ShareThis Page
Quotables: Social media spin in 18th Congressional District race |
Featured Commentary

Quotables: Social media spin in 18th Congressional District race

Supporters of Conor Lamb, the Democratic candidate for the March 13 special election in Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional District, hold signs during his election night party in Canonsburg. (AP Photo | Gene J. Puskar)

There’s nothing like a nationally watched close congressional election to get the social media rumor mill spinning. And the 18th Congressional District race between Conor Lamb and Rick Saccone was no exception. Among baseless assertions was a social media story that a judge, Marshawn Little, of the 45th Federal Appeals Court of Westmoreland County, canceled the election results supposedly because they were “tainted beyond reproach.” If the court or the judge sound unfamiliar, that’s because neither exists. Another report, supposedly labeled “satire,” claimed “trucks full of illegals” cast votes. Again, bogus as a $3 bill. Such absurdities are easy enough to spot. Wanda Murren, communications director for Pennsylvania’s Department of State, set the record straight.

“There are no legitimate claims or complaints or evidence that any such events occurred. These claims should not be taken seriously.”

“We are not aware of any official complaints lodged with the county election boards or district attorneys alleging voter fraud, nor have there been any filed through DOS. Any claims otherwise or without citing these entities could be from illegitimate sources.”

There have been no “legitimate claims or complaints” of fraud since the March 14 U.S. House election.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.