[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. It's Tuesday, November 15th, one week since election day, and the world is different than it was before. Let's figure out how. Today's show will be a one-week later post-election special. Here's what we're going to do. Part one and maybe the most important question of the year. Did the voters save our electoral democracy by defeating almost every important big lie candidate?

Then part two, public opinion polls. What are they good for? The red wave that many people predicted early on, remember that? Based on polling trends, did not happen, but maybe the pollsters got things right and it was the media that reported them badly. We will ask how good was polling and what's the best use of polls in our political lives today.

Then part three, it's a historic but complicated moment in New York State where the voters elected the first woman governor, but the red wave did come for the suburbs mostly because of crime. We'll talk to a progressive state senator from Queens about what, if anything, they will need to do differently now and new opportunities for change. Part four special guest, Jennifer Jones Austin. You may not know that name, but she led the charge for New York City's three successful ballot measures that will add racial justice provisions to the city charter, including so interesting to so many people, the requirement for the city to report a real New York City cost of Living index every year.

We'll ask, what's the real cost of living in New York City according to you in that final segment. It's our one-week later post-election special. Let's dive in. Kari Lake's loss in Arizona. That was called last night by the major election desks, including at Fox News is perhaps the biggest trophy of the whole election season for the movement to save democracy. Her

defeat to that of other big like candidates for governor in the states where Trump tried to subvert the 2020 election like Doug Mastriano's loss in Pennsylvania and Tudor Dixon's loss in Michigan.

Just as importantly, election deniers lost races for Secretary of State in the swing states likely to matter in the 2024 presidential election. Is the Trump world threat to electoral democracy over now with those results and the fact that Republican losers around the country are doing something very old-fashioned conceding defeat in the elections that they lost? Might the election itself have defeated the election denial movement or is it not that simple?

With us to discuss New York Times national political correspondent Nick Corasaniti. I apologize, Nick. His latest article is called Voters Reject Election Deniers Running to Take Over Elections, and he has a section in this morning's New York Times running elections page called In the Midterms. Voters who trusted elections were more likely to vote. Duh. Nick, I see how busy you've been. I appreciate you giving us some time today. Welcome to WNYC

Nick Corasaniti: Oh, thanks for having me on.

Brian Lehrer: Can I start with the governor's race in Arizona being called for Katie Hobbs over Kari Lake last night? Does that mean Democrats ran the table in swing state governor's races with election deniers on the ballot?

Nick Corasaniti: Yes. It basically amounted to a pretty resounding rejection of election-denier candidates who were running both on the platform of election denialism and to take over aspects of election administration from secretaries of state to governors to even attorney generals. We saw pretty across the battleground states a clear rejection of these candidates. I think it speaks a little bit in a way to, I think, what voters have been saying for a year, but was missed a little bit in polling in the end, which is that the economy was clearly the most important issue in these midterms.

When you'd read polls, I see that voters are concerned about democracy, but only 4% say it's the top issue, 20% say it's inflation. I'm a little concerned that maybe they won't vote on democracy, but I think what we see, especially with Kari Lake who made it so core to her campaign, is that voters when they hear all the continued falsehoods about the 2020 election, that's not telling you how you're going to fix the economy. That's not telling you what your plan is for anything regarding addressing inflation, talking about jobs.

It was just, I think, such a backwards looking and extreme point of view that it really turned off voters, especially ones who were turning in late. The low-information voters when all they hear is something about the 2020 election when they're like, "Well, wait, gas is five bucks a gallon." That doesn't help me. I think you see part of the injection of the election denialism movement was just that it wasn't talking about what voters cared about.

Brian Lehrer: Now, on Arizona, their recount law kicks in if a race ends within a half percentage point. Hobbs's margin is a little more than that as of now, but could that race still go to a recount?

Nick Corasaniti: It certainly could. There's still outstanding ballots. The margin could shrink. There's a little bit still unknown there. Then I also think, we have to look at Kari Lake's entire campaign and her tweet last night, signaling that she won't be going quietly. They were already preparing litigation. They sued on election day to try and keep polls open in Maricopa County where they had experienced some issues with voting machines. I think we can probably expect, based on her tweet last night, calling the results something I won't say.

That this will extend, I think, beyond be that a full-on campaign to discredit the election, allow President Trump in 2020, or just a more focused lawsuit challenging some of the closings and the procedures and possibly some ballots. While this is called as it should be, and Katie Hobbs is the governor-elect in Arizona, as the Associated Press has said, we're going to still be hearing news from Kari Lake out of Arizona for I think the next few days.

Brian Lehrer: Not just the Associated Press, but as I said in the intro, the Fox News election desk as well. I'm curious how significant you think that is, and also, here's a line from the AP that I think is important. It says, "Lake made a number of media appearances complaining that Maricopa County was slow rolling results and without evidence called the state's vote count botched prompting Maricopa's Republican Elections Chief to rebuke her that from the Associated Press." How significant do you think those two things are? The Fox election desk calling the race for Hobbs and the fact that the Republican elections officials in that key county that includes Phoenix are not playing along with any election denial games?

Nick Corasaniti: Well, I think seeing Fox call it, we knew they were going to be possibly extra careful this year after they called Arizona in 2020 before a lot of other networks were comfortable. Now they ended up being right. President Biden did win Arizona. I think based on the data that came out that night, a lot upholsters have said, they wouldn't have necessarily made that call.

I think there was a lot of attention on how Fox News was going to call Arizona and they might be a little bit more reticent than someone else to make an early prediction. I mean an early race call until they were absolutely certain. I think them making a call states, we are absolutely certain that this is the result Kari Lake is lost. I think you can take a lot of that certainly says, I think what everyone else is saying.

Brian Lehrer: Of course, this is so important because in the 2024 presidential election, one hypothetical scenario is it all comes down to Arizona at the end of the day, and you have a governor in place who either will or will not flip the true result if the true result is the Democrat wins.

Nick Corasaniti: Exactly. Arizona's state constitution allows the governor to sign off on the slate of electors. Had there been an election denier in office, especially one who has talked about the 2020 election being rigged and campaigned with other candidates who pledged that their victories would mean a Trump victory in 2024, that would signal that I think absolutely. At the same time as you asked earlier about the Republican election officials and county officials in Maricopa County, they've long been some of the most vocal combatants against the election denial movement. It's all just through transparency is what they're trying to say.

Obviously, a lot of these conspiracy theories are not grounded in any reality. They would hold press conferences in front of glass windows that showed election workers behind them working 14 to 18 hours a day, counting these ballots, processing them. Especially so many that were brought in on election day at the request of a lot of Republican right-wing media. For some reason, they had a conspiracy that it was better to hand in your absent ballot on election day. I think what those Republican officials like Bill Gates, and Stephen Richer, and Maricopa County were doing was just trying to show that none of it, everything is, you know, on the up and up here.

All of these conspiracy theories are not founded in reality. Look, we're showing you. Look through this glass. People are working around the clock there. There's no slow-rolling here. If anything, we're working extreme overtime to get these results as quick as we possibly can and keep them accurate.

Brian Lehrer: It's our one-week-later post-election special here on the Brian Lehrer Show. Our first guest, Nick Corasaniti, New York Times National Political correspondent. As we ask, did the election itself defeat the Election Denial Movement? Listeners, what do you think? Do you think the election itself has defeated the election denial movement?

Is this particular threat to electoral democracy created by Donald Trump for Donald Trump over? What do you think? 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, or tweet @BrianLehrer. You can also ask any question you have for Nick Corasitini. I'm sorry, I keep reversing the T in the N, and your name. Coraasitini from The New York Times 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, or a tweet @BrianLehrer, and Francine in Smithtown. You're on WNYC. Hi, Francine. Thanks for calling in.

Francine: Thank you very much. Yes. I do not think this was a size of election. I am very, very glad that we have won as many seats that we have. However, [unintelligible 00:11:40] of it's 49.1, or 50.1, or 50.5, or whatever. I don't think that's decisive. It means that almost half of the population of that particular voting area has not bought that our elections are important, that the decisions of our elections are important, that there was denial of elections.

It really has come down, I think, with how many people went out to vote because in my town there have been times, where five people have decided the vote, or 10 people have decided to vote. That's such a small percentage of population that has said, "Yes. We do not agree with the elections that we believe that the Republicans should be in power again. We're just lucky enough that we had a 10th of a percent, or five 10 of percent of Democrats that went out, and voted on the Democratic line." I don't think this hasn't decided over.

Brian Lehrer: It's not over, not definitive. The example she uses besides what happens in Smithtown on Long Island, Nick, as you heard, is that, well, if Kari Lake came within one percentage point of winning the governorship of Arizona, considering how she ran on election denialism, well, this really isn't over. Put it in national perspective, because I think that's really the question here.

Nick Corasaniti: Yes. I think you're absolutely right. This does not mean that election denialism is gone from American politics. Foreign President Trump is likely to announce his 2024 campaign tonight. He will clearly make that core to his campaign because it's one of his most frequent topics that he tweets about, or talks about. The narrow losses in some of these races such as Kari Lakes signals that it wasn't a widespread repudiation, there were narrow victories.

At the same time, I do think if you look at how the Secretary of State candidates ran compared to the rest of the ticket, where those were really the races where election denialism was at the core. These governor's races, while say, Kari Lake, or Doug Mastriano might have been talking about them, there was still economic anxiety. There was still issues about abortion, other issues that would drive voters to vote for the candidate over say, something about elections. For the Secretary State, it's really about elections, and then maybe something specific to the state, like a DMV, or a small business license.

When you look at, say, Arizona, where Adrian Fontes, the Democratic candidate was running against Mark Finchem, probably, the most vocal of the election denial candidates running for Secretary of State. Fontes ran about 30,000 votes ahead of Hobbs. In Arizona, Cisco Aguilar, who was running against Jim Marchant, the Republican candidate for Secretary of State who helped organize this entire "America first slate of Secretary of State candidates across the country."

Cisco ran about 13,000 votes ahead of governor Steve Sisolak. We see this everywhere, even in Michigan, where Governor Gretchen Whitmer won by nearly double digits over Tudor Dixon, and is clearly, an incredibly popular governor. Secretary of State Joly Benson won by more than Governor Whitmer did. Again, these were still 55-45, 52-48 races.

They were close, but they were still clear victories. I think what that signals when you look at the margins with which Secretary of State candidates outperformed either the governor, or the senator or Senate candidate at the top of the ticket, you do see voters, I think realizing, "Okay, maybe this is a little too extreme for me." Especially, those independent, or moderate Republican, or democratic voters.

Brian Lehrer: The Secretary of State story narrative in this election is so fascinating. Your article on how the voters rejected the election denial candidates begins with that Nevada Jim Marchant story. People don't know his name, they know around the country, Kari Lake's name. They knew Doug Mastriano, who was running for governor in Pennsylvania. If they paid just a little more attention to political news, they didn't know Jim Marchant.

They really didn't know the Arizona Secretary of State candidates. It's such an obscure quiet desk job position. Usually, we've never had a big media focus on Secretary of State elections in this country before. I don't think. My question for you is, did Trump specifically, target those elections to get election deniers nominated, thinking he could fly below the voter's radar a little bit because everyone knows who's running for governor, but Secretary of State, which can also subvert election results? Not so much.

Nick Corasaniti: Right. I don't know if we can say 100% that this was a plan concocted by former President Trump, but so Jim Marchant, who was the Republican candidate for Secretary of State Nevada is the organizer of this national slate of like-minded Secretary of State candidates. It varied from swing states such as Michigan, Arizona, Nevada to more blue states like New Mexico, and Colorado to red states like Indiana. When we interviewed him about this, when it was first forming, he said that he had been approached by allies close to former President Trump, and encouraged to run for Secretary of State.

He had just lost a congressional race and was thinking about doing that again. These Trump allies, according to Mr. Marchant, told "No, run for Secretary of State." He starts cobbling together this organization of candidates who had already announced. Then we saw former President Trump endorse some of these candidates in the primary. Now, former president endorsing a Secretary State candidate is a very rare thing. These weren't national races by any means. I think there was definitely, a focus among Trump, and his allies on these races. You could see it on Justin Steve Bannon's radio show podcast.

He would have all these candidates on frequently. Mark Finchem was a constant guest. I do think there was a focus on this, and having allies installed as the top election official in the state, and what that could do, not just necessarily in a truly subversive way because there are court checks and balances. This, obviously, would've tested those. State constitutional laws, federal constitutional laws that would've really provided I think a great test for the American system of government had these election denying Secretary State candidates won.

There's also so much they can do within the margins of changing voting procedures allocating resources differently, closing polling locations. You could really go back to pre 1960s, and the way that they would possibly, alter different resources, close voting locations, create longer lines. I think that was something too that so many Democrats, election experts, and even some Republicans were afraid of, if any of these candidates were to be victorious. It wasn't just that post-election subversion that we saw attempted in the 2020 election. It was so much before, of which there's a longer history in the United States of warping election rules to target certain groups.

Brian Lehrer: I think Anthony in Westchester. Oh, I just disconnected Anthony, while trying to put him on the air. Let's see if that Anthony call us back, 212-433-WNYC. Screeners, don't let anybody back line 6, except Anthony for the next few minutes. Let's see if he calls back. 212-433-9692. Anthony, I see that you wanted to talk back to our first caller. I want to give you the chance to do that. Meanwhile, let's see what happens when I try to put Janet in Brooklyn on the line. Ah, that worked. Janet, you're on WNYC. Hi, there.

Janet: Good morning. I'm just waiting for someone in the Republican Party to have a Joe McCarthy moment where they say, "Do you have no shame?" Also, I would like to say, if Obama had done any of these tricks, people in America would be in a [unintelligible 00:20:35]. That's what I have to say.

Brian Lehrer: Can you imagine [crosstalk] that if he had done so many things that Trump had done with respect to his treatment of women, with respect to his business finances, how quickly America would've dismissed Barack Obama out of racial bias and other reasons. Yes, but that's a six-year-old story at this point as we've seen how Donald Trump could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue or try to shoot an election in the halls of Congress and his supporters would still support him.

Maybe the answer to Janet's question, well, I hope, Nick, that what the country needs is a Republican to have that Joe McCarthy moment or anti-Joe McCarthy moment and stand up and say, "Have you no shame?" Maybe that's exactly what a lot of voters did in these elections who would otherwise have voted Republican.

Nick Corasaniti: Yes. I certainly think there was a rejection from a lot of voters and clearly all historical trends would point to the out party in a midterm year faring better. It was expected to be a much bigger Republican wave that turned into, I think everyone's calling it the red ripple. A lot of that could be due to voters standing up and saying this extremism is not something I'm on board with.

They still firm believe in a lot of the principles of Republican government, but the really extreme policies, especially around elections, I think definitely pushed some voters away. As the first caller noted, a lot of these were still close to election. I think that's the waiting. We've seen time and time again of the party struggle with something that former President Trump has done, yet almost always everyone falls back into line and he emerges sometimes even stronger. We've seen so many times him rebound and push forward and continue with to have this incredible staying power within the Republican party. I'm just not so sure, this will be one more change.

Brian Lehrer: We'll continue in a minute. Our post-election, one week after the election, post-election special here on the Brian Lehrer Show. When we come back, we'll take more of your calls on the question, did the voters end election denialism in America with these midterms? We'll also ask Nick about something that a lot of Republican losers are doing after these elections that may surprise some people. Stay with us.

[music]

Brian Lehrer on WNYC. It's our one-week-later post-election special all morning this morning, part one and maybe the most important question of the year, did the voters save our electoral democracy by defeating almost every important big lie Candidate? New York Times national political correspondent Nick Corasaniti is with us to help discuss his latest article is called Voters Reject Election Deniers Running to Take Over Elections. We're taking your calls. Do you think the election ended election denialism? 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. Anthony in Westchester or anyone else may call or tweet @BrianLehrer. Nick, are these candidates who denied Trump's defeat in his election, by and large conceding defeat in their own when they lost?

Nick Corasaniti: For the most part, they are. It's been a surprising development when you spend a lot of your political capital and time claiming that 2020 election was rigged and claiming all these falsehoods are going to further rig the 2022 elections to then when you lose, just simply concede. We weren't expecting it, especially from some of the most vocal candidates running in this election who were leaders of the 2020 election of Iowa movement. Doug Mastriano sent letters to the DOJ. He helped organize a hearing where Rudy Giuliani came in and President Trump even called him to spread more conspiracy theories about the 2020 election.

It took him five days, but he did concede. In Michigan, the candidate for Attorney General, Matthew DePerno, he helped start the conspiracy theory about election machines in [unintelligible 00:25:30] county, which became so core to the election denial movement, especially among right-wing media. He conceded within 24 hours to Dana Nessel, the Democratic Incumbent Attorney General of Michigan. I think that's one of the reasons it has been a very orderly midterm process. There's certainly, and I should say so far but there hasn't been mass protests, there hasn't been a lot of unrest about the results.

There's been either celebration or resignation. Now, we do have a final test here in Arizona, Nevada, and from Kari Lake's tweet last night. Everything Mark Finn's been saying for the past 36 hours, it doesn't look like they're going to join the trend and immediately concede. We may see further acrimony and other issues arise in Arizona that haven't across the country.

Brian Lehrer: I think the bottom line, and probably even for them, but tell me if you think I'm being too optimistic, is if there isn't evidence of the election actually being rigged against them, there's no infrastructure in place for them to get away with claiming that it is.

Nick Corasaniti: Yes, I think that's a big part of it. I also think they do realize that there are political damages to going down this road personally. Some of them who might hope to have a political future realize that if you're trying to burn it all down as you go out the door, that might win you a primary. It's only going to further antagonize voters who already voted against this election denial movement in the first place.

Someone like Matthew DePerno who really pivoted in the general election to a message exclusively on crime and fared much better than a lot of people would've assumed when he won the nomination at a party convention in Michigan in the spring. He might be looking to, "Okay, maybe I could run for Congress, maybe I could do something else on this kind of conservative crime platform and leave the election denialism behind.

I do think there's a political toll that denying these results can bring. It'll be interesting to see what happens to Kari Lake if she goes down this path because she was seen as a rising star in the party. Before she even won, people were talking about it possibly being a vice presidential candidate, future presidential candidate. If she really contests this election and cleanse to some either conspiracy theories or riles up a protest, that might be a big risk for her political future.

Brian Lehrer: Yes. That's what these election deniers were running to create. Was it infrastructure that would make it possible to subvert true election results, but they're running in a current climate where that infrastructure does not yet exist, and they've lost pretty much all their elections. Kari Lake, it seems to me, have a high likelihood of flipping her election on false pretenses if they are false pretenses because they failed to create the infrastructure that she was running to create for that subversion. Matt in the Bronx, you're on WNYC. Hi, Matt.

Matt: Hi, Brian. Thank you for taking my call and to your guest, Nick. Yes, before I ask my question, just upon what I was hearing you guys talk about on the question, had we finally ended election denialism with this past election? I think we could have, if we didn't take eight days to count the vote, we just ruined it. I really think we got at least another decade of it, because it's not just evil, it's the appearance of evil, even when it doesn't exist. This accounting thing, it's within our laws. It's the rules of Congress. You can't have elections take this long and then tell people, "Don't be a skeptic."

When I was a kid here in New York City overnight, France, Brazil overnight, Florida, one of the most popular states in the country now overnight, you just can't have systems like this. I know we have mail-in voting, but it's really dangerous. That wasn't actually my initial question though. I just wanted to point that out if I could. The bigger point I wanted to question was towards motives. It worries me a little. I've listened to you over 30 years on and off. My politics have changed around but so much about that the plan is that the conservative voters, that they really just want to win and by deceit if they have to.

You have to understand these conservative voters truly believe that they're being deprived of their fair right to have their vote counted. That's what motivates it. I'm not talking about Donald Trump. He's a businessman who clearly even conservatives believe he is very narcissistic wants to win at all costs. As far as the voters' intent conservative voters it's that they want to have their vote counted.

Now we can say they've been inflamed into paranoia. You can say such things but that's not what's motivating them. I've heard Kari Lake talk, I know she's divisive to people on the left but I truly believe her motives are pure. I believe, Brian, you've got a little too much to impinging motives because you're taking Donald Trump's persona, his narcissism, and expanding that to all conservative voters where I really believe the motives are for someone who listens to both sides.

The one thing I've admired you through the years Brian though I'm worried about you in recent years, is your ability to articulate the other side's position even if you don't agree. I feel I want to make this call to send this out to left-leading people. I grew up in Manhattan, you can't believe the motives of conservative people, they feel robbed. They come out of working class now who are robbed by jobs being over overseas to China. There's a whole psychology and bigger picture here of why they want to make sure their votes are counted. Now that we're taking days with elections bad news for this getting out of the picture if that's the desire.

Brian Lehrer: Matt, I actually agree with you on both your points, and thank you, and please call us again. If you want to hold my feet to the fire hold my feet to the fire. I agree with him, Nick, on both points and I want to take them one at a time and see what your reporting would bear out or not. On his second point, that we have to make a distinction between Donald Trump trying to subvert elections for his own purposes.

Although I would put Kari Lake in that category with him which he didn't but Trump doing it for his own purposes but a lot of Republican voters who've come to believe in election denial just honestly believing in it and maybe they did have the wool pulled over their eyes by Trump who they came to trust for other reasons. There is a difference between Trump and the massive voters who fell into this. What do you think?

Nick Corasaniti: There absolutely is a big I don't want to say divide but separation between a candidate or a president like Donald Trump seeking to overturn an election for his own power to a large percentage of voters who hearing this from someone who they voted for and trusted for many years. Taking that as verbatim. When we did our poll in October before the election, it was about mid-October, one of the questions we asked was, "Do you trust that the 2022 midterms will be carried out fairly and accurately?"

41% of Republican voters said no. That shows I think that these beliefs are deeply embedded and they're not necessarily coming from a place of like power at all costs. It's actually they've been told this by so many people now, again, this is false. There was no rigging of American elections in the 2020 election. There was no widespread fraud. There's been millions of dollars and countless audits. There's over 200 audits in Michigan alone that didn't find any impropriety, any widespread voter fraud.

It's very rare. It's very isolated when it does happen. Nonetheless, there is I think a large contingent that because this has been repeated to them for a while they believe it and it's not with some nefarious intent, it's just what they believe. I do think that the caller is 100% right there.

Brian Lehrer: To his first point which actually I was about to bring up anyway and I'm glad he did, it does seem to me that there is something that many states could fix. That is exactly what the caller brought up. It's not clamping down on access to voting over phony claims of possible election fraud which winds up in voter suppression laws. What it is is the timeline for the way the mail-in votes and the early in-person votes are counted.

What happened in Arizona and Nevada, for example, really shouldn't happen, in my opinion, where votes are counted days after election day just as the caller said it can look like an opportunity for fraud even though it's not. It becomes unfair not only to the candidates but to the public. He gave Florida and of course, Florida 2000 Bush versus Gore. People know what happened there and that took into December but that was because they were recounting votes.

Florida now I think he's right does a good job of starting to process the mail-in ballots and have those numbers ready to report on election night rather than have to wait. Do some states do better at counting mail-in ballots as they arrive so they report those results on election night?

Nick Corasaniti: There's no question. Some states are far better than other states. Florida's a great example. It's really come a long way since the 2000 election. They deal with a bunch of different methods of voting report and they give their election officials enough time to work on these ballots. All of the male voting states are another good example. Colorado, Washington, Oregon, they might take a little bit of time but they can still take all of these mail ballots and give their election officials enough time to pre-process and tabulate.

Now Arizona is not an example of this but in other critical states like Michigan and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, it's actually the Republican legislature that will not permit. They will not pass a new law that will permit local election officials to even begin processing mail ballots. They can't look at the envelope, open it. They can't even flatten it so that it could go into the tabulator ahead of election day or in Michigan's case 48 hours beforehand.

That leads to a big backlog and I think if the races were a little bit closer in those states, we would've seen this continue. It did take a while for them to call Senator-elect Fetterman's race. That could be fixed just with legislatures giving election officials more time. Now Arizona's a bit of a unique case because it is such an absentee vote-by-mail state. Over 80% use absentee ballots but you're allowed to bring them in until election day.

You can hand them in person and there's still a long process that needs to make sure those ballots are valid and all the checks that go into election integrity that are very critical to building trust in the elections, that Arizona needs to go through. While there is I think a public concern about the period of uncertainty and what happens between election day and after that, there is always going to be a little bit of a delay in a state like Arizona that gives voters such a wide range of abilities to vote.

It's just going to take a little bit of time and I think the more it happens, hopefully, the more we get used to it and candidates don't act like bad actors and sees on the uncertainty is a method of claiming victory that [inaudible 00:37:39]. As much as that uncertainty isn't necessarily a good thing, it wouldn't be so bad if you didn't have candidates seizing on it and making false claims. I think that's also the flip side of the coin there.

Brian Lehrer: Which makes me think of your headline this morning in the New York Times running election results page voters who trusted elections were more likely to vote. It almost reads like a joke headline for the onion or something. People who like chocolate more likely to eat chocolate. Voters who trust elections more likely to vote. Maybe Kari Lake's campaign to have people not trust elections dissuaded some of her own likely voters from even bothering.

Nick Corasaniti: Yes, and especially when it comes to early voting and voting by mail. It's a critical method for campaigns to bank votes early. If you have your vote and you get it, you don't risk someone changing their minds, number one, but also say something comes up on election day. We actually saw this in both Kari Lakes race and in Nevada.

There were issues in Maricopa County with election, tabulators and printers that caused some long lines, caused some ballots to be. You couldn't vote on the machines you had to vote in this box it was known as box three and all of a sudden an electorate prime for conspiracies didn't trust box three. Then the late campaign had to come in like no, no please vote in those. We don't necessarily know how much that might have hurt her campaign but if that's already happening, that's a damage to your ability to get early votes banked.

Then also not adjust on election day. In Nevada Adam Laxalt who was running for Senate who had called the 2020 election rig, he was the head of the Trump 2020 effort in Nevada. He had disparaged early voting drop boxes called him not safe methods of voting during the primary election, but then on the Friday before the election in Nevada, there was a forecast for a snowstorm in Northern Nevada including some rural areas where he really needed those voters to turn out. He sends out a tweet like weather alert there could be a snowstorm coming Please vote early. Get your vote in now.

Had you been promoting early voting and not disparaging it for two years, probably would've already had those and while it would, obviously, be a concern and you'd want to send out that message either way, it wouldn't be as urgent. I think just the disparaging of a vote-getting process certainly hurts. Just look at Glenn Youngkin. He embraced it and he won in a difficult state.

Virginia is not necessarily purely purple and he embraced early voting. He had a campaign that door knocked and asked about male ballots and he won. I think that there's a lot to be learned from Republican campaigns about the risk in really delegitimizing a very valid and important part of voting.

Brian Lehrer: Such an interesting footnote. We'll see if Republican strategists take note for future elections. That ends our conversation on might the election itself have defeated the election denial movement has normal return to America at least in that respect with Nick Corasaniti national political reporter for the New York Times. Nick, thanks so much.

Nick Corasaniti: Thanks for having me.

 

Copyright © 2022 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.