In the Book of Republican Sorrows, 2022 deserves its own chapter.

With inflation soaring and President Biden’s approval ratings deep in the dustbin, the GOP was poised to seize control of the Senate, blow the House doors, and massively boost its ranks in state capitals across the country. to increase.

None of that happened.

A major reason was the poor crop of candidates drafted by the GOP, many of whom sacrificed truth and personal integrity by parroting former President Trump’s “Big Lie” about the 2020 election theft.

Embarrassing, yes. But has their bad behavior made a difference in the 2022 midterms? A new study, conducted by researchers at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business, suggests: yes.

Analyzing the general election results in 85 races across the country, the study found that election-denying Republicans were 2.3

% per cent

less support in national contests than Republicans who stood firm and refused to give in to Trump’s insidious patter.

That may not sound like much. But it was the difference in several close contests with prominent election deniers, including races for governor in Wisconsin,

US Senates

and secretary of state in Nevada, and governor and attorney general in Arizona. In each of those elections, rogues and impostors, let’s call them what they are, went down to a small, deserved defeat. That may not sound like much. But it was the difference in several close contests with prominent election deniers, including races for

US Senates

and secretary of state in Nevada, and governor and attorney general in Arizona. In each of those elections, rogues and impostors, let’s call them what they are, went down to a small, deserved defeat.

Looking ahead, the study points to an underperformance of 2.3%

the penalty for lying about the election was also greater than the margin of victory in several 2020 presidential battlegrounds, including Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin “suggesting that nominating election-denying candidates in 2024 could be a damaging election strategy for Republicans.”

(At least in the general election. The research that analyzed the races for the U.S. senator, governor, attorney general, and secretary of state was inconclusive when it came to the Republican primary, where the results were mixed; a number of election deniers were nominated, while others lost.)

Much was said and after the midterm elections, in a collective exhalation of relief, after the most prominent election deniers were defeated in several key written states. And the outcome was important and beneficial.

However, the Stanford study assumes

S

a little shine from the uplifting narrative voters stand up, save democracy! suggested by that (usually) happy ending.

As researchers noted, the drop in votes for those stabbing our country in the back “is small enough to suggest that many voters were willing to continue their support.[ing] Republican candidates, even if they denied the results of the 2020 election.”

No great proof of truth, justice and the American way.

On the other hand, as the study’s co-author, Stanford political scientist Andrew Hall, emailed in a follow-up interview, “It is probably unrealistic to expect large numbers of voters to sacrifice their priorities for other pressing issues (such as the economy, social issues , etc.) to punish these candidates.”

“It may be encouraging,” he said, speaking from a half-full perspective, “that a small but consistent group of people have changed their vote.”

The study, a working paper that is under peer review, is intended for publication in a general scientific or political journal.

It’s uncertain how many candidates and campaign workers spend their time digging into such academic revelations, though it’s a fair bet that the number is vanishingly small.

Still, the research is valuable and worth amplifying.

Don’t count on candidates denying Trump’s Big Lie

because, oh, let’s say, it’s the right thing to do.

Many in the GOP were fine with Trump exploiting the presidency for personal gain, blackmailing a foreign leader to boost his re-election prospects (Impeachment No. 1), and instigating a violent attack on the Capitol to reverse the results when he left the race lost (impeachment No. 2.)

Only after Trump helped secure November’s disappointingly disappointing election result did a greater number of Republicans muster up the courage and voice to speak out and begin to distance themselves from the disgraced ex-President and his inverted Midas touch .

The Stanford study adds weight to the perception that Trump and the candidates will suffer in his bondage for perpetuating their deceit and tarnishing our system of democracy, and that’s a good thing.

the punishment

paid by election deniers was not as great as it could or should have been, given the size and importance of their deception. It won’t stop every con artist and liar, let alone the Commander in Chief, from continuing to sow their political poison.

But even if the disincentive to do so is relatively small—only 2.3% off a candidate’s support—it can make a big difference.