Category: 2020 Election

Let’s just imagine all of the challenges to the election turn up nothing that would justify an overturn of the results. That would mean on January 20th we’d be watching the inauguration of Joe Biden as the 46th President. What will the Republicans do?

I’m not talking about what they might do on that day. Let’s think for a bit about what the next four years might look like. The 2020 election has provided fertile ground upon which Republicans can spend the next four years doing to Joe Biden what the Democrats did to Donald Trump and George W. Bush.

For four years, Democrats and their media allies trumpeted every claim, no matter how baseless or crazy, that Trump’s 2016 election win was illegitimate and fraudulent. Despite zero evidence that so much as a single vote was interfered with, Democrats peddled the hoax that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to elect Trump. Even after the Mueller investigation exonerated Trump and his campaign from the collusion scenario, Democrats, led by the shameless Adam Schiff, continued to allege collusion. Their simple goal was to undermine and delegitimize the Trump presidency. It clearly worked to the degree it appears that some voters turned their backs on Trump even as they voted Republican down-ballot.

As Biden’s razor-thin win in a handful of states that pushed him past the 270-electoral vote threshold needed to win the presidency, Trump and his allies claimed that voter fraud and other Democrat-led schemes stole the election. Unlike the bogus Russia bunk, however, there are documented voter fraud issues and other unexplained results that call into question the election. For example, one analysis found that Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton in every major city except, conveniently, Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia and Atlanta. Because of this and other election oddities, a significant chunk of voters don’t believe Biden actually won the election. He’ll now spend four years governing an America in which just under half of its citizens believe he wouldn’t have won had everything been done fairly and squarely.

Though he managed to get far more done than people give his team credit for, Trump governed under a dark cloud for most of his presidency. His team had to waste precious time and energy defending him against the Mueller investigation with its plethora of Democratic hitman lawyers and corrupt FBI personnel. The media aided this assault by running stories over the last four years based on anonymous sources, most of which ended up being false. That in itself did serve a purpose: it revealed that the current crop of journalists are not journalists at all. No president has had to undergo so thorough an investigation on such thinly-sourced claims. Trump may be lots of things, but he is as patriotic and faithful to America as any man who ever occupied the Oval Office.

Let’s be totally honest: implementing mail-in balloting in the U.S. is akin to asking a six-time convicted pyromaniac to run a fireworks stand by himself during the July 4th holiday period. Each invites wrongdoing that often result in illegal activities that can reap deadly results.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the inherent cautious moving about towns and cities was the perfect facilitator for those who saw an opportunity to find voting opportunities with which to impact election results. After all, Americans have known for years just how dangerous mail-in voting can be.

The nonpartisan 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, noted among its many findings and recommendations that because it takes place outside the regulated environment of local polling locations, voting by mail creates increased logistical challenges and the potential for vote fraud, especially if safeguards are lacking or when candidates or political party activists are allowed to handle mail-in or absentee ballots.

Even with this dire warning, Nancy Pelosi and others in the Democrat Party raced toward massive mail-in voting for the 2020 election using the COVID-19 pandemic and its inherent threats to those who vote in person as an excuse. Numerous states (mostly Democrat led) fell in line with Pelosi’s call for vote-by-mail, all the while ignoring the warnings from her Democrat Party buddy Jimmy Carter  about potential voter fraud.

The fact that today we are hearing of documented cases in the thousands of voter fraud November 3 and in the days that followed seems to bear out those 2005 warnings from the Commission for Election Reform. This rush to throw the entire election process into mass chaos in just a few short months hint that there just may have been surreptitious purposes for the Democrat Party push.

Thursday’s press conference with the Trump legal team and the one hour plus trove of information documenting massive voter fraud and ballot manipulation appears to confirm former President Carter’s concerns with mail-in voting.

But seldom is anything in politics brand new — even massive voter fraud and vote manipulation. So we looked back at the history of U.S. voter fraud. Boy, were we surprised at what we found! We thought we’d share a few cases with you to put what we are now facing in context. And, believe it or not, courts have actually tossed elections out the window over voter fraud in elections.

Plenty of Historical Voter Fraud for Everyone

Here are 15 instances in which courts threw out an election result based in whole or in part on absentee voting fraud, from The Heritage Foundation’s database and other sources.

• In one of the most high profile cases, the North Carolina Board of Elections decertified the outcome of the 2018 race in the 9th Congressional District and ordered a new election after evidence of absentee ballot fraud emerged. About 61% of all mailed votes were cast for Republican candidate Mark Harris over Democrat Dan McReady, although only 16% of those requesting a ballot were Republicans. In the new election, Republican Dan Bishop stepped in as the party nominee and won.

• In 2018, Dennis Jones beat Tracy Gray by one vote in a Republican primary in Texas for a seat on the Kaufman County Commissioners Court. Gray challenged the outcome, alleging a vote harvester submitted illegal mail-in ballots, while eligible provisional ballots went uncounted. After a hearing, a state judge invalidated the results and ordered a new election, which Gray won by 404 votes.

• In another 2018 Texas case, Armando O’Cana seemingly won a run-off race for mayor in Mission, Texas, beating incumbent Norberto “Beto” Salinas. But after strong evidence emerged that O’Cana’s campaign had bribed voters, tampered with absentee ballots, and improperly “assisted” voters at the polls, state Judge J. Bonner Dorsey invalidated the result, saying: “I hold or find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the number of illegal votes was in excess of 158.”

• In 2017, Eatonville, Florida Mayor Anthony Grant was convicted of a felony charge of voting fraud and misdemeanor absentee voting violations. Prosecutors said that as a candidate in 2015, Grant coerced absentee voters to cast ballots for him. In at least one case, prosecutors said, Grant personally solicited an absentee vote from a nonresident. Grant, a former mayor, lost the in-person vote but won the election with more than twice the number of absentee ballots that incumbent Bruce Mount got. After Grant’s indictment, then-Gov. Rick Scott suspended the mayor. After his conviction, he was sentenced to 400 hours of community service and four years’ probation.

This case was more than a decade after the Florida Department of Law Enforcement concluded: “The absentee ballot is the ‘tool of choice’ for those who are engaging in election fraud.”

This 1998 report came after the department concluded an investigation of Miami’s mayoral election the year before. A judge had thrown out the result after prosecutors brought  a massive fraud case that involved more than 5,000 absentee ballots.

• In 2017, an Alabama state judge reversed the result of a race for Wetumpka City Council in which incumbent Percy Gill appeared to have won by three votes. Gill’s opponent, Lewis Washington, contested the outcome. A trial showed eight absentee ballots cast for Gill either had a forged signature or weren’t notarized or signed in front of the requisite number of witnesses.

• In the 2016 race for mayor of Gordon, Alabama, Elbert Melton won by just 16 votes. Melton later was convicted on two counts of absentee ballot fraud and removed from office. He was sentenced to a year in prison and two years’ probation.

• In 2016, Missouri state Rep. Penny Hubbard won the 2016 Democratic primary in the state’s 78th House District by just 90 votes. Her opponent, Bruce Franks Jr., contested the outcome over a lopsided absentee vote tally. Judge Rex Burlison ruled that enough improper absentee ballots were cast to change the results and ordered a new election. Franks won by 1,533 votes.

• In 2016 in Texas, former Weslaco city commissioner Guadalupe Rivera pleaded guilty to one count of providing illegal “assistance” to a voter in a 2013 race he won by 16 votes. Rivera admitted filling out an absentee ballot “in a way other than the way the voter directed or without direction from the voter.” A judge determined that 30 ballots were cast illegally and ordered a new election, which Rivera lost. He initially faced 16 related charges, but 15 were dropped as part of a plea deal. He was sentenced to a year of probation and ordered to pay a $500 fine.

• In 2015, Fernando Gonzalez clinched a win by 10 votes over Sergio Dias for a seat on the city council of Perth Amboy, New Jersey. After a determination that at least 13 absentee ballots were cast illegally, a state Superior Court overturned the results and ordered a new election. The second time, Gonzalez won by nine votes.

• New York State Assembly candidate Hector Ramirez pleaded guilty to one count of criminal possession of a forged instrument during his 2014 campaign. Prosecutors charged Ramirez with deceiving voters into giving their absentee ballots to his campaign on the false premise that it would submit them. Instead, Ramirez’s campaign inserted his name on at least 35 absentee ballots, prosecutors said. Ramirez initially won, but a recount determined that he lost by two votes. Bronx Supreme Court Justice Steven Barrett ruled that Ramirez could not run for office again for three years.

• In 2014 in Pennsylvania, Richard Allen Toney, the former police chief of Harmar Township, pleaded guilty to illegally soliciting absentee ballots to benefit his wife and her running mate in the 2009 Democratic primary for town council. Prosecutors said Toney applied for the ballots, then had them filled out illegally by individuals who were not expected to be absent on Election Day. The absentee ballot count flipped the primary results, securing a victory for his wife’s running mate. During a subsequent FBI investigation, prosecutors said, Toney attempted to prevent two grand jury witnesses and others from testifying. He was sentenced to three years’ probation.

• After a 2012 federal investigation of a voter fraud conspiracy in West Virginia, Lincoln County Sheriff Jerry Bowman and County Clerk Donald Whitten pleaded guilty to stuffing ballot boxes and falsifying absentee ballots to try to steal a Democratic primary election in 2010. Lincoln County Commissioner Thomas Ramey pleaded guilty to lying to investigators. Bowman and Ramey were involved in helping Whitten get re-elected. He won the primary but a judge overturned the election, tossing out 300 fraudulent ballots.

• One of the more complex cases arose in a rural jurisdiction when the Justice Department brought a civil suit against Noxubee County, Mississippi over a massive absentee voter fraud operation run by the local Democratic Party machine. Prosecutors said notaries paid by the machine took ballots from mail boxes and voted the ballots in place of the intended voters.

On June 29, 2007, U.S. District Judge Tom S. Lee issued an opinion finding that county Democratic Party Chairman Ike Brown worked with the county’s Democratic Executive Committee to manipulate the process. Lee determined that Brown violated Section Two of the Voting Rights Act through racially motivated manipulation of ballots, obtained and improperly counted defective absentee ballots, and allowed improper “assistance” of voters to ensure that his favored candidates won.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. The Justice Department entered into a consent decree with Noxubee County’s superintendent of general elections, administrator of absentee ballots, registrar, and county government to prohibit discriminatory and illegal voting practices and require officials to report such incidents.

“Dozens of contests were overturned there by the state courts,” said Adams, who was involved in the case as a Justice Department civil rights lawyer at the time.

• In 2004, the Alabama Supreme Court overturned the results of a mayor’s race in Guntersville after finding that absentee ballots were cast without proper identification and should have been discarded.

• In the 2003 mayor’s race in East Chicago, Indiana, challenger George Pabey defeated eight-term incumbent Robert Patrick on Election Day, but lost by 278 votes after about 2,000 absentee ballots poured in.

Evidence of voter intimidation and vote buying emerged and the Indiana Supreme Court ordered a new election. Pabey won with 65% of the vote, as detailed in the 2008 book “Stealing Elections” by journalist John Fund. The fraud led to at least seven convictions or guilty pleas in 2008, according to the Heritage database.

Summary

I know, these cases primarily dealt with local and state elections and not federal cases. That makes NO difference in this conversation. Federal elections are conducted as part of and managed within local election systems and by local election personnel. This certainly makes it easier for federal voter fraud because it occurs simultaneously as the local elections are proceeding. That makes it much easier to hide.

The Rudy Guiliana press conference on Thursday was shocking. It is chilling to think that if even 10% of the alleged voter fraud and manipulation is found to be true, this will certainly be the greatest theft of votes and voting criminality in any election in United States history.

The saddest part? I anxiously awaited to see how the media members at that press conference would respond in their news reports. Scarcely a whiff of the overwhelming allegations have been mentioned as of this writing. That serves to confirm exactly what this Mainstream Media have allowed themselves to morph into — nothing more than press spokespeople for the radical left.

Think about this: this alleged wrongdoing was uncovered the night of the election. Real journalists would never standby totally ignoring the thousands of claims and just benignly wait for someone to hand them evidence. True journalists would have rushed to polling offices, demanded interviews with voting officials, and would have harassed poll workers to get facts to either prove or disprove the allegations of rampant illegalities. But not this media. We’ve heard instead numerous on-air dismissals stating over and over “They gave us no evidence — no facts.” That in the wake of this fact: numerous lawsuits have already been filed that each contain reams of evidence and sworn affidavits and are part of the public record that any REAL journalist can access! Not one of these so-called journalists has done so.

What will happen if anything? I have no idea. But even if the court cases complete with depositions, affidavits, and personal testimonies fall short of achieving any real measure of election integrity, one can rest assured this election fiasco will be fully investigated after the fact. There will be numerous stories, documentaries, and books published that will evidence this as the most corrupt election in U.S. history.

Who knows what the outcome will be in the wake of the revelations of voter fraud, vote irregularities, obstruction of legal poll observers at numerous locations and the obvious war to put Joe Biden in office with little regard for the integrity of this presidential election. Let’s just say this: regardless of the outcome there will be at least 70+ million American voters incensed at the results!

What happens if, for some reason, the courts find it is virtually impossible to puzzle through the dozens, hundreds, even thousands of vote issues and deduce a reasonable and constitutional solution?

Is an election “Do-Over” possibly in the cards?

Set The Stage

For all the headlines about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, no hard evidence evidence showed up, at least publicly, showing that President Trump or his team were involved. Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA), though proclaiming dozens of times on national television that he had “uncontroverted evidence that proved beyond any doubt that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to change votes and give him the victory in 2020, never provided Americans a shred of proof there even was such evidence.

But suppose that such evidence did come to light — what would happen if it became clear that Trump or his advisers colluded with the Russians?  This isn’t the only type of wrongdoing the investigations could uncover, but it’s among the most serious because it would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2016 result. So, is there a process for dealing with a finding that in essence invalidates an election?

When it comes to presidential elections, the answer is: not really. The laws and processes around national elections have grown up in a piecemeal fashion over time, with state and local laws governing the administration of presidential elections. And the Constitution itself focuses more on ensuring stability than on administering elections. As a result, there aren’t clear procedures for how to handle questions of legitimacy after the fact — especially when those questions involve the presidency.

Breaking this down requires taking a step back to think about the origins of the Constitution and the problems it was designed to solve. First off, the American presidency is kind of a strange office. It combines the duties of a head of state with duties of a head of government. (Many countries divide those duties — for example, by having both a president and a prime minister.) The Constitution gives the president the power to lead the executive branch — the responsibility to “take care” that the laws are faithfully executed — and places that person in charge of the military(although Congress retains the power to declare war).

After some rocky years under the Articles of Confederation, many (though not all) political leaders were ready to make tradeoffs, allowing a more powerful central government that could ensure stability. That was one of the reasons for having a national executive under the new system — the Articles of Confederation didn’t have a president, which made it harder to enforce laws, deal with rebellions and forge national policy out of the demands of different states. There were a lot of considerations when figuring out how to select the right person for that new role, however. The substantial power of the office meant that the president needed to be a person of competence and character; to be independent from Congress; and to be able to represent the nation and not just a few states or population centers. Selecting such a person through a direct election was out of the question; it was difficult for many of the founders even to imagine a national election, or that attempting one would achieve the intended goals. Furthermore, disputed elections are, by definition, destabilizing, so the Constitution is designed to maximize the chances of a conclusive outcome, particularly for the nation’s most powerful office, the presidency.

The framers gave the Electoral College broad discretion to resolve disputes as it saw fit: The text of the Constitution pretty much says an election is legitimate when the Electoral College says it is. It doesn’t lay out a process for do-overs. Occasionally, courts have ordered new elections for offices other than the presidency after a proven case of fraud or error. (Or gerrymandering — a court in North Carolina ordered new state legislative elections, though this order has been put on hold.) And a Senate election was once redone in New Hampshire because it was too close to determine even with multiple recounts.

But whether this kind of re-do is allowed for presidential elections is a more complicated matter. Some legal scholars maintain that the language in Article II of the Constitution prevents holding a presidential election again, thus putting it beyond the power of the courts to order a re-vote, as they have occasionally done for other offices. Others suggest that there is legal precedent for a presidential re-vote if there were flaws in the process. One instance in which this question arose was the “butterfly ballot” from the 2000 election, which may have caused some voters to choose Pat Buchanan when they meant to vote for Al Gore in Palm Beach County, Florida.

If the 2000 election had taken some different twists and turns, the re-vote question might have come up in a serious way, and it’s not clear what the courts would have decided. At least one federal court has suggested that the courts could order a new election. In 1976, a District Court in New York heard a case alleging voter fraud in several urban locations. The court’s opinion maintained that federal courts had a role to play in ensuring free and fair presidential elections, arguing: “It is difficult to imagine a more damaging blow to public confidence in the electoral process than the election of a President whose margin of victory was provided by fraudulent registration or voting, ballot-stuffing or other illegal means.” This assertion challenged the idea that presidential elections occupy a special category beyond such court remedies. However, in this case, the court didn’t find sufficient evidence that voter fraud had altered the outcome, or even occurred at all. As a result, its claims about presidential elections were not evaluated by higher courts and have never really been tested.

So experts disagree about whether courts can order presidential elections to be held again. That’s not great news for angry people hoping for a do-over. And even if it is constitutionally permissible, there’s much broader agreement that the standard for invalidating an election result and holding another vote is quite high. University of Memphis law professor Steven Mulroy stated that courts will usually entertain this option only if they determine a violation of rules that would change the election outcome. In the case of the 2016 election, this would likely require proving tampering in several states where the vote was close — enough to change the result in the Electoral College. In that case, a few states would vote again, not the entire country, Mulroy said. But this is new territory, and no one knows for sure.

It’s worth noting that the U.S. has been through a number of challenging presidential elections. The 1800 election ended in an Electoral College tie, and some politicians mulled over the possibility of holding a new election. Critics alleged that the 1824 election was decided through a “corrupt bargain” among elites, allowing John Quincy Adams to become president even though he won neither the popular vote nor the electoral vote. The election of 1876 had irregularities (including alleged vote suppression) in several Southern states, and an imbalanced commission ended up handing the Electoral College vote to Rutherford B. Hayes even though he had lost the popular vote. People are still debating John F. Kennedy’s razor-thin margin in 1960, the honesty of the votes in Texas and Illinois that year, and even Richard Nixon’s decision not to challenge the results. And, of course, the 2000 election presented lots of problems — confusing ballots, hanging chads, questions about recounts. Each of these instances was different from the questions hanging over 2016, but they offer some context for how our system handles questions of electoral legitimacy.

Sometimes these questions seriously undermine a presidency, as it did with John Quincy Adams and to a lesser extent Hayes, who had already promised to serve only one term. Other times the noise fades from the public conversation and governing proceeds, fulfilling the constitutional goal of stability rather than months (or more) of electoral disputes.

In most of the historical cases, the main question was how the Electoral College votes would be allocated in each state. Once those have been cast, the case for questioning a presidential election or gauging which side really won becomes a lot more difficult. Of course, the Constitution does have one mechanism for undoing the results of an election: impeachment. That process, however, is focused on individual wrongdoing (or, through a separate process, inability), not electoral irregularities. In that sense, even if collusion revelations were THE reason for Trump’s impeachment (which were NOT the reasons), the process wouldn’t really address the question of whether his election had been legitimate in the first place.

The lack of an established process for reviewing elections points to a larger issue: The structures established by the Constitution assumed a world in which the presidency and the Electoral College were not fully absorbed into a contentious national party system. That vision has long since been replaced by one in which presidential elections are national contests over policy agendas and ideas. The text of our Constitution has never been changed to reflect this reality. Instead, the Electoral College remains the final word on who gets to be president. When it comes to the possibility that the winning side colluded with a foreign power to influence the election outcome, the Constitution doesn’t offer much in the way of a plan.

Summary

It’s simple: there is NO easy fix. In fact, there’s NO real fix at all other than proving (or disproving) the legal votes cast with any votes cast illegally and compute the results. No doubt that process is not going smoothly and clear and accurate results that show who really won may never be validated.

There’s one thing that IS a certainty though. It makes little difference, or maybe NO difference at all, who is declared the winner by whatever group or court. The loser’s followers along with millions of other Americans will be enraged. I can only imagine the actions that voter-consternation with the final results will ignite.

I expect there will be violence, and probably violence that is unimaginable. In that scenario, will anyone win?

Yes, but only the Mainstream Media.

That tells the real story of today’s United States. We’re so divided, so entrenched in political ideology, so diverse in opinion, the Media have pounced on this condition as an opportunity for THEM to enhance their acceptance among the electorate.

Sadly, their doing so only magnifies our differences that will exacerbate uproar that quickly will morph into violence.

Should that occur, we can be certain of one thing: the Media will never acknowledge their role in creating this Armageddon. They will blame the “Orange Man,” a reflex action they’ve used for five years to always deflect blame for everything that goes wrong.

Lesser men would have long ago thrown in the towel.

Trump has never been tagged as a “Lesser man.” And it’s doubtful he would have any problem “fading the heat” should that happen. He’ll just smile and keep on trucking during his second term.

Senator Bernie Sanders has, for decades, promoted Socialism as the alternative to U.S. Capitalism. He is just one political leader in America who has pushed for the U.S. to become more like our European counterparts by “leveling the playing field” economically, socially, healthcare, and politically. But today, Bernie Sanders is far from being alone in this field of younger Americans running for political office at every government level who promote Socialism to replace Capitalism. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is one of those, as are Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA).

For years Bernie Sanders has promoted single-payer healthcare, which is the socialist version. For confirmation of the efficacy of his opposed “Medicare-for-All” national health program, Sanders point to the success of such in Norweigan countries, which Sanders says are socialist nations. Denmark is one such example Sanders gives as a model. However, the Danes apparently have grown weary of Sen. Bernie Sanders insulting their country. Denmark is not a socialist nation, says its prime minister. It has a “market economy.”

But is what Bernie and AOC and “The Gang” really begging for socialism over an ideology even further left: Communism?

Do you know the Difference?

Many Americans believe communism is an abstract concept that only affects faraway nations, without realizing that it has already arrived at our doorstep. Communism has spread in America under names such as socialism, progressivism, liberalism, neo-Marxism, and so on, in a slow process over decades of systematic subversion by first the Soviet Union. Now, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).  This battle for the future of America — and with it, the rest of the world — is now coming to a head in this U.S. presidential election.

This is a conflict that transcends partisanship and party affiliation.

Belief in God has always been fundamental to America. The early colonists fled to the United States so that they could practice their religion freely. The United States was founded on the belief that we are all created equal by God and endowed by the Creator with our rights. The U.S. motto is “In God we trust.” Belief in God and the principles derived from that belief are the fundamental reasons why the United States can enjoy freedom, democracy, and prosperity. That’s how the United States has become the nation it is today. In this great tradition, voting is a sacred duty in which each citizen may take responsibility for who governs. This year, a record number of Americans voted to choose their next leader.

We have since learned that this process has been subverted. Numerous credible allegations of voter fraud have emerged, pointing to a systematic effort to change the election outcome. The far-left and the communist devil behind it — the same force that Karl Marx once described as “haunting Europe” — are using lies, fraud, and manipulation in an attempt to deprive the people of their rights and freedoms. One of the two major U.S. parties, the Democratic Party, is no longer the political party it used to be. Over the decades, it has gradually been infiltrated by the same Marxist ideology that has created the most brutal and repressive communist regimes in history.

Communist ideology, including socialism and its associated ideas, is not a normal ideology. It is the ideology that has caused the unnatural deaths of at least 100 million people.

The communist ideology uses seemingly righteous concepts, such as “equality” and “political correctness,” to confuse people. Its ideology has infiltrated all fields in our society, including education, media, and art. It unscrupulously destroys everything traditional, including faith, religion, morality, culture, family, art, education, law, and so on, and leads people to fall into moral depravity. The foundation stones of the leftist group Black Lives Matter are from Marxism, and their leaders proudly espouse Marxism in their founding documents. (See their website http://www.blacklivesmatter.com)

This is the ideology of totalitarianism, one that drives once-thriving nations such as Venezuela into the abyss and that was able to destroy 5,000 years of culture in China, where people went from a belief in the divine to a devotion to the state. It is the systematic undoing of all that is good that humankind stands for. It is diametrically opposed to goodness, fairness, truth, and compassion.

This has not only undermined people’s spirits and their righteous faith in God but has dragged the American people and all of humankind to the brink of danger.

A Choice Between Good and Evil

This is a conflict that transcends party lines, a battle between whether we as Americans can stay true to our founding principles and follow God’s will or whether we will be subjected to forces that seek to control and destroy our most fundamental rights. America has now come to the brink of falling into a communist abyss.

At the center of this battle is now President Donald Trump, who has clearly said no to socialism and communism and ended decades of appeasement of the Chinese regime by enacting a nationwide effort to counter its influence and infiltration. Trump has confronted the CCP at this critical moment in history. To communist China, the trajectory has been clear: Trump is an American president who values tradition and opposes communism, and as long as he leads, the Chinese regime knows it won’t succeed in its decades-long objective to overthrow America and, with it, the rest of the free world.

We have communist China at our gates, ready to take over. The CCP has carefully studied the U.S. system over the decades and has now successfully taken advantage of our open society and has infiltrated our country.

Internally, we have far-left groups such as Black Lives Matter and Antifa organizing protests and riots. The movement is similar to the CCP’s Cultural Revolution, which destroyed the nation’s cultural heritage and traditions. It is an anti-American movement, just like the Cultural Revolution was anti-Chinese. The core of the movement’s ideology is no different from that of the communist movement in China, and it goes hand in hand with the CCP, ready to subvert America.

The impact of this election is far-reaching. It has made clear to people, governments, and organizations around the world that they must decide whether they stand with the communist devil or with tradition and universal values. More and more people realize that the 2020 U.S. election is not a two-party fight, not a dispute between Trump and Joe Biden, but a battle between tradition ​​and socialism, a battle between good and evil, a battle between the divine and the communist devil.

The Truth About Communism as Compared to Socialism

A Republican congresswoman-elect from Indiana, who originally came from Soviet Ukraine, provided a warning about the movement to bring about socialism or communism in the United States. Rep.-elect Victoria Spartz (R-IN) is the projected winner of Indiana’s 5th District, defeating Rep. Christiana Hale, a Democrat, during the Nov. 3 election, according to projections from numerous outlets. Hale has not conceded.

Spartz was asked, “What do you think led to so many Republican women winning these House seats?” She responded, saying, “If you think about it, my district is really a snapshot of America,” Spartz said. “We have urban, suburban voters, rural voters. We have a lot of women. And I’m a mother of two daughters. I’m a suburban woman, and I think if you look at that, I’m really hoping to see that the majority of people in our country don’t believe in socialist utopic ideas the Democrat party is now promoting.”

She said that “women believe in the future of their children,” adding that they also “care about the good economy, jobs, education, public safety, having good health care, and they trust that Republicans can deliver it. So I’m very honored to see that. That is a testament to that.”

Spartz, 42, said she grew up in the Socialist Republic of Ukraine, which was controlled by the Soviet Union. She eventually left Ukraine for the United States about 20 years ago, marrying an American.

“I grew up in a socialistic country. It actually was the Socialist Republic of Ukraine. I grew up in socialism,” she said.

Spartz then issued a stark warning to those who have embraced socialism.

“I saw what happens when it runs out of money,” she said. “And it’s not pretty. And now I came to America 20 years ago with a suitcase after meeting my husband on a train in Europe. He’s a born-and-raised Hoosier, and now we’re building socialism,” she said, referring to leftist U.S. politicians who have proposed socialist policies.

“I’m going full circle,” Spartz said, adding, “I can tell you what is going to be next. It’s unfortunate for me to see that. And that made, as the mother of two daughters, it made me get involved and do something about it because that’s not very good for our country.” Spartz noted that under socialist or communist systems, the government “forces us to be equal” and will use “suppression.” She added, “We have to value our freedoms because we’re the greatest republic that ever existed.”

“Suppression?”

• Do you mean like what we see playing out right now in our Media; our mainstream media outlets refuse to report to Americans ALL that is important for our citizens to know and understand?
• Do you mean like Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter who now pick and choose who can express opinions, which opinions can be expressed at all, and determine who and censor those people chosen to be unworthy to be published?
• Do you mean a government that determines which citizens of which states are allowed to attend church services and which are not; which schools are to be open and which are not; which businesses can be open and which cannot?

All of these are forms of governmental suppression. The federal government, in part, is already controlling a huge majority of our media. Government-funded healthcare “experts” are telling us who should be wearing masks when and where, who should be allowed to exercise certain Constitutional rights and who are not, who can speak freely and what speech is allowed, and in what circumstances.

This already reeks of “suppression,” and nothing like socialism.

It appears we have skipped through the “Socialism Lite” model promoted for so long by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and other leading Democrats. Just as Congressperson-elect Spartz stated with firsthand knowledge, under socialist or communist systems, the government “forces us to be equal” and will use “suppression.”

The forced-actions are bad enough if they stand alone. But in the totalitarian world in which people who live in socialist nations always find themselves, no one is ever equal, and no one ever receives equal justice under the law.

Sadly, that may be where we find ourselves shortly.

Americans have grown accustomed to being told one thing in politics but seeing something totally different. After all, that’s “politics.” But the older I get, the more often it looks as if these promises for and against purported accomplishes for one group or another that never materialize are little more than lies. The polite among us would probably call them something benign like “misstatements” or “unfulfilled expectations.” Come on, Man! They’re nothing but lies. And in the context of four years in office full of such travesties, we can truly call it the “Big Con.”

There have always been con-artists in politics. They exist in every sector of society. But in politics, such tactics are especially deadly. Let’s look at one example of some recent political cons.

“Change”

Barack Obama famously revealed his over-arching intent: to lead the fundamental change in our nation. When we heard him say that, we thought, “That’s just politispeak,” and went along our way, giving it no thought. We probably should have. For with that promise, Obama put in place a craftily disguised plan to slowly but certainly transition this nation from the most extreme yet wonderful example of government “by the People” to a semi-totalitarian government that is “without the People.”

And it almost worked.

Honestly, there were dozens of cons that showed up, played themselves out, then quietly went away after a failure during the Obama Administration’s eight years. They were right in front of our faces, and we just benignly looked away, giving them not a wisp of attention.

• There was that “Shovel-ready job” thing. Remember that one? It took shy of one trillion American tax dollars to prove to Obama and his fleet of fellow conspirators that they could actually pull it off. Of course, the “shovel-ready” jobs proved to be not only NOT shovel-ready, but there were also NO jobs. And that one trillion dollars went in the pockets of an innumerable number of folks often disguised as companies that didn’t get their projects in place so didn’t operate as they planned.
• Then Obamacare was forced down our throats. Once again, Obama showed his minions that the things he said to the American people about this miracle program’s structure would save the U.S. Healthcare System. It would have been another big laugh for the Obama gang if a huge portion of the American public did not see through the sham and began ringing the fraud bell from the start.
• On the international stage, Obama promised he would be the great leader that would mend the wounds foisted on the rest of the World by years of American selfishness and nation-building. He even went on that “apology tour,” which included a speech to thousands of Germans who thought he was the savior of all, bowing before the Saudi King, and apologizing to each leader with whom he met for all the evil actions of our nation’s past leaders.
• He was weak before our foes even though he had promised he would draw a line in the sand in Syria and would not send our military members to die in foreign countries. Syria trampled all over his red line, and American patriots continue to die in the sands of the Middle East.
• Obama despised Israel, its leaders, and its people — so much so that he used American tax dollars to secretly send hundreds of thousands of dollars to fuel an attempt to thwart Prime Minister Netanyahu’s re-election bid.
• Obama cozied up to Putin and gave Iran, the World’s greatest purveyor of terrorism, $150 billion, of which $400 million was delivered secretly at night in cash.

None of this is to say that President Obama did nothing for our nation. He did. Sadly, much of what he did so quietly and stealthily was NOT to enhance our economy, reduce unemployment, create new jobs, reduce welfare rolls, and bring companies back to the U.S., which had abandoned our shores for high tax corporate taxes and oppressive regulations. It was to push forward the “Big Con.”

“Change” Part II

Fast-forward a few years to the completion of the four years of Donald Trump: the “Orange-Man” who everyone laughed at — until he began to summarily beat the old “Big Con” expectations by many of him by systematically doing something few in politics had seen before. What was so different? An American president not only promised to do a bunch of things but did them! What a novel idea.

We won’t chronicle here all of the horrendous battles he fought against foes that were supposed to be fellow Americans during his first term. He discovered how treacherous American politicians are. He didn’t trust many in his administration, but he trusted “too” many.

A week ago, he faced what his millions of followers (and he) were certain would be an easy run into four more years of leading the nation. But he forgot the United States always ready “Big Con” was headed back to D.C. to work its wiles. And “Orange-Man faced the same foe for the second time. He’s learned a few things the hard way.

Lessons From the “Big Con”

Elections don’t make democracies; free and fair elections do. Today, in the midst of our post-election chaos, we find ourselves in a fight for the latter. This election is about far more than Donald Trump, the man, or even his policies. The question is this: either democracy survives or one political party will be allowed to bully, lie, cheat, and steal its way into power. In other words, perpetrate another “Big Con” on the American people.

The stakes, at this moment, could not be higher. Some Republicans are used to losing and meekly conceding defeat. But the President and the largest number of voters for any Republican in American history know that fighting until the end is necessary — and winning is not wrong. For five years, the Democrat party and their allies in the corporate media, the swampy government bureaucrats, and the Big Tech platforms have fought Trump with every weapon at their disposal.

They feverishly repeated every deranged theory that Trump was really a Russian asset operating as Putin’s Manchurian candidate, and then cheered on his impeachment for it. An FBI lawyer altered evidence to spy on a U.S. citizen while texting bragging about his political escapades via Twitter to his colleagues. When, less than a month before the election, Facebook and Twitter outright banned the circulation of a New York Post story involving corruption in the Biden family. Media outlets happily did the same.

The New York Times accused Trump of faking his post-COVID White House appearance with a green screen and using a secret Twitter code to activate right-wing extremists. CNN is now settling libel suits for its role in instigating a vicious social media campaign and physical threats against a Catholic high school kid — all for the crime of wearing a MAGA hat. Remember when Media outlets breathlessly ran with a fake story about Trump killing an entire pond of Japanese koi fish. Yet, they refused to cover the violent riots that broke out across the country this summer? They stood in front of buildings that were literally on fire, claiming the protests were “fiery, but mostly peaceful.” They told us that border walls don’t stop illegal immigration, riots don’t spread COVID-19, but schools and church services do, and Joe Biden would win in a landslide.

Congressional Democrats ran on a platform meant to fundamentally reshape our institutions to reshape the country with a permanent Democrat majority. Packing the Supreme Court isn’t about checks and balances. It’s about establishing permanent Democrat power. Adding D.C. and Puerto Rico as states isn’t about helping those poor Puerto Rican people. It’s about adding four additional Democrat senators. Abolishing the electoral college isn’t about some distorted notion of fairness. It’s about cementing a massive and dominant role for coastal urban centers in selecting our presidents from now on.

Do you envision the “Big Con” yet?

These are the people — the alliance of mainstream media, Big Tech platforms, and a Democrat party hell-bent on snatching and permanently controlling political power for themselves — who want you to believe that the unmonitored vote counting of historical numbers of mail-in ballots, which mysteriously continue to appear from thin air, are completely aboveboard. They want you to listen as they lecture you about “what’s good for the country.” They want you to believe them when they paint every good-faith Republican effort to ensure democratic transparency as fascist tyranny. They want to shame you into meek submission “for democracy.”

Absolutely not. They have not earned our trust, and they do not deserve it. They should be given no political quarter. Yet they continually “assume” we owe them that. After all, they know more than we and therefore are worthy.

It’s just another chapter of the “Big Con.”

This election is about the presidency, yes, but more than any other, it is about who will rule: the militant woke millenials who think “healing America” involves excluding half of it, or Donald Trump, the chaotic TV cowboy who rode into D.C., guns blazing, and accidentally unmasked the political swamp-rot of Washington’s corruption. There’s only one option available for the United States Constitution and its supporters. And it is not the “Big Con.”

The fight of this election is as pragmatic as it is political; it is between a party that will defend our way of life and a party that has every intention of destroying it.

Every legal vote must be counted. Every necessary legal measure must be taken. Not an inch should be given — not just for one side or the other, but to restore a downtrodden and defeated world with faith in the structure and processes of America’s election and governance.

The militant Left that has lied to America countless times cannot be trusted to tell the truth about what’s happening. Open the count, line up observers, ensure every vote cast is a legal one. If there are discrepancies, they must be explained rather than dismissed. Our self-government requires consensus. That consensus is fragile. Without trust at its foundation, it will shatter. The 71 million people who cast a vote for Donald Trump deserve this fact-finding as much as every other American voter.

American voters deserve much more than simply another chapter of the “Big Con.”

Most pollsters show Democratic nominee Joe Biden with a stable lead over President Trump at a time when ninety million people have already voted and there is almost no time to change the course of the race. But a handful of opposition pollsters believe Trump’s support is underrepresented and that election analysts could be headed for another embarrassing miss on Election Day.

The battles have spilled on to social media, where some well-known political analysts have dismissed polls that show Trump leading Biden.

The Trafalgar Group, which was the only nonpartisan outlet in 2016 to find Trump leading in Michigan and Pennsylvania on Election Day, show Trump with small leads in both states, which would be keys to another Trump win in the Electoral College. Nearly every other pollster shows Biden with a comfortable lead.

Trafalgar’s Robert Cahaly says there is a hidden Trump vote that is not being accounted for in polls that show Biden on a glide path to the White House.

“There are more ‘shy Trump voters’ than last time and it’s not even a contest,” Cahaly said, adding that it’s “quite possible” that the polling industry is headed for a catastrophic miss in 2020.

FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver and Cook Political Report editor Dave Wasserman are among those deeply skeptical of Cahaly’s polling.

Both have dug into the crosstabs of Trafalgar polls and pointed to questionable breakdowns as evidence Trafalgar doesn’t know what it’s doing. For instance, the crosstabs in a Michigan poll, which are no longer online, appeared to show Trump leading Biden by 8 points among young voters, a Democratic stronghold.

“Trafalgar doesn’t disclose their ‘proprietary digital methods’ so I can’t really evaluate what they’re doing,” said Jon McHenry, a Republican pollster with North Star Opinion Research. “They’re far enough out on a limb that a year from now, we’ll all remember if they were very right or very wrong.”

FiveThirtyEight’s model gives Trump about an 11 percent chance of winning – roughly equal to pulling an inside straight in poker – after giving him about a 30 percent chance on Election Day in 2016.

Those who think the majority of polls showing Biden with a more comfortable lead than Hillary Clinton had at this point in 2016 note a couple of factors. They say Trump is underperforming — in some cases dramatically — among the key coalitions that powered his 2016 victory. Biden also is a more popular candidate than Clinton.

McHenry said he does not think there are many “shy” Trump supporters who would lie about their intentions. Rather, there is concern about a “skewed response rate pattern,” whereby Trump voters would be less likely to participate in a survey or answer the phone when a pollster calls.

Still, McHenry noted that this wouldn’t be an automatic benefit for Trump. In Pennsylvania, for instance, he found Democrats were less likely to answer the phone than their registration would suggest. “I can’t definitively say there is no response bias, but I’m skeptical of it, and it certainly wouldn’t be enough to explain the national deficits we’re seeing,” he said.

That said, Trafalgar is not the only contrarian voice in polling. Several other pollsters have joined it in arguing that other pollsters are missing pro-Trump voters.

Jim Lee of Susquehanna Polling and Research has been another proponent of the “submerged” Trump voter theory.

A recent Susquehanna survey of Wisconsin found Trump and Biden tied, making it the only poll to not show Biden in the lead in the Badger State since August, when the Trafalgar Group found Trump ahead by 1 point. In Florida, Susquehanna shows Trump leading by 4 points, while the FiveThirtyEight average gives Biden a 2-point advantage.

“There are a lot of voters out there that don’t want to admit they are voting for a guy that has been called a racist, that submerged Trump factor is very real,” Lee said this week on WFMZ’s Business Matters. “We have been able to capture it and I’m really disappointed others have not.”

The University of Southern California’s Dornsife Center is publishing results from its regular national poll but is also asking parallel “experimental” questions asking people who they think their social contacts are voting for and who they think will win their home state. In 2016, USC-Dornsife made headlines for being one of the few polls to show Trump leading nationally. Hillary Clinton ended up winning the national vote and USC later adjusted its methodology, saying it oversampled rural voters in the last election.

This time around, the USC-Dornsife poll shows Biden leading by 11 points nationally.

However, the race tightens to 5 points when voters are asked about their social circles and to 1 point when voters are asked who they expect others in their state will vote for. That survey suggests Trump would once again win the Electoral College in 2020.

USC-Dornsife notes that the social circle question was a better indicator than the “own intention” question in five recent elections, including the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the 2018 battle for the House.

Still, the Santa Fe Institute’s Mirta Galesic, one of the researchers studying the added polling questions for USC, noted that the poll’s state-level findings suggesting Trump will win the Electoral College should be viewed with skepticism.

The USC-Dornsife poll of 5,000 national participants has very small samples in some of the battleground states and could be less accurate than public state polls.

“We anticipate that with such small samples, the social-circle question will produce more accurate state-level predictions than the own-intention question, because the social-circle question may provide more information and smooth out some of the bias of the small state sample,” Galesic said. “But this does not mean that predictions based on the social-circle question will be more accurate than large state polls.”

In addition, Galesic says the social terrain is extremely volatile due to the coronavirus pandemic, making it more difficult to gather reliable data about voter’s social circles, which have shrunk dramatically in recent months.

And Galesic said the specter of 2016 still colors what many voters think they know about how their friends and family will vote in 2020, even if the dynamics have changed dramatically in that time.

“This incites a lot of pessimism among Democrats about Biden’s chances and optimism among Republicans about Trump’s chances,” Galesic said. “It also contributes to the belief that there are some Trump voters that are not accounted for in polls. Taken together, these beliefs could bias social-circle expectations towards a more narrow margin between the two candidates.”

Summary

Let’s sort this “poll-thing” out:

1. In 2016, pollsters showed how little their “science” of polling was “scientific.”
2. Polling companies made tens of millions of dollars providing campaigns at the local, state, and national levels their “expert” data derived from their interactions with voters.
3. The morning of the 2016 presidential election, just one of the 45 top national polls predicted a Trump victory.
4. The same companies using the same or similar polling “science” are back in 2020 making millions conducting the same or similar polls as four years ago, and they are giving their clients and other Americans the same or similar polling results.

They all appear to be wrong again!

We found a polling entity that has called what we think is THE results of tomorrow’s  presidential race. It’s none of the leading national polling companies that have proven their credibility and are therefore known as being the best. It’s not Gallup, Rasmussen, USA Today or Marist. In fact, this entity doesn’t even have a name. But they certainly have their eyes and ears on the pulse of what is happening in the nation and I’m certain they have called the race perfectly.

You may have heard that Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills is completely shut down Tuesday and Wednesday in anticipation of the predicted protests and violence spurred by election results. Every major city is doing the same thing. In fact, many business owners in cities of every size have already begun boarding up their storefronts and windows and will be closed Election Day. In doing so, THEY are making their election predictions.

How so?

These store owners and their company operations are the heartbeat of our nation —   those who work hard, work everyday, and provide to us all the things we need to live. They hear the threats of the Democrat Party minions. Those minions promise that with a Trump win, they will march, protest, demonstrate, terrorize, riot, and loot. Their plan will destroy the livelihoods of millions of those Americans.

Republicans have a history of responding to presidential election results that have not put their candidates in the White House — most recently, Barack Obama twice. Though these same store owner members of the GOP were disappointed and disheartened, they quietly went back to their normal lives in normal fashion and looked ahead while doing their best for all those they serve. There has NEVER been rioting, looting, and terror when a Democrat won the presidency.

They’ve taken their polls. And what they have heard, been told, and see tells them Donald Trump is going to win!

I’ve considered all of those polling entities mentioned above and I think those preparing for the violence are more qualified and more in touch with the nation than are the pollsters and even the Mainstream Media.

To that end, we are about to see deja vu: 2016’s Trump upset of a Democrat opponent with the entire media and polling community choosing Biden to win!

In the countdown to Election Day, the two campaigns are taking drastically different approaches.

Joe Biden is sitting on a lead in the polls, trying to run out the clock, while Donald Trump is making a mad dash for the finish line, selling optimism.

Both strategies make sense — sort of.

Like a football team leading in the final quarter or a basketball team with 2-minutes left goes into a four-corner freeze, Biden’s goal is simply to keep the clock ticking down to zero. Nothing fancy, just avoid mistakes and prevent the other team from getting the ball back.

To avoid those mistakes, Biden rarely leaves his basement. When he does, his goal is less to thrill voters with new policies than to prove he’s still alive and capable of traveling across state lines. He speaks to small crowds and says whatever’s on the teleprompter. He avoids impromptu comments, where he repeatedly makes unforced errors and refuses to hold press conferences, where he might face hard questions.

Avoiding press conferences has been easy. The COVID crisis has been a perfect excuse for Biden and Kamala Harris. Harris has not given a press conference since she was named several months ago. Joe has given very few and almost none recently. The fawning media hasn’t pressed them.

Reporters aren’t demanding answers or making the candidates pay a price for the silent treatment. The reason is painfully obvious. It’s not just that most reporters and media operations consider the Democrats “our ticket.” That’s been true for decades. What’s different now is that they consider this particular Republican a danger to the Republic.

Protecting the country from another four years of Trump in the White House is a more important, more patriotic duty for journalists than their normal job of asking hard questions, demanding evidence and investigating big stories. That’s why, when reporters do get a rare opportunity to ask Joe Biden a question, they toss him softballs. That’s why, when CBS finally asked Harris a crucial question about how progressive she really is, they allowed her to wave it off. She laughed loudly and, in a not-so-funny manner, started talking about her family heritage. For CBS, that was good enough. No follow up. They let stand her answer as a laugh.

Although the media refuse to press Democrats, Trump is not so delicate. He’s campaigning like he’s been handed the ball one last time and is driving for victory. He’s traveling to several swing states every day and holding large, enthusiastic rallies. CNN, MSNBC, and the Biden campaign damn them as “super-spreader events,” underscoring the Democrats’ edge on COVID. By contrast, Trump is using the rallies to emphasize America reopening, its economy reviving and its energy sector secure and free from dependence on Middle Eastern oil. He’s attacking his opponent as “Sleepy Joe” and his family as thoroughly corrupt.

Important as these themes are, Trump’s rallies convey a larger message: America is roaring back and its future is bright. He has adopted Ronald Reagan’s most successful reelection advertisement. To quote from the iconic 1984 TV ad, “It’s morning again in America, and under the leadership of President Reagan, our country is prouder and stronger and better. Why would we ever want to return to where we were less than four short years ago?” That Reaganesque message is what Trump wants the country to see at his raucous rallies.

Joe Biden gave Trump this opportunity when the former vice president concluded the second debate by saying, “We’re about to go into a dark winter.” The attack was hardly new. The problem is that Biden failed to seal the deal by saying that, under him, America’s future would be sunny and upbeat.

Biden’s omission actually reflected his campaign’s central message, which has been almost entirely negative. He hasn’t emphasized his own programs for two reasons. First, he thinks he can win that way because enough people hate Trump — make this election purely a referendum on Trump and his failures. Don’t make it a “me-against-him” battle. Second, the more Biden says about his own programs, the more he alienates either his party’s left-wing base or the centrist voters he needs to capture. The wedge between those groups is obvious now as Biden tries to explain his back-and-forth positions on fracking and the “transition away from oil and gas.” He said one thing in the primaries and another to general election voters. Trump is driving home those contradictions, of course, and folding them into a larger depiction of Joe Biden’s dark future for America: smart move.

Biden’s “dark winter” fumble reinforces the subliminal message of his stay-at-home campaign: we are locked down for a while. We’re frail, feeble, and vulnerable. It’s too dangerous to go back to work, return to school, resume our daily lives. Trump is grabbing that opportunity to say Biden and his party are all doom and gloom. They are going to raise your taxes, kill the energy industry, and unleash a parade of horribles. By contrast, he promises to cut taxes, slash regulations, unleash American energy and manufacturing, sprinkle magic dust and make everything great. He’s energy and optimism. Joe is “I’ve fallen and I can’t get up!”

Americans don’t believe in fairy dust, but they do believe in a brighter future. That’s why David Axelrod’s message for candidate Obama was so brilliant: “Hope and Change.” They wanted voters to “throw the bums out,” but they were smart enough to sugarcoat it with optimism.

That optimism is Trump’s most important theme in the final stretch. Confidence and enthusiasm sugarcoat his angry message of “throw the bums out of Washington, drain the Swamp.”

The overriding questions now are: was Biden right to bet everything on a negative campaign? Can Trump sell his positive message? And is there enough time left on the clock for the embattled president to come back?

Answer: I don’t think Trump needs to come back. I think he never lost the lead!