Brad Dayspring

@PurpleStrats. Proud Husband. Strategy/comms/policy. Hockey player, skating to where the puck's going. Former: Media Exec, Cap Hill, White House, campaigns.

[Brad Dayspring @BDayspring]

@StephTweetAgain Yes, indeed. To avoid the legal nightmare she will now face.

[Brad Dayspring @BDayspring]

On the record is... on the record. No do-overs.

[Amy Siskind @Amy_Siskind]

Seriously NYT?

"Last week, as The Times prepared to publish this article, Ms. Rios, who had been planning to file a wrongful termination lawsuit against the Peltola campaign, contacted The Times and said she wanted to take back her previous statements.

“As discussed on our call earlier today, I am confirming that I have retracted all statements made regarding the 2026 Alaska Senate Race in connection with any article you may or may not be writing,” Ms. Rios wrote. “I am not willing to be a source for any story in any capacity.”

It is rare for a source to seek to retract comments made in previous interviews, and The Times’s standards do not obligate reporters to comply with such requests. The Times had never agreed that those previous interviews could not be published, and informed Ms. Rios last week that they would be a part of this story."

[Brad Dayspring @BDayspring]

This really isn't complicated. In California, some guy named Barack Obama (who legally changed his name 13 years ago) is running for governor. The former president isn't.

In Alaska, two Dan Sullivans are running against each other for the same Senate seat, and Democrats (including the rival campaign) recruited one to confuse voters and siphon votes from the other. See the difference? It's not subtle.

[Brad Dayspring @BDayspring]

There's a pretty big difference between encouraging voters to support a third-party candidate and deliberately deceiving voters into casting a ballot for a candidate they never intended to support.

One gives voters another choice. The other tricks them into wasting their vote.

[Brian Rosenwald @brianros1]

Oh, what have we here. Like c'mon folks. This Dan Sullivan x2 story is unsavory, but the context is both parties did the same thing.

[Brad Dayspring @BDayspring]

If, as you say, no voter could possibly make a mistake & pick the wrong candidate, Democrats wouldn't have done it. Conspiring to put a candidate with the SAME NAME as their opponent on the ballot for the intended purpose of deceiving voters who intend to vote for that opponent is not "ballot stacking," it is disenfranchisement. I hope those operatives have retained counsel, they're going to need it.

[535 News @the535news]

Today at 11am ET from Capitol Hill:

@BDayspring of @purplestrats and @meredithk27 of Declaration Media

@katieharbath of Anchor Change on AI and elections

@JonathanTamari of @BGOV on the fight for Congress

@ReedReports of @ScrippsNews on #MEPol #MESen https://t.co/U2x0hcJg1q

[Brad Dayspring @BDayspring]

@StephTweetAgain Enlighten me... Why did they do it, excactly? What would be the purpose if not to siphon votes?

[Will Chamberlain @willchamberlain]

Conspiring to put a man with the SAME NAME as your opponent on the ballot - in order to deceive Alaskan voters who intend to vote for that opponent - is not merely "ballot stacking," and your friends are about to find out about 18 USC 241

[Brad Dayspring @BDayspring]

Two quick lessons in logic: 1) Criticizing one thing doesn't imply approval of anything else. 2) The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that Sullivan was eligible to appear on the ballot... that ruling came 4 months before evidence emerged that Democrats recruited him to disenfranchise voters. You're treating a ballot-access ruling as an exoneration of conduct the court wasn't asked to adjudicate.

[Brad Dayspring @BDayspring]

Ah.. right. They actively recruited a candidate of the same name to not trick voters into voting for the wrong one. Got it.

[Jordan David @Jmizzle212]

@BDayspring Peltola never did that. Now you’re just making shit up.

[Ari Fleischer @AriFleischer]

There also needs to be an investigation into the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee,which is chaired by NY Senator Kristen Gellibrand. According to the NYT, the DSCC was deeply involved in this corrupt act.

https://t.co/kjPAxfeCpX

[Guy Benson @guypbenson]

Contrast this report with Obama’s recent, pugnacious defense of the Congresswoman who now calls herself Ilhan Omar…

[Bill Melugin @BillMelugin_]

BREAKING via NYT: In 2016, the Obama administration investigated Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and found “some evidence that Ms. Omar had entered into a sham marriage with a man suspected of being her brother”, but the case and potential felony charges stalled because of a 5 year statute of limitations.
https://t.co/7GSQB4qNim

[535 News @the535news]

Today at 11am ET from Capitol Hill:

@BDayspring of @purplestrats and @meredithk27 of Declaration Media

@katieharbath of Anchor Change on AI and elections

@JonathanTamari of @BGOV on the fight for Congress

@ReedReports of @ScrippsNews on #MEPol #MESen
https://t.co/U2x0hcIIbS

[Brad Dayspring @BDayspring]

@joshgerstein P.S. Senator Dan Sullivan won his first race by 6,014 votes…. The number of potentially impacted votes here is significant to outcome.

[Brad Dayspring @BDayspring]

It's pretty obvious that Democrats were betting some Alaska Republicans would rank only one candidate to protest ranked-choice voting, mistakenly choosing the decoy Dan Sullivan instead of Senator Dan Sullivan. That's why the did it, after all.

[Nicholas Stephanopoulos @ProfNickStephan]

What's striking about this "ballot stacking" scheme is that it's largely negated by Alaska's instant-runoff voting system. E.g., if someone ranks the Dan Sullivans 1-2 (in either order), the result is exactly the same after preferences are transferred.

https://t.co/zJHFqJog7R

[Brad Dayspring @BDayspring]

RCV doesn’t fix voter confusion. At 300K turnout, 2–3% for decoy Dan Sullivan means 6K–9K votes. If half intended to vote for Senator Dan Sullivan, that’s 3K–4.5K misdirected 1st choices. If those voters rank nobody else, their ballots exhaust when decoy DS is eliminated. The Democratic play here is to exploit exactly that scenario.

[Brad Dayspring @BDayspring]

@joshgerstein They did it for a reason!

[Brad Dayspring @BDayspring]

False. It also reaches conspiracies to interfere with the meaningful exercise of federally protected voting rights, including schemes that corrupt or dilute votes. SCOTUS has recognized that the right to vote includes more than the act of casting a ballot, it applies to having that ballot counted without unlawful interference.

[Brad Dayspring @BDayspring]

Correct. Under 18 U.S.C. § 241, a conspiracy requires 2 or more people to agree to interfere with federally protected voting rights. No $, written agreement, or successful outcome is required. Recruiting a same name candidate to deliberately deceive voters raises serious legal questions.

[BMichaelDunn @VolbeckWasRight]

Stealing a lot of bases here.

18 USC 241

[Brad Dayspring @BDayspring]

It's documented with written evidence.

Suggest you look at 18 USC 241. A conspiracy requires 2 or more people to agree to interfere with federally protected voting rights. Recruiting a same name candidate to deliberately deceive voters falls into that category. No $, written agreement, or winning campaign necessary. Those operatives had better retain strong legal counsel.

[Brad Dayspring @BDayspring]

The story was based on interviews with 12 people and substantial documentation to support the reporting.

[Adam Cochran (adamscochran.eth) @adamscochran]

The NYT is so desperate to find an October surprise they bury the lede:

1) The staffer retracted her statement.

2) The staffer was a fired disgruntled employee.

3) They stuff this line in the article:

"Ballot-stacking tactics are common in politics and generally considered legal — and have been employed by both parties in Alaska."