jan 20, and Pence stops being VPOTUS, which means all hail President Pelosi.

          There is no legal extension of a presidential term without Congress saying so.Report

          • Oh, absolutely. If we’re plotting here, martial law is just an excuse to get enough trusted troops deployed to take Congress and the Supreme Court into custody. Then present the rest of the military with, “Try anything and Congress and the SCOTUS die. All of them.”

            This is all silly. Congress is going to certify the EC vote, after some Republicans do posturing. Biden is going to be sworn in. Trump is going to depart the White House quietly at least a few days in advance of Biden taking the oath of office. I’ll even go so far as to say that Trump’s not going to flee the country, either. He’s a NYC boy. He’s always been a rich spoiled NYC boy, a living version of the famous New Yorker cover (as long as you tack Florida on to the lower left edge somewhere). He doesn’t believe he’ll be charged for criminal offenses. He believes he can buy his way out of any civil problems. He’ll retire to one of a handful of elite places on the US East Coast. Javanka wouldn’t be dropping $30M for a lot on a private island in Miami if they thought Daddy was going to run away.Report

          • DavidTC in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

            There is no legal extension of a presidential term without Congress saying so.

            There’s no extension _with_ Congress saying so.

            Unless you mean ‘They run out the clock on picking a new president, and vote Trump in as Speaker of the House January 19th, so he ended up back in office the next day after his term expires’.

            But his term still would have expired. He’d just be the acting president.

            Trump’s term ends noon Jan 20th. No power on earth can change that outside constitutional amendment or some sort of very surreal court decision where the court decided to completely ignore the constitution. (And if the court was going to do that, they almost certainly would have taken one of the less obvious chances they’ve been offered this election under the guise of ‘fraud’ instead of blatantly ignoring very clear constitutional text.)Report

        • Oscar Gordon in reply to Michael Cain says:

          Also, comment in mod. Can I release my own comments?Report

      • Philip H in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

        my very small sampling of active duty officers in three branches indicates he doesn’t have their loyalty. And frankly I don’t think the general officers are willing to follow his orders before he leaves.Report

  4. Pat says:

    “But there is another part to this that probably explains a great deal of the current spreading of nonsense from the White House and the president’s supporters. It’s been widely reported that as the administration’s days draw short the inner circle of the president has gotten smaller, and also more insular. ”

    Note that an additional possibility is that as the circle has gotten smaller, it’s also gotten more uniform around the group of folks who have the most to lose when they walk out of the White House.

    So they not only have “reinforce the President’s beliefs” as an agenda.

    If you accept that there is at least a possibility of impropriety among those who aren’t The Donald himself, these folks would be quite likely *more* motivated than the President even if you belief he’s guilty of impropriety; he has a political shield against consequences (which may or may not stand up, of course, but it’s unarguably there)… but they have much less of one.Report

  5. Saul Degraw says:

    The heart of the matter is really what is at the heart of any polis. How do citizens with wildly different ideology preferences and/or general views on what government should and should not do get along as a country/polis overall. It seems to me that there is a significant faction of the right-wing that is freaked out by the potential of minority status that they will break all the norms of democracy to retain power. The reasons for this can be varied and are almost irrelevant. As part of this, they are willing to let negative partisanship drive them to see Democratic voters and Democratic politicians as inherently illegitimate. Again, this could be for a variety of reasons.

    Trump is not the first politician to engage in whacky conspiracy theories. These are part and parcel of American politics. He may be the first President to fully engage in them and get the amplification power of social media and the rise of further right-wing media like NewsMax and OANN, both of which make Fox look like weak tea compared to black tar heroin. OANN’s founder seems like a true believer as opposed to Murdoch who just sees targets for money while also being deeply conservative.

    And no, I do not think divorce or war is likely. For better or for worse, the United States is like a combo of NATO (a military union) and the EU (an economic union). All states. including the wealthy ones will see a decrease in wealth in the case of a break up of the United States.Report

  6. Jaybird says:

    The best way to deal with any Conspiracy Theory is to nudge stuff like “falsifiability”.

    Like, is there anything that could definitively prove that the Conspiracy Theory was true? Well, what are the big notes for what would prove them?

    Is there anything that could prove that the Conspiracy Theory was false? Well, what are those?

    There’s a lot of stuff we’re probably never going to hammer out but part of the problem is that a lot of conspiracy theories have, in fact, ended up being kinda true.

    Like, “there is a back door in the most common encryption protocols that the NSA exploits to get digitized info and they’re deliberately withholding this information from the public because they want to keep this back door open.”

    That is *TOTALLY* a conspiracy theory!

    Here’s an explainer for heartbleed.

    The three-letter agencies have a listening program for the entire country? That is totally a conspiracy theory!

    A lot of times, something that I look for is the addition of an adjective. “Huh… this Epstein sex trafficking thing is pretty crazy… have you seen what Virginia Giuffre said happened? And the ‘Epstein belongs to intelligence’ story is weird too. Did that happen? Was the guy lying that he was told that? What’s going on?”

    And the clarification question comes “Do you really believe that there’s a Satanic Sex Cult running the world?”

    Um… that’s a seriously different set of things than I was asking questions about.

    And, yeah, I admit that wanting to argue against the existence of a Satanic Sex Cult running the world would probably be a lot more entertaining than arguing about whether Acosta was telling the truth or covering his own ass.

    All that to say, when it comes to the Conspiracy Theories about the election, I’m pretty sure that every single one that had a falsifiable thing that could have happened so far has fizzled out.

    “This will happen on December 20th!”
    And it’s Jan 5th and it hasn’t happened.
    “This will happen on January 6th!”
    I’m looking forward to seeing January 7th’s headlines.

    Oh, this is *TOTALLY* going to happen on January 20th!
    And, next thing you know, It’s February.

    It’s when the people tell you “THIS! THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN!” and then, hey, it doesn’t that you know who to ignore. I mean, sure, if they come in and start saying “man, was *I* operating under bad information! Here’s a list of things that I was wrong about!”, then, maybe they’re okay. But if they breezily move on to “HEY! THIS NEW THING IS GOING TO HAPPEN!” that you can safely roll your eyes and get back to work.Report

    • DavidTC in reply to Jaybird says:

      I just got into a debate with someone on Facebook about their dumb ‘The call was to warn Raffensperger that he’s going to commit a crime and the DoJ will arrest him tomorrow’ theory, which is the current excuse for this. (Not that ‘finding’ votes makes sense there.)

      And I said something like this: Okay, let’s pretend all this is true. Trump has merely been collecting tons of evidence of fraud in an attempt to build a case.

      Except…there’s literally no provision to reconvene the electoral college, and no way to undo their vote. And their role _and_ Raffensperger’s role in all this is over. The only people who have a role left to play is Congress, and you literally cannot arrest members of Congress for votes they take on the floor of Congress. So _their_ actions tomorrow can’t be illegal.

      If the theory was ‘This is all a giant conspiracy, there’s tons of evidence, but the trap had to close first’…the trap closed November 20th when Raffensperger certified, as the SoS, the election results. Which is literally the last thing Raffensperger has to do. Or maybe when the electors vote Dec 14? Because everything after that is Congress, and, again, Congress cannot commit a crime here.

      And at this point, the president will find it _much_ harder to undo all this at this point than he would have earlier He should have acted almost a month ago _at the lastest_.

      But okay. I then asked: But we all agree that Trump needs to stop tomorrow, right? because there’s no way to undo that, either.

      Then I paused and said wait, forget tomorrow, you’ll just come up with an excuse. So let me ask: What happens when Biden takes office? Will you admit that Trump can’t be planning this at that point, because handing control of the DoJ over to Biden would be immensely stupid for this theory?

      So will you take a stated position on what you will believe on the 20th _if_ Biden is sworn into office?

      I kinda was wondering what sort of delusional person they were…were they going to say ‘That won’t happen’, or were they going to refuse to answer because they knew they were operating within a self-delusion?

      They…did not answer.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to DavidTC says:

        I agree. Back when George Turner was on the board posting comments about how “Something Crazy Is Totally Going To Happen!”, people got upset rather than saying “lets come back to this in a month and see how it holds up!”

        As it is, the stuff he predicted would happen did not happen.

        We could pull out the old “explain how this didn’t happen” trick and see if he explains how it *DID*, it’s just that Biden is JFK Jr.

        Or whatever.Report

        • DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird says:

          Of course, part of the reason he was posting those comments was because he liked watching people get incredibly torqued up about it.
          I mean, he believed the things he posted, it’s just that if nobody argued he wouldn’t have posted them because it wouldn’t have been any fun.Report

  7. Saul Degraw says:

    Julian Sanchez makes a good point: https://twitter.com/normative/status/1346195802213986310

    “A lot of what passes for “populism” in the current discourse is the most toxic form of elitism: Using your power and platform to feed people lies, and then dishonestly claiming that you’re merely channeling their grievances when they’re foolish enough to believe you. Millions of Republicans didn’t just spontaneously and organically decide to believe a bunch of ludicrous nonsense about stolen ballots and rigged voting machines. They believe it because the most powerful man in the world & a bunch of millionaires with TV shows told them to. That’s not to deny there’s a strong demand-side component to this — people believe this stuff with no evidence or ridiculous evidence because they *want* to believe it — but the difference between the fringe theories and the mass delusions is elite endorsement.”Report

    • Oscar Gordon in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      That is a good point.

      Now, what to do about those elite, since we aren’t allowed to have at them with the metaphorical torches and pitchforks?Report

      • LeeEsq in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

        At this point there isn’t much that can be done against the elites who advance nonsense like this. They have their own communication networks and overriding that is going to require a lot of government interference. We can regulate social media more and try to reinstate the fairness doctrine but I doubt that would work.Report

  8. Chip Daniels says:

    “But the clock on the conspiracy theories is ticking.”

    Sez who?

    Dolschstosslegende, Blood Libel, Who Lost China; Fluoride in Drinking Water, Vaccination/ Autism…The politics of revanchism fear and resentment don’t come with a time limit.

    True, Trump may not be President, but as the Pennsylvania Legislature is proving, wherever a Republican holds power, no democracy is safe.
    Expect a replay of this stuff in every state, every election cycle.

    Why? Because it works, that’s why. It works to juice the base, it works to shear the sheep of their money, it works to get elected.

    As they say about terrorism, we have to win every time, they only have to win once. Eventually, in some jurisdiction, the Republicans will succeed in overturning a free and fair election.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      They will, and we will be as ill prepared for it as we were for Trump’s rise, mostly because too many people still cling to both the Myth of American Exceptionalism and the Myth of Rugged Individualism.Report

    • DavidTC in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      Why? Because it works, that’s why. It works to juice the base, it works to shear the sheep of their money, it works to get elected.

      Actually, I would argue the exact opposite. The Republicans, once again, have a few people eating their own future in order to win in the very short term. (Or, in this case, _still lose_.)

      Why? Because we used to have a country where Democrats were disaffected voters who thought the parties were the same, and didn’t bother to vote.

      We’re rapidly building a country where not only do Democrats not think that, but where Republicans think voting is rigged by Democrats.

      Do you think they’ll bother to vote?

      Now, this will be bad in all sorts of _other_ ways, expect even more right-wing extremism, but as for the Republican party winning elections…Trump may have crippled it for a while

      It’s starting to look like Trump just lost Republicans two Georgia Senate seats. (Yes, the Republicans are still ahead, but…the remaining votes are Democratic.)Report

  9. The election stolen from Trump is going to overtake the seat stolen from Bork as the top example of leftish perfidy. We’ll be hearing about it forever.Report

    • Jesse in reply to Mike Schilling says:

      The sad this is, at least with Bork, if you squint, you can sort of see the right-wing argument. Obviously, if you scratch it a bit, it actually falls apart, but at least there’s some coherence.

      The pro-Trump argument is just, “we won, because the votes of Those People don’t really count, because we know they didn’t really vote and even if they did, it was a conspiracy of thousands of Democrats and Republicans statewide to fix the results.”

      It’s the type of argument I used when I was six because I was upset I lost a game of tag.Report

      • JS in reply to Jesse says:

        You can only see it if you’re ignorant of the entire actual Bork vote.

        He was voted out of Committee, his vote was sent to the floor, and he lost a majority vote, with members of the GOP voting against.

        he was not permanently stalled in Committee, he was not subject to filibuster. The horrible indignity he suffered was to a lose a simple majority vote.Report

        • Turgid Jacobian in reply to JS says:

          I think that among the informed right, their complaint about Bork is the hardball deployment of oppo. They’re still wrong in thinking that Bork marked a first in that way. Among the uninformed right, yeah, it’s just gibberish.Report

  10. Philip H says:

    More to the point – Bork wasn’t denied even a hearing.

    And pointing that out usually shuts down the conversation since admitting you were wrong is something we no longer do in politics.Report