The Sage Grouse, who spent some time as commentator for WyoFile some years ago, is back for occasional visits to our site, after taking a couple of years off to get recharged — Ed.

(OPINION) — Trump, part bully, part reality TV star, successfully exposed and exploited Jeb Bush’s understated manner, Marco Rubio’s inexperience and Ted Cruz’s sneering unloveable personality — hogging the media, hogging the oxygen, eclipsing Kasich and other forgettables — by trumpeting basic, insulting, simple messages. He stole the party from the Republicans. It’s not a fun party any more, although maybe enough Congressmen will put enough distance between the Donald and their campaigns to preserve the House Republican majority. Maybe. That’s proving a tightrope to walk.

But, the house of cards is falling now. In response, Trump first invents and then laboriously, boisterously repeats the preposterous claim that voter fraud will permeate every district, every precinct, thus insulting every county clerk and election official in the country. In the final debate he boasts he’ll keep the country “in suspense” about whether he’ll accept the results of the election.

Stay connected — sign up for our free weekly newsletter

Okay: Why would a megalomaniac but arguably successful businessman and TV personality, egotistical but not actually stupid, perpetuate, against all other speakers on this topic, this voter fraud theme, itself a fraud?

  1.  It will galvanize his base, driving a stronger turnout.
  2. It will stimulate some of his base to engage in aggressive poll-watching, which may intimidate other voters at the polls, maybe leading to violence.
  3. It will cause some of Clinton’s older voters, or voters of color, to simply stay home to avoid confrontation and controversy.
  4. Most importantly, it may stimulate undecided voters, wondering about Crooked Hillary suggestions, uncertain and unsettled but who might never admit it, to pull the lever for Trump in the booth. “No one is going to steal my vote.”

As a last-ditch strategy, it might work. If it does not work, he will have wreaked lasting damage on the most successful democracy in the world, all in the name of tawdry celebrity.  And he can hire Billy Bush to host his new reality TV network.

RT Cox is a retired Gillette lawyer who formerly served on WyoFile’s board of directors. He wrote The Sage Grouse column for WyoFile for many years.

Join the Conversation

3 Comments

WyoFile's goal is to provide readers with information and ideas that foster constructive conversations about the issues and opportunities our communities face. One small piece of how we do that is by offering a space below each story for readers to share perspectives, experiences and insights. For this to work, we need your help.

What we're looking for: 

  • Your real name — first and last. 
  • Direct responses to the article. Tell us how your experience relates to the story.
  • The truth. Share factual information that adds context to the reporting.
  • Thoughtful answers to questions raised by the reporting or other commenters.
  • Tips that could advance our reporting on the topic.
  • No more than three comments per story, including replies. 

What we block from our comments section, when we see it:

  • Pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish, and we expect commenters to do the same by using their real name.
  • Comments that are not directly relevant to the article. 
  • Demonstrably false claims, what-about-isms, references to debunked lines of rhetoric, professional political talking points or links to sites trafficking in misinformation.
  • Personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats.
  • Arguments with other commenters.

Other important things to know: 

  • Appearing in WyoFile’s comments section is a privilege, not a right or entitlement. 
  • We’re a small team and our first priority is reporting. Depending on what’s going on, comments may be moderated 24 to 48 hours from when they’re submitted — or even later. If you comment in the evening or on the weekend, please be patient. We’ll get to it when we’re back in the office.
  • We’re not interested in managing squeaky wheels, and even if we wanted to, we don't have time to address every single commenter’s grievance. 
  • Try as we might, we will make mistakes. We’ll fail to catch aliases, mistakenly allow folks to exceed the comment limit and occasionally miss false statements. If that’s going to upset you, it’s probably best to just stick with our journalism and avoid the comments section.
  • We don’t mediate disputes between commenters. If you have concerns about another commenter, please don’t bring them to us.

The bottom line:

If you repeatedly push the boundaries, make unreasonable demands, get caught lying or generally cause trouble, we will stop approving your comments — maybe forever. Such moderation decisions are not negotiable or subject to explanation. If civil and constructive conversation is not your goal, then our comments section is not for you. 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. As a long time poll worker, I would propose to anyone who suspects any large scale voter fraud to volunteer as a poll worker themselves. We could use the help, and they would see for themselves how secure our system is. The only true danger to the system is paperless electronic machines that leave no possibility of a proper recount.

    Reply

  2. “-Comments may be declined for name-calling, personal attacks, threats, derogatory or defamatory comments, racism, sexism or any form of bigotry.”

    Seems to me this article violates your own “high ethics” standards.

    This is typical of what “progressive liberals” have done in this election that makes one want to cry foul. Wake up: this diatribe is nothing less than “the pot calling the kettle black”.

    Reply

    1. Sory, Bev, but a careful re-reading shows me nothing in this opinion piece that are examples of “name-calling, personal attacks, threats, derogatory or defamatory comments, racism, sexism or any form of bigotry ” . RT Cox is simply using accurate descriptors here. Unfiltered, but nevertheless accurate.

      Would you enlighten us to where you see any maligners?

      Reply