Gitlin-Adam

the act it targets, intimidation can be multifaceted. It can be based on an assumption regarding
the aggregate preferences of a group, directed at a particular individual making a declaratory act
by participating in an election, or posed as a challenge toward a citizenry’s ongoing dialogue
with government (a direct response to the “rigged” narrative).
The election also came at the tail end of a campaign that saw increased interest in the
election and mobilization of voters who were less connected to organized politics. These voters,
particularly rural voters (Evich 2016), were becoming more interested at the same time that there
has been a general decline in trust in American institutions of government, and a majority of
Americans viewed Trump as having little or no respect for the “nation’s democratic institutions
and traditions” (Pew Research Center 2016a). This may explain some reports of intimidation by
individuals at the polls, some of it quite abusive, without connection to a broader, organized
effort to intimidate voters; they became involved, in an irreverent way, without needing
organization to facilitate their behavior.
Coordinated Action
Coordinated efforts of voter intimidation occurred in pockets, but the most publicized
effort may have been the “Stop the Steal” organization run by Trump advisor Roger Stone. This
organization’s stated plans were to use exit polling to ensure detection of any election fraud. But
the organization targeted many cities that had demonstrated Democratic party leanings, rather
than bellwether areas, as exit pollsters traditionally have (Kenski and Dreyer 1977). On a
conference call the night before the election, Stop the Steal organizers emphasized that they did
not want volunteers intimidating voters, in part because doing so could taint their results.
12