Iowa Democrat Drops Election Contest Due To ‘Political Disinformation’

Rita Hart, the Democratic candidate in Iowa’s second district, has dropped her election contest before a House committee due to the “toxic campaign of political disinformation” spearheaded by national Republicans.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1367479

She didn’t let “due process” play out? Confirming to Republicans that if they lie, yell and scream loud enough, Dems will fold? Bad messaging. Not a good look.

39 Likes

The “due process” that played out was probably GQP death threats against her and her family. They’re Putinesque that way.

14 Likes

Fuck. So, it proves intimidation works.

21 Likes

Fuck. It’s how we got incompetent grifting imbecile instead of Hillary Clinton. Nothing new.

18 Likes

Pisses the fuck outta me.

Shit.

18 Likes

I dunno, it does show that the dems aren’t out to ‘steal’ a seat they narrowly lost, but it might embolden Republicans who push lines like that. Dems always taking the high road does make us look reasonable but doesn’t make us winners.

13 Likes

Our specialty
Forget the knives Feather pillows at the gunfight

4 Likes

So after millions of dollars, dozens of lawsuits and 6 dead people, we have finally found the stolen election.

25 Likes

I’m going to shout because this is fucking IMPORTANT:

THIS IS WHY WE NEED TO BRING BACK THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE AS LAW, NOT MERE REGULATION!!!

That is the only way to ever muzzle the wingnuts.

8 Likes

“Iowa Democrat Drops Election Contest Due To ‘Toxic Campaign Of Political Disinformation’”

That’s terrible reason, and to say it out loud only encourages Republicans to do it more and more intensely.

21 Likes

Hmmmm. Did they find something about those 22 votes? I mean the GOP making noise is nothing new.

4 Likes

It’s outdated in today’s world. It’s never coming back…nor should it. TV and radio are not the forces they once were since the internet. But we can and should draft some law to replace it. At a minimum, there should be a loss of a broadcasting license if the airwaves are used to knowingly spread false information. Two warnings with a substantial fine for each violation…and the third time…ZAP. No more broadcasting for you.

12 Likes

6 vote difference means that if she runs again, she will win. Ask Senator John Thune of
South Dakota how that all worked for him. He lost an election by a couple dozen votes some years back, but he ran again and won in the next cycle. That lady just didn’t want to go through the wringer, I don’t blame her. I hope that she stays on message and runs again. Whatever she was saying in her campaign worked pretty damn good in a state like Iowa.

23 Likes

Rethugliklans needed no confirmation. They’ve known this for the last 20+ years. She’s just the latest hashmark in the WIN column. Moving on …

5 Likes

She only lost because a good chunk of the University of Iowa’s student body wasn’t on campus thanks to the virus.

29 Likes

Not good, but I suspect Pelosi and other Dem leaders didn’t want the complicated, nuanced messaging that is required to make their case to distract from their larger agenda. Dems will have a record to run on of helping Iowans get vaccinated, getting people through tough economic times, creating jobs, and prioritizing farmers over big ag companies. Hart can run again in 2022 and ask WTF Miller-Meeks and her fellow shit-eating-grinner, McCarthy, did for Iowans in the district, Iowa, and the country in 2021-2022.

11 Likes

Sadly, in today’s media world the Fairness Doctrine would be an impotent sideshow. It only applied to Federally regulated airwaves, and Fox and the others now reach folks via cable and/or the Internet. What you’d need to do is bring in regulations that would govern speech in these media, and you can bet your bottom dollar that Big tech and Fox would throw an army of lawyers at that. I don’t disagree that it’s needed, just think it would be an incredibly hard uphill fight in today’s world.

10 Likes

All things considered I would feel that the current agenda is more important. It would have been a mess for both sides if both sides pushed hard. They may see it as a win, I see it as a smart tactic.

1 Like

I suspect most media folks wouldn’t care. When I lived in San Jose, CA we couldn’t get an over the air signal from (I think it was) NBC. The had a channel allocated for the area, but their transmitter was up the peninsula and most folks got it on cable, so why fix the poor coverage? Cut them off, it would just complete the transition to online. Now, if you could get them regulated online, you’d be in business…

1 Like