Terms like “margin of victory” and “margin of error” are common buzz-phrases during polling and elections. Thanks to the unprecedented machinations of Democratic operatives around the country, we’re going to need a new such term this time around — the margin of fraud.
That the Democrats have been working overtime to enable fraud is beyond reasonable dispute. By their own terms, Democrats have been screaming for years about the importance of “access” and the dreaded scourge of “suppression.”
Though the former word is designed to evoke goodness and the latter evil, both actually contain a great deal of ambiguity.
In an American election, every citizen eligible to vote should have a reasonable opportunity to do so.
No one ineligible to vote should possess such an opportunity.
The Democrats have pushed the first half of this formulation to an absurd extreme — then ignored the second half entirely.
To Democrats, it’s not enough that every eligible voter have a reasonable opportunity to vote. Any suggestion that, perhaps, voting might require minimal thought or effort is taken as an affront to American democracy.
Because any conceivable mechanism put in place to ensure that only eligible voters vote would necessarily reduce access, Democrats attack any proposal designed to promote the integrity of our elections.
This positioning is not new, but it has reached new heights.
The longstanding Democratic aversion to voter IDs is well known.
Notwithstanding the universality of ID requirements throughout contemporary society, Democrats laughably claim that asking potential voters for even minimal evidence of their eligibility is somehow discriminatory.
The opening of the ballot to anyone who claims a right to vote, even in the absence of evidence, has given the Democrats an edge for decades.
Democratic operatives have begun to come forward speaking of the voter fraud campaigns that have pushed their candidates across the finish line.
In recent years, those efforts have expanded. Democrats began pushing an obscenity called ballot harvesting that lets anyone (say, an activist) help circulate, complete, and deliver ballots with little attention to the chain of custody.
No judge would admit evidence treated so shoddily in a trial or evidentiary hearing, but evidentiary integrity apparently plays no role in our electoral system.
With the rise of the COVID-19 shutdowns, some Democratic-run states decided to mail ballots to ever registered voter on their voter rolls.
Had they taken the time to clean those voter rolls? Did they send ballots to deceased voters and old addresses? Who cares?
Cleaning voter rolls is a form of suppression minimizing access.
But it gets worse.
Throughout 2020, Democrats around the country changed election laws, ignored deadlines, and announced new and untested mechanisms for distributing and collecting ballots.
They took little care to determine whether their new laws were enacted appropriately: Were courts usurping the rights of legislators? Were legislators stepping into the role set for governors?
No one knows.
All of these procedures were designed by people who ran a disastrous 2020 primary season.
Remember the Iowa Caucus? How many weeks did it take to declare a winner?
Iowa was hardly alone. Though most of America lost interest in the primaries once the COVID-19 shutdowns began, the Democrats encountered difficulties in state after state after state.
The end result is that the country has been flooded with ballots, providing “access” to eligible citizens, ineligible aliens, activists, and foreign powers alike.
It’s hard to imagine a system more prone to fraud than one with untested procedures, zero attention to integrity, and a sole objective of maximizing “access.”
Why would the Democrats devise such a system?
The answer is easy.
They plan to manufacture fraudulent votes. Democrats have been operating overtime pushing a story that no one believes — that the country is prepared to reject the peace, prosperity, and competence of the Trump administration in favor of a seemingly out of it, lackluster, career politician and the radicals for whom he provides cover.
Even the polls they tout as proof concede that respondents who favor Trump either refuse to participate or lie in their responses.
Their most recent gambit — claiming preemptively that a Trump victory can arise only through suppression despite almost certain turnout — is just as pathetic.
There’s little doubt that Donald Trump would win a free and fair election.
The question is whether he can clear the combination of legitimate Democrat votes and fraud. The Democrat’s capacity for fraud is not unlimited. It needs to be targeted and measured carefully, or it will become far too obvious to stand.
It’s been planned for months, however, in the hopes of generating a contested election to be decided among bureaucrats and judges — groups in which Democrats enjoy far greater popularity than they do among voters.
All told, the key question as we head into Election Day is simple: Can Donald Trump clear the margin of Democratic fraud?
Dr. Bruce Abramson is a Principal at JBB&A Strategies, a Director of the ACEK Fund, a founder of the American Restoration Institute and the author most recently of American Restoration: Winning the Second American Civil War. Read Bruce Abramson’s Reports — More Here.
© 2020 Newsmax. All rights reserved.