Stark election outcomes encourage flawed thinking.
One of the great challenges of politics is trying to understand the country’s direction after a big election. Typically, that means deciphering voters — both as a monolith (“what do Americans want?”) and as blocs (“why are Hispanics breaking left?”). After the 2026 midterms, a lot of people are seeing what they want to see in the results. They start with their biases, pull in polling data, and build a theory that supports their priors. Some surely do this intentionally (in hopes of achieving a preferred political outcome), while others seem to do it subconsciously. Each narrative is as easy to tear down as it is to construct.
Ad-free podcasts are here! Subscribe to unlock this episode and more.
Get 20% off your first year of ad-free episodes, exclusive interviews, and deep dives with Tangle’s podcast membership!
In the latest edition of A Grain of Saul, Isaac discusses how post-election claims of widespread fraud have differed this year compared to past cycles. He writes:
Election denialism is pretty much dead. Could it be resurrected? Perhaps. But for now, there isn’t a single losing candidate in any race denying the results of their election, nor is the president shouting from the rooftops that this sweeping rebuke of his presidency was somehow rigged.
You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here.
Our Executive Editor and Founder is Isaac Saul. Our Executive Producer is Jon Lall.
This podcast written by: Isaac Saul and audio engineered and edited by Dewey Thomas. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75 and Jon Lall.
Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Senior Editor Will Kaback, Bailey Saul, Audrey Moorehead, and Carina Pacheco.
","author_name":"Isaac Saul"}