State of elections since 2020

mickeyrat

email solicitation today.and my response...

josevolution

mickeyrat said:

email solicitation today.and my response...

Is that really your response 😂😂 😎

mickeyrat

josevolution said:

mickeyrat said:

email solicitation today.and my response...

Is that really your response 😂😂 😎

josevolution

mickeyrat said:

josevolution said:

mickeyrat said:

email solicitation today.and my response...

Is that really your response 😂😂 😎

Awesome 👏 

mickeyrat

josevolution said:

mickeyrat said:8

josevolution said:

mickeyrat said:

email solicitation today.and my response...

Is that really your response 😂😂 😎

Awesome 👏 

not to mild was it?

josevolution

mickeyrat said:

josevolution said:

mickeyrat said:8

josevolution said:

mickeyrat said:

email solicitation today.and my response...

Is that really your response 😂😂 😎

Awesome 👏 

not to mild was it?

Perfect! 

mickeyrat

More than 100 FBI agents raided the Ohio Organizing Collaborative — a Cleveland-based voter registration group serving racial minorities, the formerly incarcerated, and college students for two decades — and commentator Marilou Johanek writes that combined with the DOJ's intervention to support documentary proof of citizenship requirements and Republican lawmakers rushing a voter ID constitutional amendment to the November ballot in less than a month, "the specter of the federal government used as a partisan weapon in service to a malignant narcissist is no longer conjecture in Ohio." Read more: https://s.tiffinohio.net/qhFNAdo

mickeyrat

ALTNATPARKSERVICE adbook post 

The Trump administration has informed a federal court that it has created a new federal records system tied to its plan to change how mail-in and absentee ballots are handled.

A federal records system provides the framework for collecting, storing, and using personal information. In this case, it appears to be connected to a broader effort to use federal databases to verify voter eligibility and shape how mail ballots are processed.

That should concern anyone who values voting rights. Government databases are not infallible. Records are often incomplete, outdated, or simply wrong. When those errors affect your email account, it’s annoying. When they affect your right to vote, it’s a threat to democracy.

The bigger issue is who gets to decide. Elections have always been administered by the states, but this effort moves more power into the hands of federal agencies and creates the infrastructure for a nationwide voter-tracking system. Once that infrastructure exists, it can be expanded, repurposed, or abused by administrations.

Voting should be accessible, secure, and administered transparently. Creating new federal databases tied to mail ballots raises serious questions about privacy, government overreach, and whether eligible voters could be caught up in bureaucratic shenanigans.

brianlux

mickeyrat said:

ALTNATPARKSERVICE adbook post 

Amazing work! Hundreds of Georgians flooded the Capitol today, and lawmakers got the message loud and clear they are NOT redrawing the state’s maps this session!! The effort would dilute Black voting power. Instead, Georgians organized, made calls, showed up, and made their voices impossible to ignore. Thank you to everyone who spoke out and refused to back down. Today, Georgia showed the rest of the country how it’s done.

Great news!

mickeyrat

Trump is demanding states carry out manual election audits at the administration’s direction, use their preferred system to verify citizenship, and promise to gradually end the use of electronic ballots—or face losing 20% of their grants. https://trib.al/vnxttw2

mickeyrat

ALTNATPARKSERVICE adbook post 

This is absolutely nonsense. The Postmaster General said during a Senate hearing today that if a proposed federal mail ballot rule takes effect, the Postal Service would refuse to deliver mail ballots in states that do not turn over sensitive voter data to the federal government. Refusing to deliver ballots because a state declines to hand over voter information would directly interfere with the voting process and raise serious concerns about voter access, election administration, and federal overreach into state-run elections.

mickeyrat

a mighty girl adbook post 

When Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth fired Vice Admiral Nancy Lacore last summer, he ended a 35-year Navy career without offering an explanation for her dismissal. He also created one of the most formidable Democratic challengers of the 2026 cycle. On Tuesday, Lacore won the Democratic nomination for South Carolina's 1st Congressional District, defeating former Hilton Head town attorney Mac Deford in a runoff, and will now lead her party's bid to flip a Republican-held seat this November.

"This campaign has always been about earning support across the Lowcountry and proving that voters are ready for a new kind of leadership," Lacore said after her win. "We're building a broad coalition focused on lowering costs, protecting our freedoms, and delivering results for South Carolina families." Speaking to supporters in Mount Pleasant, she framed the victory as just the beginning -- a movement built for voters of every party who value integrity. 

"After decades of service to our country, a career that started as a Navy pilot and finished as a three-star admiral, I was removed from my position without cause," Lacore declared in her campaign announcement. "I still have more to give, more to fight for, more work to do -- and I am not done serving."

As she told Reserve & National Guard Magazine, "I spent 35 years defending the Constitution and upholding the rights and freedoms that are in it. I'm concerned that is at risk right now."

Lacore is a trailblazer in every sense: a Navy veteran who began her career as a helicopter pilot and rose to become a three-star admiral and the 16th Chief of the Navy Reserve, where she led more than 60,000 sailors. A native of Albany, New York, she followed in her father's footsteps by accepting an ROTC scholarship to the College of the Holy Cross, earning her naval aviator wings in 1993.

Over three and a half decades, she accumulated approximately 1,300 flight hours in military aircraft, deployed to Afghanistan in 2011, commanded Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti, and served as the 93rd Commandant of Naval District Washington before ascending to lead the Navy Reserve. Her awards include the Legion of Merit, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, four Meritorious Service Medals, and four Navy Commendation Medals.

Her firing on August 22, 2025 -- exactly one year after taking command of the Navy Reserve -- came alongside Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse, who led the Defense Intelligence Agency, and Rear Adm. Milton Sands, who commanded the Navy SEALs. The Pentagon offered no explanation for her dismissal -- the same lack of transparency Hegseth has shown in firing dozens of America's most senior military leaders, some citing only a vague "loss of confidence."

Ironically, this unprecedented purge has been conducted by the least qualified Defense Secretary in modern history -- a former Fox News TV host with no senior military command experience, no experience managing large organizations, and no previous government service at any level.

This systematic dismantling of military leadership has alarmed national security experts across the political spectrum. Five former defense secretaries -- including retired Gen. Jim Mattis, Trump's own first defense secretary -- condemned the firings as "reckless" in a joint letter to Congress, asking for "immediate hearings to assess the national security implications" of the dismissals.

Former National Security Council member Kori Schake, a George W. Bush adviser, said the Trump administration is "squandering an enormous amount of talent." Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts, a Marine officer who served in Iraq and now sits on the House Armed Services Committee, was blunter: "That's a recipe not just for a politicized military, but an authoritarian military. That's the way militaries work in Russia and China and North Korea."

In Lacore's case, her extensive military record and broader community service show the high caliber of leader that Hegseth has dismissed without cause. After returning from Afghanistan in 2012, she visited the Women in Military Service for America Memorial for the first time and found herself paging through a book devoted to the stories of women who died in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and realized that even after 24 years in the Navy and her own deployment to a war zone, she had no idea how many women had been killed.

"As a woman who had just served in Afghanistan, I really had no idea who had been killed, how many, what services," she said. "And so, I was like, 'You know what, I can do something about this.'"

So she did. In 2014, Lacore founded Valor Run, running 160 miles in 160 hours -- one mile for each of the 160 American servicewomen who died in Iraq and Afghanistan -- from Chesapeake, Virginia to the Women's Memorial at Arlington National Cemetery, raising $33,000 for military charities.

"It's not about me running," she said at the time. "It's about the people coming together and recognizing all the women who have died." The nonprofit ran for ten years, awarding more than $30,000 in scholarships to children whose mothers served in those wars.

Lacore's campaign is centered on putting people first -- affordability, opportunity, and honoring service. "Hard work should result in a stable life," she said. "Americans deserve a lower cost of living -- housing, healthcare, childcare, and daily essentials -- so families, seniors, veterans, and young Americans can build secure futures." With four of her six children now in the workforce, she knows the challenges young people, in particular, are facing firsthand.

The fall race will be a steep climb -- by design. South Carolina's 1st District, which includes Charleston, Beaufort, and the surrounding Lowcountry, was redrawn by Republican lawmakers in 2021 to be far more reliably Republican. A federal three-judge panel unanimously found that the new map was a racial gerrymander, ruling that mapmakers had moved tens of thousands of Black voters out of the district -- the panel said the plan had "bleached" Black voters out of the seat and made a "mockery" of traditional districting principles. In 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that finding in a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines, allowing the map to stand. Mace went on to win re-election by double digits under those lines, and Trump carried the district by 13 points in 2024.

But Democrats see Lacore as a uniquely strong candidate for difficult terrain. She has proven to be a prolific fundraiser, raising $500,000 in her first two weeks and more than $1.4 million by late spring, and she's one of just 12 House candidates nationwide this cycle backed by the Bench, a group led by veteran Democratic strategists that recruits and advises contenders in both battleground districts and races seen as harder to win. Combined with the backing of veterans' groups like VoteVets, it's a bet that her record and her story can reach across party lines in a way a typical challenger couldn't.

Nancy Lacore -- a decorated combat veteran, a three-star admiral, a mother of six, and the founder of a nonprofit to honor fallen servicewomen -- may be exactly that candidate. As she declared: "I've served my whole life, and I'm not done yet."

To learn more about Nancy Lacore's campaign and how to get involved, visit https://www.nancylacore.com/

For women considering running for office at any level, there are several organizations that can help including Emerge America (https://emergeamerica.org), Vote Run Lead (https://voterunlead.org/), and She Should Run (https://www.sheshouldrun.org)

For books for children about trailblazing female political leaders in the U.S. -- both historically and in modern times -- visit our blog post, "Remember the Ladies: 25 Children's Books on Women in Politics" at https://www.amightygirl.com/blog?p=11162

For a children's book that gives groundbreaking women in the military, past and present, the respect they deserve, we highly recommend "Heroism Begins With Her: Inspiring Stories of Bold, Brave, and Gutsy Women in the U.S. Military" for ages 9 and up at https://www.amightygirl.com/heroism-begins-with-her

For more books for young readers that honor the service of women in the military, visit our blog post "The Price of Peace: A Mighty Girl Recognizes Veterans" at https://www.amightygirl.com/blog?p=12356

For books for children and teens about the importance of standing up for truth, decency, and justice, even in dark times, visit our blog post, "Dissent Is Patriotic: 50 Books About Women Who Fought for Change," at https://www.amightygirl.com/blog?p=14364

To stay connected with A Mighty Girl, you can sign-up for our free email newsletter at https://www.amightygirl.com/forms/newsletter

mickeyrat

Kinzinger adbook post 

Imagine if Barack Obama had demanded greater federal control over voter registration six months before a midterm election. Imagine if Bill Clinton had used federal agencies to scrutinize voter rolls while publicly questioning the legitimacy of election officials. Imagine if Joe Biden spent years insisting that any election he lost must have been stolen.

Republicans would have been outraged. And they would have been right.

Yet many of the same Republicans who once warned against concentrated government power are suddenly comfortable watching Donald Trump involve himself in the administration of the next election.

The danger facing the 2026 midterms is not that Trump will cancel them. He can’t. Elections are administered by states, protected by federal law, and scheduled by Congress.

The more important question is whether he can influence them. Here are five ways experts say that could happen.

1. Immigration End-Around

The administration has already made immigration enforcement the defining issue of Trump’s second term. It is not difficult to imagine a scenario in which highly publicized immigration raids, citizenship-verification efforts, or federal enforcement operations become concentrated in areas with large immigrant populations. The administration would argue that it is simply enforcing federal law. But the practical effect would be to discourage participation by lawful voters who fear interaction with government authorities.

The question is not whether every action would be legal. The question is whether Americans should be comfortable with a president using one of his signature policy priorities in ways that could affect voter participation. When election administration and political strategy begin to overlap, trust becomes harder to maintain.

2. Election-Security Emergency

Over the years, Trump has repeatedly warned about foreign interference, particularly from China. Foreign threats are real and should be taken seriously. But emergency powers and emergency rhetoric have a way of expanding once they enter politics.

Imagine the administration announcing, weeks before Election Day, that China is attempting to interfere in the election. Whether the threat is real or overstated, the political effect could be the same: uncertainty, fear, and pressure for extraordinary measures.

Authoritarian-minded leaders rarely claim they are undermining democracy. They insist they are saving it. Throughout history, governments seeking greater control have often justified their actions by invoking threats to national security. The language changes. The temptation does not.

3. Blurring The Thin Blue Line 

Trump could use the immense power of the federal government in ways that blur the distinction between law enforcement and politics.

Watergate became a national scandal because Americans understood that government agencies should not be used against political opponents. Nixon’s abuse of power wasn’t alarming simply because it was illegal; it was alarming because it treated public institutions as political weapons.

Now imagine a series of high-profile investigations, subpoenas, raids, or corruption inquiries involving prominent Democratic officials in the months leading up to the election. The public would have little reason to trust the motives of a president who has repeatedly vowed retribution against political enemies and frequently speaks of prosecutors and investigators as instruments of political combat.

4. Working The Refs

One of the most under appreciated stories of 2020 is that our institutions held because enough people inside government refused to break them. Republican governors certified election results. Republican secretaries of state defended the integrity of their elections. Judges appointed by both parties rejected frivolous claims. Career officials refused to manufacture evidence of fraud.

Many of those people are no longer in positions of authority. We have seen the departure of scores of career officials who played important roles in protecting election integrity and resisting political pressure after the 2020 election.

The greatest danger may not be what Trump wants to do. It may be the shrinking number of people willing to tell him no.

5. Rejecting The Result

Suppose Republicans lose control of the House. Would Trump accept the outcome?

In a healthy democracy, that question would be absurd. Yet this is the same president who pressured state officials to overturn certified results and who still refuses to acknowledge that he lost the 2020 election. During his now-infamous phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Trump urged officials to “find 11,780 votes”—precisely the number he needed to reverse the state’s outcome.

That history matters because it provides a roadmap. If Republicans lose this November, Americans can already predict the sequence. Claims of fraud will emerge before evidence is gathered. Demands for investigations will follow. Election officials will become targets. The legitimacy of the outcome will be questioned. Millions of Americans will be told that defeat is impossible and that any unfavorable result is therefore illegitimate.

None of this requires tanks in the streets. It does not require martial law or the cancellation of elections. It requires only what Trump has demonstrated repeatedly: a willingness to place his personal interests above public confidence in democratic institutions.

The Constitution was written with a healthy skepticism of concentrated power. The Founders understood that every president, regardless of party or popularity, would eventually face the temptation to put self-preservation ahead of principle. That is why they dispersed authority across states, courts, legislatures, and independent institutions.

The strength of a democracy isn’t measured by who wins elections. It’s measured by whether the country can absorb victory and defeat without questioning the legitimacy of the system itself.

We’ve faced that test before. In 1800, one political faction handed power to another for the first time in modern history. In 1864, Americans held a presidential election in the middle of a civil war. In 1974, the country forced a president from office and preserved the constitutional order. Again and again, Americans chose institutions over individuals.

That’s why I’m ultimately optimistic. Our system has never depended on perfect leaders. If it did, it would have collapsed long ago. It depends on citizens who understand that the Constitution matters more than any politician and that the rule of law matters more than any election result.

In 2020, our institutions held because enough people—Republicans and Democrats alike—were willing to do their jobs and tell a president no. The question facing the country now is whether enough people will be willing to do that again.

I’m betting they will.

- Adam

Halifax2TheMax

mickeyrat said:

Kinzinger adbook post 

Imagine if Barack Obama had demanded greater federal control over voter registration six months before a midterm election. Imagine if Bill Clinton had used federal agencies to scrutinize voter rolls while publicly questioning the legitimacy of election officials. Imagine if Joe Biden spent years insisting that any election he lost must have been stolen.

Republicans would have been outraged. And they would have been right.

Yet many of the same Republicans who once warned against concentrated government power are suddenly comfortable watching Donald Trump involve himself in the administration of the next election.

The danger facing the 2026 midterms is not that Trump will cancel them. He can’t. Elections are administered by states, protected by federal law, and scheduled by Congress.

The more important question is whether he can influence them. Here are five ways experts say that could happen.

1. Immigration End-Around

The administration has already made immigration enforcement the defining issue of Trump’s second term. It is not difficult to imagine a scenario in which highly publicized immigration raids, citizenship-verification efforts, or federal enforcement operations become concentrated in areas with large immigrant populations. The administration would argue that it is simply enforcing federal law. But the practical effect would be to discourage participation by lawful voters who fear interaction with government authorities.

The question is not whether every action would be legal. The question is whether Americans should be comfortable with a president using one of his signature policy priorities in ways that could affect voter participation. When election administration and political strategy begin to overlap, trust becomes harder to maintain.

2. Election-Security Emergency

Over the years, Trump has repeatedly warned about foreign interference, particularly from China. Foreign threats are real and should be taken seriously. But emergency powers and emergency rhetoric have a way of expanding once they enter politics.

Imagine the administration announcing, weeks before Election Day, that China is attempting to interfere in the election. Whether the threat is real or overstated, the political effect could be the same: uncertainty, fear, and pressure for extraordinary measures.

Authoritarian-minded leaders rarely claim they are undermining democracy. They insist they are saving it. Throughout history, governments seeking greater control have often justified their actions by invoking threats to national security. The language changes. The temptation does not.

3. Blurring The Thin Blue Line 

Trump could use the immense power of the federal government in ways that blur the distinction between law enforcement and politics.

Watergate became a national scandal because Americans understood that government agencies should not be used against political opponents. Nixon’s abuse of power wasn’t alarming simply because it was illegal; it was alarming because it treated public institutions as political weapons.

Now imagine a series of high-profile investigations, subpoenas, raids, or corruption inquiries involving prominent Democratic officials in the months leading up to the election. The public would have little reason to trust the motives of a president who has repeatedly vowed retribution against political enemies and frequently speaks of prosecutors and investigators as instruments of political combat.

4. Working The Refs

One of the most under appreciated stories of 2020 is that our institutions held because enough people inside government refused to break them. Republican governors certified election results. Republican secretaries of state defended the integrity of their elections. Judges appointed by both parties rejected frivolous claims. Career officials refused to manufacture evidence of fraud.

Many of those people are no longer in positions of authority. We have seen the departure of scores of career officials who played important roles in protecting election integrity and resisting political pressure after the 2020 election.

The greatest danger may not be what Trump wants to do. It may be the shrinking number of people willing to tell him no.

5. Rejecting The Result

Suppose Republicans lose control of the House. Would Trump accept the outcome?

In a healthy democracy, that question would be absurd. Yet this is the same president who pressured state officials to overturn certified results and who still refuses to acknowledge that he lost the 2020 election. During his now-infamous phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Trump urged officials to “find 11,780 votes”—precisely the number he needed to reverse the state’s outcome.

That history matters because it provides a roadmap. If Republicans lose this November, Americans can already predict the sequence. Claims of fraud will emerge before evidence is gathered. Demands for investigations will follow. Election officials will become targets. The legitimacy of the outcome will be questioned. Millions of Americans will be told that defeat is impossible and that any unfavorable result is therefore illegitimate.

None of this requires tanks in the streets. It does not require martial law or the cancellation of elections. It requires only what Trump has demonstrated repeatedly: a willingness to place his personal interests above public confidence in democratic institutions.

The Constitution was written with a healthy skepticism of concentrated power. The Founders understood that every president, regardless of party or popularity, would eventually face the temptation to put self-preservation ahead of principle. That is why they dispersed authority across states, courts, legislatures, and independent institutions.

The strength of a democracy isn’t measured by who wins elections. It’s measured by whether the country can absorb victory and defeat without questioning the legitimacy of the system itself.

We’ve faced that test before. In 1800, one political faction handed power to another for the first time in modern history. In 1864, Americans held a presidential election in the middle of a civil war. In 1974, the country forced a president from office and preserved the constitutional order. Again and again, Americans chose institutions over individuals.

That’s why I’m ultimately optimistic. Our system has never depended on perfect leaders. If it did, it would have collapsed long ago. It depends on citizens who understand that the Constitution matters more than any politician and that the rule of law matters more than any election result.

In 2020, our institutions held because enough people—Republicans and Democrats alike—were willing to do their jobs and tell a president no. The question facing the country now is whether enough people will be willing to do that again.

I’m betting they will.

- Adam

*The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Imagine? Already happening/happened. Respect Adam’s optimism but I think he’s in denial.

There’s not enough “good” people in positions of authority/power nor the “average” volunteer or town, city, state, federal official that’ll want to deal with the repercussions of “doing the ‘right’ thing”. Much easier and less consequential to just “go along to get along”.

Tim Simmons

That’s just cynical. 

Halifax2TheMax

Tim Simmons said:

That’s just cynical. 

*The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Maybe, but if anyone thinks for a second that what has been put in motion since before January 20, 2025 is going to stop or be foiled, or that Elongitaint and Theil and the rest of the funky bunch are going to allow democracy unimpeded, I’ve got a bridge and some ballots I’ll sell you (general you).

brianlux

Halifax2TheMax said:

Tim Simmons said:

That’s just cynical. 

*The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Maybe, but if anyone thinks for a second that what has been put in motion since before January 20, 2025 is going to stop or be foiled, or that Elongitaint and Theil and the rest of the funky bunch are going to allow democracy unimpeded, I’ve got a bridge and some ballots I’ll sell you (general you).

I hope you are wrong, but I would not put much money on you being wrong.  

Maybe a cup of coffee.  

Instant. 

Halifax2TheMax

*The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Good luck. It’s only going to get worse.

The Many Ways Trump Is Trying to Tip the Scales for the Midterms

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/07/02/us/politics/trump-midterm-election-strategies.html