General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsReframe: instead of "widespread", use "significant"...
Every time a talking head/pundit says widespread in context of no widespread fraud has blah, blah, blah.. it validate idea that substantial fraud MIGHT have occurred. It suggests, in fact, that some fraud has occurred. (Which we have to acknowledge is likely given what we know about Republicans and recent elections).
Reframing as no SIGNIFICANT fraud has occurred (or whatever) acknowledges that fraud is always a possibility, (which is logically the case) but in THIS case, it hasnt t hasnt affected the outcome
This frame acknowledges fears about the veracity of election results but suggests that in THIS case, evidence exists that makes those fears unfounded
I think it a small but potent point that can help our messaging
mr_lebowski
(33,643 posts)You are absolutely correct.
Or even better "no proven fraud".
ecstatic
(32,681 posts)Keep it as simple as possible.
SoonerPride
(12,286 posts)Not widespread
Not significant
NOT ANY
JDC
(10,125 posts)dchill
(38,468 posts)oswaldactedalone
(3,490 posts)Its been frustrating that even Democratic Secys of State have been using this terminology. Wording matters.