Monae Johnson for Secretary of State posts Video/TV ad

@SoDakCampaigns

I do see that Secretary of State Candidate Monae Johnson has posted a video/tv ad in support of her candidacy on Twitter in recent days:

17 thoughts on “Monae Johnson for Secretary of State posts Video/TV ad”

  1. I think the KELOLAND clip of her refusal to acknowledge Biden won is more indicative of her candidacy

    1. The people she recruited to vote for her at the convention all believe Biden did not win. That is what her base thinks but is not necessarily what she believes.
      Many of them will not vote for anybody who says Biden won; it’s become a litmus test..They have to be told what they want to hear otherwise they won’t vote for her, or anybody else.

        1. I am not part of that base. I was so disgusted by the behavior of her delegates at the convention I couldn’t even bring myself to vote for her; I just couldn’t, so I left left that one blank. Her opponent sounds just as looney and thinks asking voters to identify themselves is a racist form of voter suppression. (Doesn’t everybody know people of color don’t know who they are?) I couldn’t vote for him either. Maybe they are both sane and are just pandering to their respective bases. On the other hand, it’s possible they are both just crazy.

  2. Not to nit pick, but her web site says she has worked of three Secretaries of State, not two. Under her endorsements, there are no former Secretaries of State endorsing her. I would think that if she did such a great job in the past, at least one of them would speak up for her job performance and qualifications.

    1. I believe she worked for Nelson, Krebs, and Barnett. Of course she’s not going to say Barnett

  3. She is unqualified and a dangerous choice to be in charge of our elections. I am a life long republican and have carried a lot of water to the elephant and always have been proud of our state wide candidates, except for this one. She will win because she has a R after her name but will have to be closely watched.

  5. For the sub-literate in here:

    Just because no court found major fraud doesn’t mean an election was fair…This claim is one of many hoaxes thrust upon us the past few years.

    It hurts I know..but pain induces growth, you’ll be ok I promise.

    1. Lol. Just because I cant prove there is a purple unicorn doing a waltz in the kitchen it doesnt mean it isnt there! Cool. Go with that.

    2. Just because no court has found that Odin does bath salts doesn’t mean that Odin doesn’t do bath salts.

      See how that logic works???

    3. First – You can’t prove that something didn’t happen. If something happened, you can prove it by showing evidence that it happened. There has been no evidence presented, either in a court of law or in any public forum that has stood up to even base scrutiny.
      If you are saying that there was election fraud it’s your JOB to provide evidence. The side denying the election has had almost 2 years to either put up or shut up. They have failed. Even when they have had chances to “Prove” it in situations most favorable to the…they have come up with nothing.
      Face it. Trump lost to Biden.
      How BAD do you have to be to lose to Joe F’ing Biden?
      It’s like losing a cooking contest to someone who serves plain oatmeal.

      1. There is evidence but it is all circumstantial. There is surveillance video from around the country of people delivering multiple ballots to drop boxes in the middle of the night. Where did those ballots come from? There is no chain of custody. Nobody knows where they were picked up or who delivered them to the drop boxes.
        This doesn’t prove anything but as HD Thoreau said, “some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.”
        It doesn’t pass the smell test.

        2. You’re right that something doesn’t pass the smell test.
          NONE of that “Circumstantial Evidence” was submitted in a court of law.
          No one who was presenting that evidence was willing to present it in any environment where they could be held liable for perjury.
          Even though they were going on TV and talking about it –
          Even though they were raising donations to try to fund their lawsuits –
          When push came to shove and they had the chance to present this where, if it was at all true, it could possibly make a difference, they wouldn’t present it.
          There is only one reason that they wouldn’t do that – they knew that it was either complete bunk or that it couldn’t be authenticated.

          They sold you a bill of goods.

          1. Sorry to burst your bubble but if court denies evidentiary process or refuses to hear case, you’re dead in the water from the start. When state legislatures or governors rewrote state election law those laws redefined the court’s obligations for judiciary process. Might want to look around the country at some of the states whose elections were questioned and see what is happening in those State’s Secretary of State offices and legislative elections. Actions speak louder than words as we have seen with current administration.

Comments are closed.