Reframe: instead of "widespread", use "significant"...

[Bobstandard]

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 hasn’t t hasn’t 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]

1. The media has been pissing me off since day one in this regard ...

You are absolutely correct.

Or even better "no proven fraud".

[ecstatic]

2. Wouldn't "no fraud" be better?

Keep it as simple as possible.

[SoonerPride]

3. ZERO FRAUD

Not widespread
Not significant

NOT ANY

[JDC]

4. How 'bout none?

[dchill]

5. Actually, I prefer "I got your fraud right here!"

[oswaldactedalone]

6. Excellent point

It’s been frustrating that even Democratic Sec’ys of State have been using this terminology. Wording matters.