Kari Lake Unites Many Arizona Republicans After Party's Earlier Divisions Over Trump
By: Eliza Collins (WSJ)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
PHOENIX—Kari Lake, the Republican candidate in the Arizona governor's race, has taken many pages from former President Donald Trump's campaign playbook.
She repeats his false claims of rampant fraud in the 2020 election. She attacks the legacy of the late Arizona GOP senator, John McCain. And she has made the media a favorite foil, even though she spent 22 years as an anchor for a local news station.
Where she and the former president differ is that Mr. Trump’s contentions tore apart the Arizona Republican party , with supporters of the former president on one side and traditional pro-business Republicans on the other. Ms. Lake, by contrast, has gone a long way to stitching it back together even while claiming the 2020 election was stolen and saying that her win in the August primary “drove a stake through the heart of the McCain machine.”
Several Republicans who had supported Ms. Lake’s opponent in the primary and are now backing her said they agreed with her policy proposals—especially on the economy —and they played down or omitted her contentions on election fraud.
There was no fraud in the 2020 election widespread enough to change the result, according to federal officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by supporters of Mr. Trump challenging the results failed.
The party’s coalescence behind her isn’t unanimous, but it has given the political newcomer momentum in the race in the final weeks before the election, according to interviews with Republican and Democratic officials, strategists and voters.
Ms. Lake in an interview said the first things she would do as governor would be to take control of the southern border from the federal government and work to secure elections .
“Don’t believe what the, you know, corrupt media is saying that ‘Oh, the party is not going to come.’ They have completely come behind us,” said Ms. Lake, 53 years old, in her campaign office with a large photo of Mr. Trump behind her.
The outcome Nov. 8 will depend on Ms. Lake’s ability to bring independents and Republicans to her side in a contest likely to be close, as many recent elections in the state have been. Her opponent, Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, won her last race by less than 6,000 votes; President Biden won Arizona by less than 11,000 votes. A Republican-led audit of the 2020 election results confirmed Mr. Biden’s victory .
Most polls show the race as a statistical tie. Ms. Lake has committed only to accepting the results in the governor’s race if she wins.
“I’ll be very disappointed if Kari Lake doesn’t win. And even though she’s a little Trumpy, that’s not a deal breaker for me,” said Steve MacMillan, 59, a resident of Goodyear, a Phoenix suburb. He said he liked Ms. Lake’s policy proposals but wishes she would talk less about the 2020 election.
Arizona voters know Ms. Lake because of her years anchoring newscasts for the local Fox channel in Phoenix. (Fox Corp. and News Corp, owner of The Wall Street Journal, share common ownership.) Many say they are nervous about inflation and high gas prices , and polls show they trust Republicans over Democrats to handle the economy. The Phoenix metro area had the nation’s highest rate of inflation at 13%, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data released last month.
Ms. Lake also has proven to be an effective communicator—often targeting the media, which she calls “fake news”—while Ms. Hobbs has been stuck in a monthslong controversy over her refusal to debate Ms. Lake. Ms. Hobbs said in an interview that Ms. Lake’s focus on the debate issue is “because she has nothing else to run on. She has no experience. She doesn’t understand how government works. She’s not offering real solutions to any of the issues we’re facing.”
Ms. Hobbs has said debating Ms. Lake would be a disservice to voters because Ms. Lake is a “conspiracy theorist.”
Some Democrats are calling on Ms. Hobbs to be more aggressive toward Ms. Lake and to emphasize her governing credentials stemming from her experience as a former state legislator and secretary of state.
Ms. Lake “is essentially a more polished version of Trump. My concern is that, as we learned with Trump in 2016, it’s not enough to simply label a candidate as an extremist and therefore disqualified from being elected,” said Roy Herrera, who worked as Mr. Biden’s Arizona counsel in 2020.
Ms. Lake has said, if elected, she would eliminate cities’ ability to put in place a rent and grocery tax. She has promised to offset the cost for five years with surplus state funds and then expects the state’s rapid growth to provide a larger tax base to fund cities in the years to come.
“We will be providing the good people of Arizona some relief,” she said.
Ms. Hobbs has proposed making diapers and baby formula tax exempt, a sales tax holiday on school supplies and a child tax credit. She said she wouldn’t roll back tax cuts put in place under GOP Gov. Doug Ducey, who is term-limited from running again. Changes in tax policy must be approved by the state legislature.
On the border, Ms. Lake has said she would declare an invasion and use state law enforcement to conduct border-security operations, including arresting and deporting migrants. Such plans are likely to face logistical and legal challenges from the federal government. Under federal law, only the U.S. government has the authority to deport migrants accused of being in the country illegally.
Ms. Hobbs has called for more funding for border communities, including for law enforcement.
On elections, Ms. Lake has said she would work with the legislature to craft bills that would keep future elections secure. Ms. Lake is focused on ways to remove software from the process. As secretary of state, Ms. Hobbs is the chief elections administrator for the state and she was a leading figure in defending against fraud claims in 2020
Not all Republicans are on board. “The very low bar that I’ve set for people to endorse in this election is No. 1 don’t be an election denier,” said John Giles, the Republican mayor of Phoenix suburb Mesa who has endorsed Ms. Hobbs.
“I’m worried about suffering potentially a real reputational risk and kind of losing the aura and the glow that the state has right now,” said John Graham, the chairman of real-estate developer Sunbelt Holdings and a Republican supporting Ms. Hobbs.
Ms. Lake has made clear she isn’t separating herself from Mr. Trump. “What would it say about my character if I stepped away from my friends?” she said as she hugged the former president at a rally earlier this month.
For many Republican voters, it is Ms. Lake’s embrace of Mr. Trump, especially his claims of election fraud, that holds appeal. “There’s Republicans and there’s patriots, and she’s a patriot,” said Karen Phillips, 75, a real-estate agent from Chandler, another Phoenix suburb.
Yet Ms. Lake gauges how much to talk about Mr. Trump and his agenda depending on her audience, said four people who have been at events with her. “When Kari needs to turn on Trumpism she can and when she needs to switch to Reaganism she can,” said senior adviser Colton Duncan. A video that plays ahead of events includes Ms. Lake talking about how former President Ronald Reagan is her hero.
There is no better example of the party coming around to Ms. Lake than Gov. Ducey.
Ms. Lake hammered him during her primary campaign for his decision to certify the 2020 election results, among other things. She called him “do nothing Ducey” and “doormat Ducey.” Mr. Ducey said Ms. Lake was putting on an act and “misleading voters” with her claims of a fraudulent election.
Ms. Lake said the pair since have had one meeting and Mr. Ducey has said he would support the whole Republican slate. The Republican Governors Association, of which Mr. Ducey is the chairman, has spent roughly $10 million to support Ms. Lake. Mr. Ducey, through a spokesman, declined to comment.
Sara Glass, 64, a Chandler resident who works in human resources, is unhappy with Ms. Lake’s stance on abortion and the election. As a “former news anchor, she would know that you do your due diligence, you do your research. When your research proves otherwise, you’ve got your answer,” she said.
Democrats say differences between Ms. Lake and Ms. Hobbs on abortion could benefit Ms. Hobbs following the Supreme Court decision in June that eliminated the constitutional right to abortion. The future of abortion access in the state is in dispute. Arizona bans most abortions after 15 weeks , but a separate law from when Arizona was a territory could impose a near-complete ban . Its applicability is now being litigated in court.
Ms. Lake has said she opposes abortion and will enforce whatever the law is. Ms. Hobbs opposes any restrictions on abortion and has said she would veto any legislative measure to impose them.
Alicia A. Caldwell contributed to this article.
Tags
Who is online
472 visitors
Half the battle is already won whenever Republicans feature a charismatic candidate vs the democrat's dull-witted candidate. It's obvious why Ms Hobbs wants no part of sharing a debate stage with Kari Lake. Some may recall that Katie Hobbs couldn't think of one good thing to say about Hispanics in a puff, friendly interview. What would have happened to her on a debate stage?
Mark this one as a win for the GOP. You heard it here first.
Ms. Hobbs doesn't want to share a stage with an election denier/whackjob/enabler/supporter.
I'm sure Lake is uniting the whackjobs.
You mean Stacey Abrams?
No, I meant Lake.
You knew that though, you're just deflecting.
When you say election deniers I immediately think of Hillary and Abrams. What do you think of Katie Hobbs inability to come up with one good thing to say about Hispanics?
What are you talking about? Hillary wasn't the one who denied the election. Or Abrams.
"What do you think of Katie Hobbs inability to come up with one good thing to say about Hispanics?"
So all you have is deflection.
Got it.
[deleted]
But they aren't the ones denying #45's failed coup.
Lake is.
During her speaking tour, former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton suggested that the 2016 election was “stolen” from her.
Or Abrams.
Abrams, on the other hand, pointed to unproven claims of “voter suppression” to explain her loss in Georgia. However, there has been little to no fact-checking from mainstream outlets of her claims. She has not been pressed to provide evidence and there have been no “without evidence” tags on her continued claims that her election was stolen, even though the “evidence” submitted by Trump and Abrams was the same — inaccurate witness statements that did not stand up to even basic scrutiny.
You didn't know ??????
"What do you think of Katie Hobbs inability to come up with one good thing to say about Hispanics?"
Still no answer?
You can't answer that?
You mean like Hillary Clinton, Barbra Lee and Sheila Jackson Lee who have cast doubt on EVERY single republican win for the last 2 decades?
Do you mean President Clinton who claimed Gore won the 2001 election?
Do you mean President Carter who denied the results of the 2000 election?
Do you mean Terry Mcauliffe who repeated claims that the 2000 was "stolen"?
Do you mean Debbie Wasserman Schults in 2016 when she said Gore won the election?
Do you mean the 31 house Democrats who voted to reject the electoral votes from Ohio because they denied their loss in 2004?
There is something seriously, probably unrepairable, wrong with you people. There are 299 Republican candidates on the ballot in two weeks from today who have publicly said that Joe Biden did not win the election. That is not even counting all the other Republican politicians who are not up for election this year. Nor is it counting the tens of millions of MAGA who continue to say Trump won. That was two years ago for God sake. But here is the cherry on top. Donald Trump , all by himself has claimed that he was the real winner hundreds of times in the past two years. By himself, Trump has made way more false election claims than was said by all the Democrats you mentioned put together.
The right has no shame. Still.
I'm sure, if anyone wanted to waste their time, they could find an equal number of democrats who have engaged in election denial, starting with Joe Biden.
So are saying we should ignore the Democrats that have done EXACTLY what you are freaking out about? If you are going to set your hair on fire over one group doing something, you better set your hair on fire for the other group doing it as well.
Don't play the hypocrite.
Where is your proof for all your alleged claims?
Why are you deflecting on your own 'article'?
Ditto
All true.
299 Republican candidates .. . . who have publicly said
Lies - outright lies John.
Ya wanna show some FACTS to support your statement????
Waiting!!!!
Politicians say a lot of things John, and it is nowhere near confined to just the right. Any who seriously believe that are seriously delusional.
It's what they do.
He's not playing. He's dead serious about this conspiracy theory.
Not my article. This was put up by Vic.
[ deleted ]
They are delusional Tessy . All of them. How much disregard do you have for reality to claim that there is an equivalence between what the MAGA and Trump are currently (for two years) claiming about the 2020 election and the smattering of Democrats that objected to previous elections.
This highlights one of the major problems in the country right now. A high percentage of "conservatives" are willfully delusional.
Like Biden claiming he was raised Puerto Rican
Election deniers will be on the ballot in 48 of 50 states and make up more than half of all Republicans running for congressional and state offices in the midterm elections. Nearly 300 Republicans seeking those offices this November have denied or questioned the outcome of the last presidential election, according to a Washington Post analysis.
I'm sure your link does absolutely nothing to support your claims.
Prove it wrong or take your trolling elsewhere.
Why would I even read it when I know it won't support your claims?
Great list! Much more specific than what I was going to use ...
Arguing with some of these people is like arguing with children.
They believe in MAGA the same way little kids believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.
So, yet again, you've got nothing. Can't say I'm surprised.
Nope, you're the one who always fails.
Yup. Every single one of them. Delusional.
That is what prompted me to look it up. Notice that the left are trying to spin it with their normal fingers in the ears yelling "LA LA" garbage.
As you can see in 1.1.24, this dude won't even open the link and still playing stupid.
People have denied election results throughout history.
But no PotUS in US history has engaged in anything even remotely close to what Trump did in his Big Lie. Trump engaged in a two-month campaign to discredit the US electoral process after hinting at this for months. He continues with this fully discredited, absurd denial to the present. Not only did he repeatedly and aggressively declare the US electoral process 'rigged' and convince countless millions of Americans of this using the authority of his office and raise their ire, but he engaged in practices to steal the election by trying to coerce officials to find votes, submit fake electors and suborn Pence to table certified results.
To compare what Trump did to the actions of any other US PotUS is to be blind to reality.
Im not going to talk about how silly your comparison is - lets just see what a conservative columnist says about this demagogue Kari Lake
Its not only Trump, it is his followers and enablers, and frankly the apathetic independents, that have allowed this go on so long. It is insanity.
Stop calling me dude. I'm not a dude.
"To compare what Trump did to the actions of any other US PotUS is to be blind to reality."
It's almost like they're residing in some sort of alternate reality . . .
Dude, I don't care. I use 2 gender neutral words for people. "Dude" is the polite one. The other I don't use here on NT because it makes people cry.
Don't call me dude.
In 2020, 147 Republicans VOTED, in a roll call in Congress , to not certify the 2020 election.
Besides that, the 2000 election was far more legitimately in dispute than 2020 was.
But there is only one you have your hair on fire about. What about him scares you so much?
So instead of proving my link wrong you went with this? Really?
[deleted]
Donald Trump pre-planned his "objection" to the election results. How "true" can his beliefs be when they were pre-determined? Before election day in 2020 Trump confidantes were saying he was going to claim victory no matter what. And he did. It was all staged.
Amazing that one can even today —with all that we know— write a post professing utter ignorance of the harm Trump continues to inflict on our nation and on the GoP.
But, of course, anyone who refuses to even acknowledge wrongdoing by Trump is engaging in fantasy to begin with.
"Arguing with some of these people is like arguing with children."
In this case the children are actually smarter than the adults.
I have said that several times here lately. They make up their own reality and act like it is truth.
Were you supposed to be telling me why you are only focused on ONE person denying an election? If so, you failed miserably.
I explained why Trump is distinct from all other PotUS' @1.1.33 before you asked your deflection question.
To not see this is to live in fantasyland.
And Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Jamie Raskin, Maxine Waters, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Jerry Nadler ... ad nauseam.
Help me out here, didn't Al Gore take his election denial to the Supreme Court of the United States?
didn't Al Gore take his election denial to the Supreme Court of the United States?
And Joe Biden, election denier, called Gore the elected President of the US.
My bad Tex, I don't know what I was thinking.
False equivalencies all around.
It is not possible to "help you out" given you do not see the difference in scope, ethics, tactics and duration of the denial of Trump vs. Gore (or anyone else).
It is pathetic; some seem to not care how foolish their comment as long as it defends their party.
Oh I never expected any kind of coherent answer let alone a logical one. My goal was reached. Exposed their hypocrisy.
So you are afraid of his "wrongdoing"? And exactly what "wrongdoing" has you the most fearful?
The most damaging wrongdoing is to convince people like you that the US electoral system is rigged, that he actually won the election, and that all he did in his Big Lie (lying, coercion, frivolous litigation, subornation, inciting, etc.) was the right thing to do.
So you are freaking out over ONE and giving pass to the likes of the individuals listed here and you don't see the hypocrisy of it and expect to be taken seriously.
Lets face it, that wasnt hard to do.
In your mind you must have translated what I wrote into a single notion: " Trump denied election results " because you compared Trump to people (not just PotUS') who have contested or disagreed with the results of an election. If that is all Trump did then that would be long since old news.
What you continue to blindly ignore (pathetically) is what Trump did while sitting PotUS in his Big Lie campaign. Trump tried to steal the election using the authority of his office and against the Constitution:
... and more.
But you do not see this as wrongdoing. To you, this is perfectly acceptable for a sitting PotUS to do. So if a future PotUS were to lose re-election and engage in the same activities, you would have no objection.
Clearly. Not only convince, but activate to produce pathetic 'defenses' of Trump in perpetuity.
So are you saying that the electoral system in the US is rigged and broken? Or that it is not?
So you are playing mind reader in addition to hair on fire hypocrite. Call them out as well or just shut the hell up already.
Remember from 2016 to 2020 all we heard was "the system was broke and should never be used again!". Then after 2020 "the system is great!".
I wonder what changed to cause them to change their minds...
And you deflect as usual.
Again, Trump did much more than simply deny election results. None of the people in your list attempted to steal a US presidential election as a sitting PotUS. None of them are even in the same league of wrongdoing as Trump. You cannot see that??
Instead you constantly defend Trump's Big Lie (see @1.1.65) and will not even acknowledge the wrongdoing.
You cannot see that JR is stating that there are many gullible people in the USA who simply believe Trump's lies about the system being rigged?
Do you think the US electoral system is rigged and broken; that it produces results that violate the wishes of the voters?
It is not broken and has not been broken. It (still) is one of the most accurate systems on the planet. Our problem is not the electoral system (casting and counting votes) but rather the crappy candidates.
Just away from where YOU want me to go. I'm still in line with my statement in 1.1.9.
My reply to your 1.1.9 is 1.1.33. Trump is not merely an election denier; he went well beyond that and, as sitting PotUS, attempted to steal the election while exploiting the authority of his office and trashing our system, agitating millions of people with his lies, etc.
Deeming Trump merely an election denier is yet another pathetic attempt at defending the indefensible.
LOL. If one believes Trump and his acolyte minions, there were thousands of people across the country, from New Hampshire to Arizona, involved in conspiracies solely intended to keep him from being re-elected. Thousands of people were cheating in the vote counting, all of them Democrats. It is utterly absurd on the face of it. When will that dawn on the gullible?
No, I do not think the electoral system is broken. I was trying to understand what JR was stating because it was not clear, but vague enough to bring doubt.
As you agree that the system is not broken and is still one of the most accurate systems available, then why are the Democrats trying to change it election after election to remove the Electoral College? That is part of the electoral system. If the problem is the crappy candidates (and I agree 100% with that, I'm rather tired of voting for least objectionable) then why do so many Democrats (and JR was one of them after the 2016 election) call for the scrapping of the Electoral College after their candidate loses?
So answer the question. Do you believe the current system is broken, yes or no?
NEVER OBVIOUSLY.
The electoral college has stopped working. There have been 8 presidential elections in the past 30 years. The Republican candidate has won the popular vote in 1 of those 8 (12.5%). Yet we have had a Republican president in 40% of those 30 years. With increased polarization there is no path to getting the electoral college back on a fair path. It is not sustainable as a nation to have so many instances when the minority of the vote rules. It is just as bad in the Senate. Because we have states of such wildly varying populations , and states locked into partisan voting, it has become routine for the Democrats in the Senate to represent millions of more voters than the Republicans in the Senate do, even though the number of senators is the same (or close to the same) for both parties.
As you are stating that the electoral college is not working, and as the electoral college is part of the US electoral system, that indicates to me that you believe the electoral system in this country is broken. Then it amazes me that you can allow your bias to overrule common sense and whine about how the electoral system is broken when a Democrat doesn't win the Presidential election and then turn around and whine about how Trump was wrong to complain that the 2020 Presidential election was broken and stolen from him.
They bitch about the system wasn't broken in 2020, yet the system didn't work right in 2016.
What does the electoral college have to do with Trump claiming the election was stolen from him, other than the fact that he wanted to have fake electors appointed by his operatives in the various states?
The electoral college is part of the US electoral system. If the electoral college system is broken that in turns means the US electoral system is broken as you cannot have a broken piece within a system and still call the total system unbroken.
You claim in 1.1.78 that the electoral system is broken because it does not represent the will of the people, yet it is doing exactly what it was designed to do. Yet you only bitch if it's a Democrat that doesn't win but you cannot allow for a broken system if a Republican didn't win. Trump claiming the 2020 election was stolen from him is all because he did not win enough electoral college votes to win the Oval Office. He would not have made that claim if he had won 270 electoral votes. Exactly the same as what happened in 2016, when Trump did win and HRC has stated many times that the election was stolen from her.
Your bias runs away with you time and time again.
The Ds want to move the presidential election to a popular vote because that gives them a decided advantage. The Rs object to this move for the same reason.
My preference is to do away with the winner-takes-all so that each congressional district has a voice. Further, I would eliminate human electors; they serve no contemporary purpose. Just count the number of districts won by a candidate and that is their electoral votes. The remaining two state electoral votes can be determined by popular majority, by majority of districts won, or some similar system.
Is nothing short of hypocrisy.
The irony in this statement is enormous.
How pathetic to deem it hypocrisy to note that Trump is the only PotUS in US history who has tried to steal the presidency. How pathetic to equate an attempt to steal an election through coercion, lying, inciting violence, subornation, frivolous litigation, etc. and falsely demeaning the US electoral system to merely denying the results of an election.
How pathetic to not even acknowledge the outrageous wrongdoing by Trump as a sitting PotUS and resort to running from the challenge, deflection, and other cheap tactics rather than write anything negative about Trump — even that which is undeniably the truth.
Absolutely nothing
Fact. Until you call out those 150 Democrats, you're a hypocrite. How you handle it is not my problem.
Bullshit. I have never stated that falsely being an election denier is right. You invented that in lieu of an argument.
So, just so you are clear: it is wrong for anyone to falsely claim an election is rigged, corrupt, etc. and that includes every one of the 150 Ds if they made such a false claim.
You, however, try to equate merely denying an election with what Trump did. That comparison is beyond stupid. It ignores all the acts taken by Trump and ignores the fact that Trump was an active PotUS (none of the 150 Ds were active PotUS' ... as I noted immediately to you).
Your refusal to acknowledge Trump's profound wrongdoings as an active PotUS makes you a hypocrite if you criticize anyone for engaging in a lesser wrongdoing. That, Jeremy, would be the correct usage of the English word 'hypocrite'.
You haven't called them out either. All you did is caveat onto ONE person. It's all or nothing.
You and Texan continue to fail to read:
Your deflection is pathetic.
You try to equate merely denying an election with what Trump did. That comparison is beyond stupid. It ignores all the acts taken by Trump and ignores the fact that Trump was an active PotUS (none of the 150 Ds were active PotUS' ... as I noted immediately to you).
Remains to be seen.
Until you call out those 150 Democrats, you're a hypocrite. How you handle it is not my problem.
What is it that you wish me to call out these 150 Ds on? Your link said they were election deniers. What words must I use that will cause your mind to comprehend that I hold anyone who falsely denies an election to have done wrong?
Are you asking me to list each one of these Ds and individually state that false denial of an election is wrong?
What is it, exactly, that you are looking for?
See, it seems to me that you are just repeatedly and falsely calling me a hypocrite and you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge that I consider false denial of an election to be wrong no matter who does it (or what party they belong to).
In other words, you are just deflecting, stupidly, because you refuse to acknowledge that Trump has done wrong in his Big Lie campaign. What you apparently miss is that it is likely nobody in this forum has missed the fact that you flee from the question of Trump's wrongdoing.
In order to try a find a comparison we see them going back to 2000 to find examples of Democrats who complained about elections.
This is what a certain brand of Republican does, they labor mightily to create false equivalencies that appeal to the uninformed and undiscerning.
In 2000 there was a legitimate issue about actual votes, the so called "hanging chad" which were votes that were not counted because the ballot had not been punched all the way through. Whatever side one came down on it was a specific issue , and a legitimate issue that had to be adjudicated. That is why the US Supreme Court accepted the case ( a lower court also ruled on the merits of the case, agreeing with the Democrats.) No court ruled in favor of Trump's 60 some cases challenging the election. Also, Gore had won the popular vote in 2000, so his defenders, or the complainers if you like, had that rationale to present. There was no such rationale for denying the election results in 2020.
In any case the candidate did not dispute the results after they were made official. In fact, Gore presided over the session of Congress that made his opponent George Bush the new president.
There is no realistic comparison between 2000 and 2020, but such reality does not stop the GOP election deniers today.
Ancient history, absolutely. Not as ancient as 1619, but close.
I wonder what the founders would say? Dont we all?
Really? then why did the poll you posted earlier use it for a comparison? what is really funny is according to the poll you put so much faith in the democrats were bigger election deniers than the republicans.
Sounds like a question only someone with a "founder fetish" would ask.
Hmmm, I wonder why someone would bring up "1619" ? , which has an even more specific connotation.
It goes to your good points John, about those that reach back to the 2000 election for examples as well as the "founder fetish' of some.
Things that make JR go Hmmm.
She's a whackjob. That's her base. That's who will vote for her.
A good deal of Arizona's Hispanic population will be voting for her!
This one will as she is a much better choice than Hobbs.
“This one will as she is a much better choice than Hobbs.”
I respect you, sir…but this endorsement is simply nuts. As an ex-Arizonan, Hobbs is a voice of moderation and has had a distinguished (read non-confrontational) career, just doing her job for all the people of Arizona.
Lake, on the other hand, has built her post-media career on being nothing but confrontational. Aligning herself first and foremost as an election denier and a dyed-in-the-wool trumpist. Using the border issue as a wedge, further dividing the electorate, only playing to fear with now advocating the activation of the military to address the situation. That is ignoring the causality and accepting the potential casualties. But as always, just my opinion…and we all know where you live, but proximity does not make a more cogent argument when this is a national issue. Leadership is required, not pandering.
With respect, I have to disagree in that in all honesty I consider Lake to be the lesser of evils as far Arizona's election. I do not particularly care for some of what Lake says or does but I like Hobbs and hard core leftist liberal Democrats even less. Especially one that is politically and financially tied to a radical organization like LUCHA that advocates for elimination of CBP, ICE, and wants to defund all police forces in Arizona.
She's a winner and a voice of sanity. Dems are a bunch of loser perverts.
Voice of sanity? She is a whackjob/enabler/supporter. She's happy to have your votes. Whackjobs all.
Kari Lake, the Republican candidate in the Arizona governor's race, has taken many pages from former President Donald Trump's campaign playbook.
She repeats his false claims of rampant fraud in the 2020 election. She attacks the legacy of the late Arizona GOP senator, John McCain. And she has made the media a favorite foil, even though she spent 22 years as an anchor for a local news station.
There was no fraud in the 2020 election widespread enough to change the result, according to federal officials. Dozens of lawsuits filed by supporters of Mr. Trump challenging the results failed.
Calm down now....
[deleted]
When speaking of loser perverts, you were confused, they're on your side of the aisle, [deleted]
Just read a article on line stating that Hobbs has financial and political ties to a radical left wing organization called LUCHA that advocates the elimination of CBP, ICE, and is very pro defunding of police forces in Arizona. That is not what the border states and the country overall need! I do not want a person like Hobbs as governor of my state! No way will I vote for this Democrat for governor.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Hobbs seems like a terrible candidate. I guess Democrats should have spent a little more time and money selecting a viable democrat instead of interfering in Republican elections.
It looks like a classic mis-match. It is only now when we get close to the election that we get to see it. For the months the media has been trying to pretend the Arizona election was a referendum on Trump.
“…interfering in Republican elections.”
Said with a straight face? What on earth do you mean?
Only if you mean lower case republican, and even given that caveat, the evidence is overwhelming that we continue to have free and fair elections.
To follow the quote and to defend it is frightening in implication.
You can start with the Michigan elections.
Tell Pelosi and her damn dark money crew to keep their funding out of Republican primaries. Especially when that funding goes to candidates they pretend are a threat to the US if they get elected.
That is when they aren't busy trying to thin the Republican candidate herd of it's top prospects.
To show how petty, corrupt, and hypocritical Democrats are they wanted to toss out Tudor Dixon's signatures because the year was wrong on the header. From the Democrats own website no less.
Democrats and the words "unprecedented" go together for the last seven years. Seven years of unprecedented bullshit they have put this country through.
So why do lefties deny free and fair elections when they lose.
“So why do lefties deny free and fair elections when they lose.”
Such a stale trope. I cannot wait for the ‘whataboutism’ argument to be relegated to the trash heap along with every other childish retort.
Sadly, this election cycle only promises more of the same. It’s not only counterproductive, it’s grown to the point of being destructive. Pathetic.