Not Again: An Analysis of Election Messaging in 2026
The first election message from the Lakemoor Community Club board president has been published and we’re feeling a little deja vu.
In the October 2026 Ken Lake newsletter, the board president described a ‘small group of residents’ as disruptive and warned homeowners against leaving board positions to people seeking power ‘for who knows what purposes.’ This article examines the language of that election message and links readers to the underlying records so they can evaluate the claims themselves. |
The message is familiar:
Don’t vote for these people, we think they’re bad. Don’t look at that website, don’t believe them - they’re out to get everyone! We know better and you should, too.
On the other side I, personally, am told to look the other way. It was terrible, but it’s in the past. It can’t be helped. They can say whatever they want. Don’t respond.
We tried that. Truly.
This is now. These are being written right now, and we need to decide if this is how we want to be spoken to.
We need to imagine disagreeing and decide is this if how we want to be spoken about.
We can’t make the choice for you.
All we can do is show you what we see.
Below is an analysis of the president's message—not a rebuttal to every claim in it, but a look at how the argument itself is constructed.
You can access evidence through minutes and community comments and then explore this website if you want to go deeper.
For the foundation, you can click these to open them in a new tab:
How the Election Message Frames ‘Us’ and ‘Them’
Stripped of the adjectives, the argument is roughly:
We volunteered for good reasons → a small group persistently challenges us → their conduct is objectionable → most of you haven't witnessed it → trust my description of it → legitimate disagreement is fine, but theirs isn't legitimate → we're doing well → please run → otherwise those people might obtain power for unknown reasons.
You probably picked up on the us/them language.
Our motives: betterment of Ken Lake.
Their motives: sour grapes, personal issues, possibly some unknown purpose.
Our disagreements: respectful.
Their disagreements: attacks and grievances.
Our participation in governance: volunteering.
Their participation in governance: gaining power.
The exact same basic act—wanting to serve on the board—is described as public service when performed by one group and a pursuit of power when performed by another.
This is consistent with in-group bias: similar behavior is interpreted generously when “we” do it and suspiciously when “they” do it.
The board did not have to use this forum
The board can approach homeowners to answer the open questions and address concerns. Several board members have declined requests from the homeowners targeted by this message to discuss these concerns directly.
Let's get into it
Language | What it does |
“As we approach another election…” | Establishes the electoral context immediately. Everything that follows is being said while homeowners are deciding who should govern. |
“a frustrating past year serving as president” | Opens with the president's emotional experience. It primes the reader to understand what follows through his frustration rather than through a neutral account of events. Stating 'as the president' is also an appeal to authority. |
“Volunteers run for the board in the spirit of contributing to the betterment of Ken Lake.” | Establishes the board's motives as benevolent before discussing its critics. |
“Yet…” | Creates the opposition: well-intentioned volunteers versus what comes next. |
“an onslaught” | Much stronger than “criticism.” It metaphorically turns speech/participation into an attack. |
“a small group of residents” | Minimizes the group's numerical legitimacy before addressing what they're saying. The relevant question—whether their criticisms are accurate—doesn't depend on how many people make them. |
“continually criticized and second-guessed board decisions” | These aren't inherently misconduct. Homeowners criticizing and questioning decisions is ordinary association participation. The sentence establishes these behaviors as part of the problem before any genuinely objectionable conduct is alleged. |
“These residents claim that they represent a significant minority…” | “Claim” subtly distances the writer from the assertion. More importantly, the letter never tells readers what evidence exists either way. |
“which in their minds justifies…” | Attributes an internal rationale to the critics. Unless they actually said this, the writer is telling readers why other people behave as they do, rather than documenting their behavior. |
“aspersions, insults, and often puzzling and repetitive grievances” | Bundles very different categories together. An insult and a repeated grievance aren't the same thing. “Puzzling” is especially subjective: it tells readers how the complaints should feel rather than what the complaints actually are. Specific comments can be read in the community comments section of each agenda - just follow the link! (and here’s a copy made on 10/2/26) The president nor the board has followed up on comments to ask for clarity. |
“Their disruptive actions…” | The label has now become a premise. Nothing in the newsletter has established what the “disruptive actions” were. |
“can’t possibly be supported by any homeowner…” | This is absolute language: not “I believe most homeowners would disapprove,” but essentially if you support them you are unreasonable. It removes the possibility of legitimate disagreement about what happened. |
“who has seen them in action.” | Also establishes eyewitnesses as the people qualified to judge. We encourage you to seek out all attendees independent of who is platformed here. |
“Unfortunately, very few residents attend board meetings…” | Most newsletter readers, by the letter's own account, haven't seen them in action. So trust "us". |
“so most of you aren’t exposed to their behavior.” | That's an explicit information asymmetry. You haven't seen what I've seen; I'm telling you what it's like. That makes the absence of concrete examples especially important. |
“Of course, criticism comes with the territory…” | A concession. It establishes apparent reasonableness: I'm not opposed to criticism. |
“honorable people sometimes disagree” | This sounds conciliatory, but “honorable” creates an implicit category. There are honorable disagreements—and, by contrast, whatever he has just described. |
“That is normal.” | Explicitly defines one category of opposition as legitimate. |
“But…” | The concession closes. |
“attacks based on sour grapes or personal issues are not normal.” | This is the crucial substitution. We started with people who “criticized and second-guessed board decisions.” They have now become people making “attacks” because of “sour grapes or personal issues.” No evidence establishing that causal explanation appears between those points. |
“As we enter this election season…” | Now the rhetorical purpose becomes explicit. The characterization of the critics leads directly into the election. |
“I encourage homeowners to consider running…” | Perfectly ordinary by itself. But context matters because the letter has just established two categories of homeowner. |
“Your current board members may not always agree…” | Returns to the acceptable-disagreement frame. Board members disagree too—but theirs is presented as respectful disagreement. |
“but we respect one another.” | Creates the contrast without having to repeat it: we disagree respectfully; they don't. |
“We’ve accomplished much…” / “finances are strong.” | Positive incumbent argument. Notice that these are assertions rather than specifics, but they're ordinary election rhetoric. The finance committee is concerned about needing to raise HOAs further, though they are optimistic about the newsletter ads. You can attend a finance committee meeting to learn more. |
“Please consider joining us…” | “Us” is doing important work now. The letter has constructed a coherent in-group. You can be part of the cool kids as long as you are not “them.” |
“to keep the momentum going.” | Continuity frame: current leadership = progress. |
“Please don’t leave it up to…” | The appeal changes from please run to prevent these other people from gaining office. |
“homeowners who seemingly have a vested interest…” | “Seemingly” provides uncertainty/plausible deniability while still planting the allegation. “Vested interest” ordinarily suggests some personal stake beyond simply wanting different governance. None is identified. |
“in gaining power” | We see leadership as service, not power, and see no reason why the targeted homeowners would not believe the same. We encourage you to ask the candidates why they are interested in participating in our board. |
“for who knows what purposes.” | This is the strongest insinuation in the piece precisely because it supplies no accusation that can be disproved. |
Don't take our word for it.
Read the newsletter. Read the community comments. Look at the minutes. Attend a meeting. Ask the candidates why they're running. Talk to people who were there—including people who disagree with us.
Then decide for yourself whether the same standards are being applied to everyone.
Comments