Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Wait, what? Democrats are also funding election deniers?

Doug Mastriano

In Pennsylvania, the Democratic candidate for governor ran ads supporting Doug Mastriano in the Republican primary in hopes of facing a damaged opponent.

Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

Effingham is the director of strategic partnerships for RepresentUs.

During the 2022 election season, an alarming trend is emerging. Dozens of candidates spouting the lie that the 2020 election was stolen are running for office in Republican primaries. And not only are many of these candidates winning, Democrats – the party on the front lines of fighting the Big Lie – are shockingly helping some of these election deniers win.

In fact, more than 100 candidates who deny that President Biden won the 2020 election have won their primaries as of mid-June. That list includes eight running for the U.S. Senate, 86 for the U.S. House, five for governor, four for state attorney general and one for secretary of state.

This trend is also a major issue at the state level. In the four battleground states of Georgia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Texas, 157 legislators who attempted to block the 2020 results have advanced to the general election this November. With many more primaries to come this year, these numbers are sure to rise.



Big Lie candidates receive funding from unexpected sources

Here at RepresentUs, we’ve previously documented that corporate America is continuing to fund politicians who voted to overturn the election results on Jan. 6, 2021. And while these election liars are only running in Republican primaries, they’re receiving funding from an unexpected source: the Democratic Party.

Wait, what?

As NBC News reports, Democratic groups are running political advertisements to help the most extreme GOP candidates win in primaries around the country. This isn’t a new strategy. These groups think that by helping put such fringe candidates on the general election ballot, their party will have an easier time winning.

This strategy comes with serious risks to democracy. For example, in the Pennsylvania governor’s race, Democratic candidate Josh Shapiro ran ads that aimed to boost Republican Doug Mastriano’s chances in the primary. One of the ads even went so far as to state that “if Mastriano wins, it's a win for what Donald Trump stands for." A current state senator, Mastriano is an election-denier who attended the Jan. 6 riots and was questioned by the FBI about it. Mastriano went on to win the Republican primary, and if he wins this November, he will become the governor of a major election battleground.

This tactic has increased the chances that an anti-democratic extremist will have enormous power. These commercials are ultimately a risky gamble that directly contradict the Democratic Party’s stated goal of protecting American democracy.

Democratic groups have also launched similar ads for the most extreme candidates in the Colorado Senate race and California’s 22nd District race.

Supporting democracy, not tricking voters

Supporting a weaker candidate in the primary to improve your chances in the general election may seem like a clever strategy. But as we’ve seen in the past, these campaigns are playing with fire. Famously, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign staff privately hoped to face Donald Trump. Obviously, their assumptions about that race were wrong.

Boosting radical anti-democratic candidates may not only be ineffective, it’s also completely irresponsible. By engaging in this cynical strategy, these campaigns are in fact pushing extremists closer to power – something that should concern American voters on both the right and the left. With the Jan. 6 hearings showing how vulnerable our democracy is, Democrats are risking handing power to dangerous anti-democratic extremists for the short-term gain of facing a “weaker” opponent.

At a time when the American people already distrust the two-party system and politics generally, these kinds of partisan shenanigans only make it worse.

Americans who support democracy should instead focus their efforts on building large, cross-party coalitions to defeat these extremist candidates at the ballot box. The majority of Americans view Jan. 6 as an attack on American democracy, proving that underhanded campaign tactics are unnecessary to win elections.

One way to stop this strategy of holding up extreme candidates in the hopes of an easier general election is by changing our primary election system. Nonpartisan open primaries, where every candidate is on the ballot and every registered voter gets to participate, is one answer. And it’s already being used in places like Alaska.

RepresentUs will continue to work with partners and allies across the political spectrum to pass nonpartisan primaries, ranked-choice voting and other pro-democracy reforms that will help put an end to partisan games and give everyday voters a voice.

RepresentUs Political Analyst Adam DuBard and Research Analyst Ally Marcella contributed to this report.


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less