Mediaboss Marketing

Politics stops at the waters edge, or it may have in 1947, when then-Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, first made the remark. But as partisan politics increasingly have bled into U.S. foreign policy in recent years, next months midterm elections have raised concerns about how the election could impact U.S. support for Ukraine as the war against Russia grinds into the winter.

Republicans have been widely predicted to retake control of the House of Representatives, and the future of the Senate remains up in the air. Although there has been strong bipartisan support for Kyiv since the war began among mainstream Republicans, former U.S. President Donald Trump-aligned members as well as influential commentators on Fox News and other parts of the right-wing echo chamber have begun to question the degree of military aid provided by Washington.

The decision to further arm Ukraine maps onto a deepening rift within the Republican Party between hawkish establishment conservatives, not shy of overseas intervention, and a growing chorus of isolationists who gained prominence during the Trump administration.

Politics stops at the waters edge, or it may have in 1947, when then-Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, first made the remark. But as partisan politics increasingly have bled into U.S. foreign policy in recent years, next months midterm elections have raised concerns about how the election could impact U.S. support for Ukraine as the war against Russia grinds into the winter.

Republicans have been widely predicted to retake control of the House of Representatives, and the future of the Senate remains up in the air. Although there has been strong bipartisan support for Kyiv since the war began among mainstream Republicans, former U.S. President Donald Trump-aligned members as well as influential commentators on Fox News and other parts of the right-wing echo chamber have begun to question the degree of military aid provided by Washington.

The decision to further arm Ukraine maps onto a deepening rift within the Republican Party between hawkish establishment conservatives, not shy of overseas intervention, and a growing chorus of isolationists who gained prominence during the Trump administration.

There are a lot of Republicans who are strongly behind Ukraine, who want the administration to do more, said Democratic Rep. Adam Smith, chair of the House Armed Services Committee.

There is, however, a creeping anxiety among Republicans, Democrats, and Ukrainians as to whether they could be overwhelmed by the vocal minority. In May, 57 Republican members of the House and 11 Republican senators voted against a $40 billion aid package for Ukraine while several members of the House Freedom Caucus, which represents some of the most extreme right-wing members, have spoken out explicitly against sending further aid to Ukraine. In August, members of the caucus co-sponsored a bill that called for no more federal funds to be sent to Ukraine until a wall is erected along the U.S. border with Mexico.

These voices that believe in America First isolationism dominate all of the major right-wing media, said Melinda Haring, deputy director of the Atlantic Councils Eurasia Center. Theyre the noisiest and the loudest, and they get the most attention.

Since the day Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24, highly influential Fox News anchorssuch as Tucker Carlsonhave portrayed the war as a failing of the Biden administration, an effort to avenge Russias interference in the 2016 presidential election. At times, Carlson has echoed Russian talking points about the war.

Other conservative commentators dismissed the impact that Carlson and others had on the broader Republican Party. Anytime youre citing [Rep.] Matt Gaetz and Tucker Carlson, it sounds like there is an agenda behind it, said Danielle Pletka, a senior foreign-policy and defense fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Pletka noted that senior Republicans across the House and Senate have all encouraged the administration to provide more aid to Ukraine.

I think a lot is overblown in terms of the effect of Fox News commentators, said a Republican congressional aide who requested anonymity to discuss the matter. The aide noted that Republican concerns about military aid have largely centered on bureaucratic fights over appropriations and the urge to get heavy weaponry into the hands of the Ukrainian military faster. In a speech on the Senate floor in late September, minority leader Sen. Mitch McConnell urged the Biden administration to move faster in delivering weapons to Ukraine.

The other hesitancy about providing money to Ukraine is not as much to do with Ukraine itself but the Biden administration not doing the proper oversight and accountability of very large sums of money being given to a foreign partner, the aide added.

Others found little substance to the GOPs critiques of the way the Biden administration has handled military aid to Ukraine. Republican critiques of the Biden administration are nonsense on Ukraine. And I say that as a lifelong Republican and an Ukraine expert, Haring said.

But views from the fringes of the party have proven capable of moving into the mainstream in recent years, as evidenced by the partys coalescence around claims that the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent. A majority of GOP candidates running for office in November have questioned or rejected the outcome of the vote.

That small group has certainly shown that they have a disproportionate influence on the direction that [House Minority Leader Rep.] Kevin McCarthy chooses, Smith said.

Opinion polls already show creeping fatigue among Republican voters for U.S. support for Ukraine, which could come to weigh on members. A Morning Consult poll released on Monday found only 32 percent of Republicans believe that the United States has a responsibility to protect and defend Ukraine from Russia, compared to 58 percent of Democrats. I think its incumbent on mainstream Republicans to get out of Washington and New York and start talking to Americans, Haring said. We need to do better, and we need to explain why support for Ukraine is in the U.S. national interest.

Between January and October, Washington pledged $26.8 billion in military aid, according to the Kiel Institute for the World Economys Ukraine Support Tracker, several times that of the second-biggest donor, the United Kingdom.

Any cutbacks to U.S. military aid to Kyiv could deal an existential blow to Ukraine.

People in Ukraine do believe that support for Ukraine is a bipartisan issue, said Olena Tregub, secretary-general of NAKO, an independent defense anti-corruption commission in Ukraine.

Yet, of course, here in Ukraine, there is a strong reaction [to] some statements of Donald Trump or Tucker Carlson. These are really shocking statements for Ukrainians, and they are confused as to how Russian propaganda has penetrated the American Republican Party to such an extent, she added.

Here is the original post:
Kyiv Is Hoping the Republican Party's Better Angels Prevail in the U.S. Midterms - Foreign Policy

Congress, the executive branch, and the American people deserve to know whos influencing research and public policy in our country, is how Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, a co-sponsor of the most stringent recent proposal, put it.

Yet while the proximate controversy, and the subject of Grassleys bill, involve money from foreign sources, the logic of the criticism is that think tanks have an outsize effect on public policy and the public is therefore entitled to know whos calling the shots. Its a logic that doesnt necessarily stop at the waters edge.

Consider the highest-profile left-wing critic of Brookings, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, whose broadsides against nefarious foreign funders often elide into broadsides against nefarious domestic donors: Special interest money slithers through Washington like a snake, and for years Ive been sounding the alarm about corporations and foreign governments secretly using think tanks to lobby, Warren said in a statement. Her own bill, which predates the Allen tumult, would require think tanks to disclose donors not just foreign ones that pay for lobbying materials, among other things.

For all the joy that conservative pols have taken at Brookings latest turn in the barrel, conversations with people around the industry reveal an irony: Any potential new wave of government-mandated disclosure rules, especially those that go beyond foreign money, would actually represent a bigger cultural change at right-wing organizations, some of which historically have tended to see donations as a form of free speech. Establishmentarian center-left outfits like Brookings already share significant pieces of that information thanks in part, it should be noted, to previous funding imbroglios, and their reliance on corporate dollars. (The Heritage Foundation, by contrast, says less than two percent of its income comes from corporate sources.)

The last spate of transparency efforts, which followed a blockbuster set of New York Times reports in 2014 and 2016 about donor influence at think tanks, was embraced way more on the left than the right, one longtime conservative think tank figure tells me. (To be clear, this veteran of fundraising told me, thats because it was centrist and liberal outfits that had been caught out.) While a visitor to Brookings website can today peruse annual reports that identify top donors, the American Enterprise Institute says it doesnt provide that information as a matter of course.

Its going to be a harder, bigger disruptor for center-right think tanks, even though more of them say they dont take foreign government money, says Enrique Mendizabal, who leads On Think Tanks, a research outfit that researches the think tank business.

Its also notable that none of the proposals that have been publicized since the tumult at Brookings would have done much about Allen, whose allegedly fishy work for Qatar was done before he took over Brookings and would theoretically be covered by the Foreign Agent Registration Act. (Hes denied improper behavior and hasnt been charged with any wrongdoing.)

What the scrutiny of Allen did do, though, was re-focus attention on the organizations broader history with the emirate. In June, I reported on a 2007 contract with the Qatari government establishing a Brookings outpost in Doha while handing its autocratic regime an unusual and unattractive degree of contractual prerogatives over an independent organization. The previously unreported contract has been cited by members of Congress supporting new disclosure rules and demanding federal investigations. (In a final irony, it was during Allens tenure that Brookings actually disaffiliated from its Doha center and began eschewing funding from non-democratic governments.)

That Qatar deal wound up in angry public letters by Warren as well as a quartet of GOP senators, and in the most stringent of the bills introduced following Allens departure, the Think Tank Transparency Act, sponsored by Grassley and Michigan GOP Rep. Jack Bergman.

Not only does their measure require the quick disclosure of all funding from foreign sources, including private citizens, it also orders think tanks to share the contracts so that the public would know, as in the case of Brookings Doha center, whether management had agreed to submit a budget and program agenda to a government ministry. And it says any briefings for Congress or the executive branch funded by the foreign donation be labeled as such. The prospect of having to announce the support of the government of Qatar or Norway on every paper prepared for a federal policymaker is something that fills a lot of think-tankers with dread.

Under the bill, the rules apply to nonprofits that spent at least 20 percent of resources influencing public policy, which is how it avoids looping in art museums or cancer-research facilities or other nonprofits. Technically, theres no legal definition of think tank.

Another measure, the Fighting Foreign Influence Act, with bipartisan sponsorship that includes Democratic Reps. Jared Golden (Maine) and Katie Porter (Calif.) as well as the far-right Republican Rep. Paul Gosar (Ariz.), would require think tanks to declare any funding from foreign governments and political parties, which would then be published by the Treasury Department.

None of this would have happened if not for John Allen, says Ben Freeman, a research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and a longstanding critic of think tanks as a place where foreign entities can skirt FARA rules and have a real impact on American policy and public opinion. Freeman says the attention generated by the fall of Allen even if a large portion of it was just partisan pile-on by folks who dont like Brookings politics did more to galvanize the issue than any number of the papers he and colleague Eli Clifton have produced as theyve built a cottage industry as think-tank watchdogs.

I call it an enormous dark-money operation, Freeman says. Lets be honest here, these think tanks are going to play a vital role in advising policymakers and members of government about what would be good policies, presumably, in the national interest. The lack of mandatory disclosure, the fact its all voluntary, the fact that theres no enforcement, even of the accuracy of these voluntary disclosures, it all kinds of builds towards what is potentially an enormous national security problem.

Under the status quo, there are few rules about who a think tank may accept money from and who it has to tell. And there are probably as many internal policies as there are think tanks: The Heritage Foundation doesnt take any money from governments of any sort, foreign or domestic. Brookings does take money from governments, but only democratic ones. The Center for American Progress also takes foreign money, but not for any specific project. It also discloses donors, unless those donors choose to remain anonymous, something deep-pocketed types occasionally do to avoid being hit up by others. AEI doesnt disclose donors, but does release a graph about where the money comes from. And those are just the biggest outfits, the ones that can support sizable accounting staffs.

Freeman and Clifton say most of the larger places could abide foreign-donation transparency rules, despite the paperwork hassle. Many are already partly there. But the less august realms of the think tank sphere may prove trickier. I think where this matters a lot is at places that dont disclose any of this stuff and where, for the first time, were going to get a look under the hood there and see just how swampy it might be, Freeman says.

Like a lot of observers, the pair are skeptical about whether the measures can actually become law in a quickly-expiring Congress. But its likely that they presage future rough times for research outfits facing scrutiny from genuine reformers as well as ideological foes who just want to discredit the policy industry. That aspect of the national mood concerns even some folks who favor more transparency.

We should be wary of anything that undermines the use of expertise in policymaking, says David Solimini of the Stimson Center, an international-relations focused think tank. Stimson, he says, currently discloses its overseas and domestic donors, though it allows individual donors to opt for anonymity.

For folks whove made their lives in think tanks the heart of the matter is something more fundamental and unmentioned in any of the legislation and agitation: Just what are think tanks, anyway?

A quintessentially Washington industry whose research shapes public policy, whose jobs incubate future administrations, and whose role in Congressional testimony and media influences American public opinion, leaders of the institutions have often cast their world as a universe of dispassionate scholarship.

In the current climate of criticism, though, theyre being cast as something much earthier a part of the advocacy game, more like lobbyists with PhDs than like college professors who study Tennyson or Mayan civilization. And if lobbyists and foreign agents should have to declare who pays them, the logic goes, shouldnt it be the same for think tanks, which after all are subsidized by the government via their tax-exempt status?

Its an uncomfortable question for the self-esteem of think-tank employees, many of whom dont want to think of themselves as grubby influence-peddlers. But its also a problematic one for the folks who need to raise money for the outfits, which unlike colleges cant charge tuition.

People in the think tank world are worried, says Ken Weinstein, the former head of the conservative-oriented Hudson Foundation. They want to keep the focus on the scholars. They dont want to talk about the funders. The motives of the funders are not always the motives of the think tanks.

Mendizabal, who studies think tanks around the world, tells me hes in favor of broad transparency but wary of government regulations that could give aid and comfort to authoritarian regimes elsewhere that have cracked down on independent research organizations. Allegations of foreign meddling have been part of the playbook in countries like Russia that seek to quash any research or opinions that lack an official stamp.

As for the bigger question of what this new climate means for think tanks identities, he says he thinks part of the problem is that top organizations have become victims of their own hype. Though they like to describe themselves as rigorously research-based, they also solicit donations by talking up how much influence they have the kind of talk that, in a country already suffering from high levels of distrust, can cause political troubles.

The bill states that they have huge influence, he says of the Grassley-Bergman measure. Wheres the evidence of that? These think tanks are creating problems for themselves by claiming to be so influential. Its as if Congress has no agency theyre saying we need to be protected from these influential organizations that were powerless against and that use foreign money.

Continue reading here:
Top Republicans Are Aiming at Brookings. Will It Backfire? - POLITICO

REPUBLICANS ARE WINNING THE GENERIC CONGRESSIONAL BALLOT 53% TO 47% AMONG LIKELY VOTERS

55% OF AMERICANS BLAME BIDEN FOR INFLATION, INCLUDING 42% OF DEMOCRATS

BIDEN'S DEBT RELIEF AND MARIJUANA PARDONS ARE POPULAR BUT DON'T MOVE THE NEEDLE ELECTORALLY FOR DEMOCRATS

NEW YORK and CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Oct. 14, 2022 /PRNewswire/ --Stagwell (NASDAQ: STGW) today released the results of the October Harvard-CAPS Harris Poll, a monthly collaboration between the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard (CAPS) and the Harris Poll and HarrisX.

Republicans are connecting with voters on their key issues of inflation, crime, and immigration, while Americans see Democrats as mostly focused on January 6, women's rights, and the environment. Biden continues to struggle on the economy, which is the key issue: 84% of Americans think the US is in a recession now or will be by next year, and 58% are not confident in Biden's ability to hold inflation at bay.

Other topics surveyed in this month's poll include voter views on Biden's marijuana pardon and student debt plans, and US foreign policy around oil and Ukraine. Download key results here.

"Republicans are inching back towards a wave election after a summer when abortion seemed to turn the tides," said Mark Penn, Co-Director of the Harvard-CAPS Harris Poll and Stagwell Chairman and CEO. "People are more motivated to vote when they are upset, and the Republicans are capturing voter dissatisfaction on inflation, crime, and immigration. Americans are suffering incredible economic anxiety on top of normal buyer's remorse for the president and his party in a midterm."

REPUBLICANS ARE CONNECTING ON INFLATION, CRIME, AND IMMIGRATION

AMERICANS BLAME BIDEN AND THE FED FOR INFLATION

BIDEN'S DEBT RELIEF AND MARIJUANA PARDON POLICIES ARE POPULAR BUT DON'T MOVE THE NEEDLE ELECTORALLY

AMERICANS LEAN TOWARDS HAWKISH FOREIGN POLICY ON OIL AND RUSSIA

The October Harvard-CAPS Harris Poll survey was conducted online within the United States from October 12-13, 2022, among 2,010 registered voters by The Harris Poll and HarrisX. Follow the Harvard CAPS Harris Poll podcast athttps://www.markpennpolls.com/or on iHeart Radio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and other podcast platforms.

About The Harris Poll

The Harris Poll is a global consulting and market research firm that strives to reveal the authentic values of modern society to inspire leaders to create a better tomorrow. It works with clients in three primary areas: building twenty-first-century corporate reputation, crafting brand strategy and performance tracking, and earning organic media through public relations research. One of the longest-running surveys in the U.S., The Harris Poll has tracked public opinion, motivations, and social sentiment since 1963, and is now part of Stagwell, the challenger holding company built to transform marketing.

About the Harvard Center for American Political Studies The Center for American Political Studies (CAPS) is committed to and fosters the interdisciplinary study of U.S. politics.Governed by a group of political scientists, sociologists, historians, and economists within the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University, CAPS drives discussion, research, public outreach, and pedagogy about all aspects of U.S. politics. CAPS encourages cutting-edge research using a variety of methodologies, including historical analysis, social surveys, and formal mathematical modeling, and it often cooperates with other Harvard centers to support research training and encourage cross-national research about the United States in comparative and global contexts. More information at https://caps.gov.harvard.edu/.

SOURCE Stagwell Inc.

Read the rest here:
OCTOBER HARVARD-CAPS HARRIS POLL: REPUBLICANS ARE INCHING CLOSER TOWARDS A WAVE AS THEY WIN OVER VOTERS ON INFLATION, CRIME, AND IMMIGRATION - PR...

Hundreds of Republican midterm candidates have questioned or spread misinformation about the 2020 election.

Hundreds of Republican midterm candidates have questioned or spread misinformation about the 2020 election.

Together they represent a growing consensus in the Republican Party, and a potential threat to American democracy.

Together they represent a growing consensus in the Republican Party, and a potential threat to American democracy.

They include candidates for the U.S. House and Senate, and the state offices of governor, secretary of state and attorney general many with clear shots to victory, and some without a chance. They are united by at least one issue: They have all expressed doubt about the legitimacy of the 2020 election. And they are the new normal of the Republican Party.

About the data Karen Yourish and Danielle Ivory collected and analyzed statements of more than 550 Republican midterm candidates. Read more about their reporting.

More than 370 people a vast majority of Republicans running for these offices in November have questioned and, at times, outright denied the results of the 2020 election despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, according to a monthslong New York Times investigation. These candidates represent a sentiment that is spreading in the Republican Party, rupturing a bedrock principle of democracy: that voters decide elections and candidates accept results.

This skepticism has stretched into political races in every state and is still frequently being raised as a campaign issue, The Times has found, nearly two years after Donald J. Trump was defeated. Hundreds of these candidates are favored to win their races.

Far from fading over time, as many Americans had hoped, election lies and misinformation have proved strikingly resilient, even amid a political campaign season in which far more is being said by candidates and their party officials about issues like inflation and abortion. The Times has for the first time identified more than 240 candidates who are still casting doubt on the presidential election this year many of them within the last couple of months.

The Times analysis is a detailed accounting of the spread of election denial in the Republican Party. The analysis incorporates not only what candidates have said, but also when. Many candidates views have changed over time as new conspiracies were born, as Mr. Trump demanded fealty, and as primary voters weighed in, The Times found. Some candidates became less vocal after the Capitol riot, and some have consistently pushed falsehoods about the election.

The timeline below tracks the candidates expressions of doubt over three distinct periods: on the day of or before the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, after the riot, and this year as the midterm elections have approached.

74 candidates questioned the 2020 election through the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

On or beforeJan. 6, 2021

Rest of 2021

2022

Michael Cloud, 27th District, TexasThe allegations of irregularities in the vote-counting process should be concerning to everyone. Nov. 6, 2020

Michael Cloud, 27th District, TexasThe allegations of irregularities in the vote-counting process should be concerning to everyone. Nov. 6, 2020

136 candidates questioned the 2020 election on and off in the last two years.

On or beforeJan. 6, 2021

Rest of 2021

2022

Diana Harshbarger, First District, Tenn.There's ample evidence that unchecked ballot harvesting has led to mischief and voting irregularities. June 24, 2022

Diana Harshbarger, First District, Tenn.There's ample evidence that unchecked ballot harvesting has led to mischief and voting irregularities. June 24, 2022

64 candidates questioned the 2020 election in 2022.

On or beforeJan. 6, 2021

Rest of 2021

2022

Scotty Moore, Ninth District, Fla.The movie 2000 Mules proves election fraud happened and President Trump won in a landslide. May 9, 2022

Scotty Moore, Ninth District, Fla.The movie 2000 Mules proves election fraud happened and President Trump won in a landslide. May 9, 2022

103 candidates have persistently questioned the 2020 election.

On or beforeJan. 6, 2021

Rest of 2021

2022

Mary Miller, 15th District, Ill.They know even a glancing review would uncover the greatest heist of the 21st century. Dec. 29, 2020

Mary Miller, 15th District, Ill.They know even a glancing review would uncover the greatest heist of the 21st century. Dec. 29, 2020

Note: Some candidates were not public figures until recently. Their records of casting doubt on the 2020 election may not be publicly available.

No evidence of widespread irregularities was found by top Trump administration officials in the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security, which investigated the election, or by judges throughout the country and even auditors commissioned by political operatives intent on proving fraud.

The Times scoured the public records of more than 550 Republican candidates in all 50 states, examining their social media accounts, political emails, newsletters, speeches, interviews and campaign materials. The analysis distinguished between the many dozens of candidates who said unequivocally (and inaccurately) that the 2020 election was stolen, and those who stopped short of that falsehood but criticized the election, often persistently, in ways that were seemingly more reasonable but perhaps more influential.

The Times did not automatically categorize candidates who objected to the 2020 Electoral College results or who supported lawsuits challenging the results as denying the election outright. As a recent Times investigation reported, those candidates often cited more nuanced arguments for their votes or said they did not want to overturn the outcome.

The Times investigation found that about 70 percent of Republicans running for Congress had questioned the election of President Biden, who won seven million more votes and 74 more electors than Mr. Trump. Of those, nearly two-thirds are favored to win their races, according to the Cook Political Report, which provides race ratings for Congress and governor.

Among Republican candidates running for state offices that can play a significant role in elections and recounts governors, attorneys general and secretaries of state more than half expressed misgivings about the 2020 election. The share was higher, about 65 percent, among candidates running for governor. About half of those candidates for governor are favored to win.

For Republican candidates who would rather talk about something other than the last presidential election, some have learned that the partys base, and its unofficial leader, Mr. Trump, wont let them drop the issue. It has become, in many cases, the price of entry to the Republican ticket.

Wisconsin Republicans learned this lesson the hard way.

In early June, Mr. Trump upended the Republican primary for governor in Wisconsin by endorsing Tim Michels, a wealthy construction magnate, over Rebecca Kleefisch, a former lieutenant governor of the state and a favorite of local Republicans.

The endorsement apparently came with strings.

During a July debate, Mr. Michels said he would not prioritize decertifying the 2020 election in Wisconsin, a legally implausible process that nonetheless remained a fixation of Mr. Trump.

I have to focus on beating Tony Evers this fall, he said, referring to Wisconsins incumbent Democratic governor.

A roar came from Mar-a-Lago, communicated through aides to Mr. Michels, demanding that he embrace the decertification movement, according to people familiar with the conversations.

Mr. Michels reversed course, saying that he was very, very fired up about this election integrity issue and pledging to consider signing a decertification bill if legislators passed one.

By the final days of the primary, Mr. Michels was promoting the election conspiracy theory amplified in the film 2000 Mules and was promising to consider signing legislation clawing back Wisconsins 10 electoral votes from the 2020 election.

The former president has backed nearly 70 percent of the candidates that The Times identified as questioning the 2020 election and who are favored to win their races.

Of the more than 370 candidates who expressed skepticism about the 2020 election, about half are incumbents, nearly all of whom are favored to keep their seats.

About a fifth of the candidates are current members of Congress who, on Jan. 6, 2021, objected to the Electoral College results a distinction that, according to a recent Times report, has become politically (and financially) profitable.

In the months following the Capitol riot, nearly 80 percent of the objectors who are running for re-election took some kind of official action that, in effect, continued to promote questions about the 2020 election. These included signing congressional letters alleging widespread fraud or inappropriate interference in the 2020 race; co-sponsoring legislation to fix what they deemed to be problems that emerged during that election; and joining a new Election Integrity Caucus, which has spearheaded a lot of these initiatives.

The candidates identified by The Times include people who have questioned the 2020 election in ways both explicit and subtle.

Fewer than one-third have staked out the most extreme position stating, without any evidence, that the election was stolen or rigged.

An even smaller number of the candidates who explicitly said the election was stolen, about three dozen of them, are favored to win. They include incumbents like Governor Kay Ivey of Alabama, Representative Lance Gooden of Texas and Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida all of whom have tweeted falsely, sometimes repeatedly, that the election was stolen as well as candidates running for the House, like Mike Collins in Georgia, Joe Kent in Washington State and Anna Paulina Luna in Florida.

In a recent video, Mr. Collins walks toward the camera with a gun, saying: You count the legal votes that were cast in the state of Georgia? Donald Trump won this state, period. At the end of the video, he shoots what appears to be a voting machine, and it explodes. Mr. Biden won the election in Georgia by more than 11,000 votes.

The video below shows how some of the most ardent election deniers have made their claims, even though Mr. Biden received more than 51 percent of the popular vote, winning in battleground states like Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Mark Finchem for Ariz. Secretary of State We know it and they know it.

Mark Finchem for Ariz. Secretary of State Donald Trump won.

Brian Flowers for Miss. 2 Trump won, and everyone knows it.

Blake Masters for Ariz. Senator I think Trump won in 2020.

Mike Collins for Ga. 10 You count the legal votes that were

Mike Collins for Ga. 10 cast in the state of Georgia.

Mike Collins for Ga. 10 Donald Trump won this state.

Tudor Dixon for Mich. Governor Do you believe Donald Trump legitimately

Tudor Dixon for Mich. Governor won the 2020 election in Michigan?

Tudor Dixon for Mich. Governor Yes.

Anna Paulina Luna for Fla. 13 Yes, I believe that

Anna Paulina Luna for Fla. 13 President Trump won that election,

Anna Paulina Luna for Fla. 13 and I do believe that voter fraud occurred.

Karoline Leavitt for N.H. 1 I am the only candidate in this race

Karoline Leavitt for N.H. 1 to say that President Trump won in 2020.

Kari Lake for Ariz. Governor We had a fraudulent election, a corrupt election,

Kari Lake for Ariz. Governor and we have an illegitimate president

Kari Lake for Ariz. Governor sitting in the White House.

J.R. Majewski for Ohio 9 Do you believe that Joe Biden is the legitimate president

J.R. Majewski for Ohio 9 of the United States?

J.R. Majewski for Ohio 9 Hell, no.

Lisa McClain for Mich. 9 Tell me Joe Biden won.

Russell Fry for S.C. 7 It is very clear that it was rigged.

Lance Gooden for Texas 5 I will not accept the results of a rigged election.

Morgan Luttrell for Texas 8 It was taken from us.

Morgan Luttrell for Texas 8 Yes, maam.

Jim Bognet for Pa. 8 In 2020, President Trump endorsed me for Congress.

Jim Bognet for Pa. 8 But that election was stolen from us.

Marjorie Taylor Greene for Ga. 14 The dirty, rotten Democrats stole the election.

Rand Paul for Ky. Senator The election in many ways was stolen.

Rayla Campbell for Mass. Secretary of State We watched our elections

Rayla Campbell for Mass. Secretary of State be stolen.

J.D. Vance for Ohio Senator I think the election was stolen from Trump.

Kay Ivey for Ala. Governor The fake news,

Kay Ivey for Ala. Governor Big Tech and blue-state liberals stole the election

Kay Ivey for Ala. Governor from President Trump.

Most election skeptics, however, have not denied the 2020 results entirely. Instead, The Times found, they have sown doubt by suggesting, sometimes repeatedly, that there are unresolved questions or that further investigation is needed.

Some have said they do not know who legitimately won the election, or they have conceded that Mr. Biden is the president, but not necessarily because he was elected fairly. Some have said that there were irregularities or interference in the election but that perhaps those did not change the results.

Others have changed their positions, like Don Bolduc, a Senate candidate in New Hampshire. At an August debate, Mr. Bolduc said, I signed a letter with 120 other generals and admirals saying that Trump won the election, and, damn it, I stand by my letter.

Im not switching horses, baby, he said.

On Sept. 15, he did.

Read more here:
These Republican Candidates Questioned the 2020 Election. Many Will Win - The New York Times

Peppered among the lush green oak and palm trees of the Rio Grande Valley, a mostly Hispanic region along the U.S.-Mexico border that has voted solidly Democratic, there are Republican outposts popping up.

The Hidalgo County GOP headquarters was busy on the mid-September day when CBS News knocked on its doors in McAllen, Texas. The foyer was filled with candidate signs and stickers from a slate of Republican candidates. Inside, Hidalgo County GOP Chair Adrienne Pena-Garza was running a phone bank for GOP candidates something she says was unheard of just a few election cycles ago.

"Family, faith and freedom. I mean, that's the messaging that's been working for us," Pena-Garza said in an interview airing on the special "CBS Reportes: El Poder" streaming on CBS News.

A similar slogan worked for newly elected Rep. Mayra Flores, who became the first Mexican-born woman sworn into Congress in June. Her campaign, with the help of the GOP, spent over a million dollars.

"God, Family, Country" is front and center on the Flores campaign signs that dot the highways and front lawns of homes.

The 36-year-old, who is married to a U.S. Border Patrol agent, won Texas' 34th Congressional District special election to fill Democratic Rep. Filemon Vela's seat.

"The Republican Party is investing in the Hispanic community, because they understand that the Hispanic community is the future of this country," Flores told CBS News in Washington, D.C. "It is time that we talk about our faith and not allow anyone to shame us for believing in God and for fighting for strong family values."

It's a message Pastor Luis Cabrera of City Church of Harlingen preaches from the pulpit on Sundays. Cabrera, who identifies as Republican, calls himself Flores' spiritual counselor.

His evangelical church sits on the access road off a busy highway. A drum kit, along with guitars and other instruments sit on the stage for the musicians who play and pray. A new kind of MAGA flag hangs from the rafters it reads "Make America Godly Again."

Cabrera says Flores approached him and said she liked the message and wanted to use it for her campaign.

"I'm like, Are you serious, Mayra? Like, [those are] fighting words. Not everyone's going to agree," Cabrera recalled. But Cabrera says Flores insisted.

Cabrera says Hispanic Republican candidates in the Rio Grande Valley who openly talk about their faith are finding sympathetic ears. One issue Cabrera highlighted was gay marriage, which he says shows a stark difference between Democrats and Republicans.

"Their God to them is just obsolete. You know why? Because of our traditional values of a marriage between one man and one woman. They don't believe in that. They believe in gay marriage, which is that's their right. But as a Christian, that affects us. I don't want my son and daughter to be told it's okay to be gay. No, it's not okay to be gay. It's against the word of God. And so, that right there speaks volumes," explained Cabrera.

Recent CBS News pollingof registered voters shows that nearly half of registered voters, 49%, believe that LGBTQ people will have fewer rights and freedoms if Republicans win control of Congress in the fall.

While campaigning from the pulpit may be taboo in some churches, Cabrera says his church is not a 501(c)3, not a non-profit, so he has no problem talking about his politics to his flock.

"We have the power to elect and we have the power to fire people. That's awesome. That's the greatest weapon that we have, but we don't use. Why not?" Cabrera asked.

Flores supporter Celina Tafolla openly talks about her political views and her faith. Tafolla says she was raised a Democrat, but after President Trump's election, she decided to not be quiet about being a Republican in the Rio Grande Valley.

"You know, God first. Your loyalty isn't to a political party, your loyalty is God. And that's why you should be voting red, because it aligns with our values," she said.

Discussions about border security envelop the region. Government data shows that this fiscal year, the border patrol made more than 400,000 arrests in the Rio Grande Valley,a record for the sector.

Hidalgo County Democratic chair Richard Gonzales said key issues of the Democratic Party like abortion, gun control and the environment, are not as important to some as the economy, crime and immigration a major focus for Republicans.

"The biggest misconception is that we are (a) cartel-run, open-borders, poor, crime-ridden city, crime-ridden community. That is absolutely not true," said Gonzales. "The national [GOP] message was basically, Hey, the Valley is just an open borders area. It's full of illegal immigrants. They are taking your jobs...taking your money."

But as campaign season comes to a close, which issues will be decisive in the outcome of the midterm elections?

University of Texas, Rio Grande Valley Political Science professor Mark Kaswan says it's worth watching the Rio Grande Valley, though he's not expecting a red wave. There's a better-than-even chance Democrats will win back Flores seat, Kaswan predicts, though he said her victory has given Rio Grande Valley Republicans hope.

"They have cracked that door open," Kaswan said. "They see an opportunity to make gains."

Republicans are continuing to hold onto their lead in the House, though their margins for capturing the majority are growing narrower,according to the CBS News Battleground Tracker. Republicans and Democrats alike are concerned they would have fewer rights and freedoms than they currently have if the opposing party wins, CBS News polls show.

Omar Villafranca is a CBS News correspondent based in Dallas.

Read more here:
How Republicans in the Rio Grande Valley are using faith to draw in Latino voters - CBS News