RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://amgreatness.com/2020/06/28/trump-will-win-if-he-responds-to-righteous-voter-rage/

The hour of reckoning is here. Either Trump will crush the lawlessness and win swing voters to his side, or he will listen to the trimmers and lose the country.

The 2020 election will be decided in the fall by swing voters in ten or 15 states.

Prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, those voters were leaning to reelect President Trump, largely on the powers of incumbency and a near-record vibrant economy. The Democratic left-wing primary agendas, from the New Green Deal to reparations, the clownish candidates of the Beto O’Rourke and Corey Booker sort, the arrogance and meltdown of Mike Bloomberg, and Joe Biden’s cognitive impairment collectively frightened voters. 

Meanwhile, the booming economy, record energy production, record-low minority unemployment and reckoning with China had overshadowed Trump’s cul de sac tweeting, 93 percent unfavorable media coverage, and the three-year slow-motion coup of the 25th Amendment nonsense, Russian “collusion,” Robert Mueller, Ukraine, and impeachment.

Then came the contagion, the lockdown, the recession, and the collective madness of looting and arson, which in turn led to the present anarchy of statue toppling, cancel culture, name-changing, and McCarthyism 2.0. 

Of course, a president is blamed for chaos on his watch even if he did not create the chaos. He either stops it and is praised as a winner or, like Jimmy Carter during the Iran hostage crisis of 1979-1980, is written off as a loser. 

What Stands Between the Public and Mob Rule?

The hour of reckoning is here and either Trump will crush the lawlessness and win the swing voters to his side, or he will listen to the trimmers and lose the country. Trump’s dilemma, however, is real and in some sense unprecedented. We are in uncharted waters when blue-state officials don’t mind the violent chaos in their midst, or at least feel that in a cost-benefit analysis it serves their November purposes more than a restoration of law and order. 

https://www.city-journal.org/the-case-against-mail-in-ballots

Voting by mail represents progress, we’ve been told; no one should have to leave his home to exercise the franchise. Thus goes the reasoning behind a new law that requires every registered Californian to receive a ballot for the fall election through the U.S. Postal Service. But will convenience voting yield better outcomes? More likely it will make them worse.

Assembly Bill 860, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on June 18, is premised on ensuring safety in the era of the coronavirus. Yet Wisconsinites voted in person in April, and the predicted spike in coronavirus cases from that public assembly never materialized. The state’s caseload did climb, but no steep increase occurred in the days and weeks after the primary, just a steady rise that has continued, partly driven by expanded testing. Apparently the same can be said for the locations where George Floyd marches, encouraged by the media and many public officials, were held. The pandemic, it appears, was a useful crisis—voting by mail has long been a priority among progressives, and the coronavirus outbreak provided sufficient cover to institute it.

Proponents promise that vote-by-mail elections will be corruption-free. Yet we know that in the 2016 elections, as many as 319,000 mailed ballots were tossed out for various reasons, including signatures that didn’t match; that, according to a Los Angeles Times examination, “the preferred way to cheat is with mail-in ballots”; and that absentee ballots, typically submitted by mail, provide the “easiest” path “to commit election fraud.”

Mark Hemingway persuasively argued recently in RealClearPolitics that “a significant increase in mail-in voting this fall could greatly incentivize ‘ballot harvesting’ where third parties collect mail-in ballots on behalf of voters and deliver them to election officials.” Ballot harvesting is a “recipe for mischief and wrongdoing,” says the Heritage Foundation’s Hans A. von Spakovsky. It’s risky, he argues, to let “individuals other than the voter or his immediate family to handle absentee ballots,” because “neither voters nor election officials can verify that the secrecy of the ballot was not compromised or that the ballot submitted in the voter’s name by a third party accurately reflects the voter’s choices and was not fraudulently changed by the vote harvester.”