Claims of insurrection on Jan. 6 rebutted by Harvard study

 PJ Media:

Democrats and the media claim the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, was an insurrection, and they’ve pushed that narrative relentlessly. But last week, the Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center published a study that debunked their claim. According to the analysis, most of the rioters were motivated by loyalty to President Trump.

And yet, you probably never heard about that.

“In the most comprehensive study to date of what motivated the Trump supporters to attack the Capitol, Shorenstein Center researchers found that 20.6 percent of the rioters, a plurality, were motivated to take part in the riot because they supported Trump,” reports The Harvard Crimson. “Another 20.6 percent of the rioters cited Trump’s fraudulent claims that the 2020 presidential election was rigged as their primary reason for participating in the Jan. 6 riot.”

This was clearly not the outcome the authors of the study anticipated. “I don’t think I expected the result to be this stark,” Kaylee Fagan, one of the authors of the study, told The Crimson. “I also certainly didn’t expect those two motivations to come up nearly exactly as often as they both did.”

“The documents show that Trump and his allies convinced an unquantifiable number of Americans that representative democracy in the United States was not only in decline, but in imminent, existential danger,” the study said. “This belief translated into a widespread fear of democratic and societal breakdown, which, in turn, motivated hundreds of Americans to travel to DC from far corners of the country in what they were convinced was the nation’s most desperate hour.”

It’s clear that the researchers weren’t pro-Trump. They quickly dismiss allegations of election irregularities as “lies about election fraud” and seemed shocked that QAnon wasn’t a significant motivation for the rioters.

...

I think this study is closer to the mark than most of the media speculation and the assertions of Democrat political figures.  I suspect that it would never have happened if the Democrat response to Trump's assertions would have been to have a bipartisan study of the election.  Instead, they leaped to conclusions that were as unsupported as Trump's turned out to be.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t...
Read more

Is the F-35 obsolete?

Headline USA: Pentagon Fires Back after Musk Calls Its Most Expensive Project ‘Obsolete’ 'Yeah, as I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Musk is, currently, a private citizen, I'm not going to make any comments about what a private citizen may have to say about the F-35....'   ... ... Drones appear to be replacing jets for many operations.  The Russia-Ukraine war is an example of that.  Drones are often hard to detect and can be used for intelligence operations as well as for attacking enemy targets.  It would not surprise me to see drones engaging other drones in combat.  They also cost much less than manned fighters.  
Read more