To Win Trump Only Needs the Supreme Court to Fashion a Cover Story, Not a Binding Decision

What Trump needs the Supreme Court to do in order to win a vote in the House is not what most commenters think Trump needs.

The common assumption is that Trump requires the Court to endorse something to the effect of –

“Biden? Biden really does suck; and because he sucks we rule that Trump is the winner of the states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada.”

That is the misperception.

What Trump actually needs the Supreme Court to find is nothing more complicated than –

A)  The Supreme Court rules there was enough vote fraud (and/or illegal/unconstitutional breaches of election laws) in most, if not all, of the contested swing states to throw the result into doubt.

B)  The Supreme Court blesses the state legislatures in question to review the evidence of fraud in their own state and decide by themselves what remedy they want to pursue, while the Court itself declines to issue a remedy of its own – presumably out of concern that it wants to be involved in the Electoral College process and keep the process moving to the next phases through the states and Congress but without being remembered as the last body in the process that (officially…) put an end to Biden’s Presidential hopes.

The difference between these two, potential, rulings is that a finding that Trump is the winner of the swing states would be a legally binding decision by the Court.

This would be nice, but is unnecessary.

All that is necessary is for the Court to rule there was fraud and the state legislatures must decide for themselves what remedy to pursue.

This course of action would sound serious, but, in reality, not be legally binding at all.

It simply restates the fact that state legislatures can ignore the vote tallies in their state if they suspect fraud and select a different set of Electors.

But the states already have this power enshrined in the Constitution!

The Court reminding state governments of this right, and deferring a remedy to the states, changes nothing legally because this is already the Constitutional process.

What would change is that, by endorsing Trump’s accusations of fraud, the Court would (perhaps unintentionally?) be creating a cover story for GOP state legislatures to justify sending Republican electors despite official vote totals.

GOP state legislators must be, more or less, in sync with their GOP voting base.

Should their GOP base see their new, shiny, Conservative Supreme Court of their dreams rule definitively (“definitively” at least as far as Republicans are concerned…) that their prior assumptions were correct all along and there was decisive vote fraud, then the pressure on state legislators from Trump and their GOP base to appoint Republican electors would be overwhelming, regardless of what state legislators would privately think.

And this process would all be initiated by the Supreme Court issuing a legally non-binding finding of voter fraud; non-binding because they would be delegating the authority to remedy the situation to the state bodies which the Constitution has already authorized to act as a defense against vote fraud!

Even if the Supreme Court invalidated/voided the results in one or two states (most likely Pennsylvania on Equal Protection grounds and Georgia on grounds that state election laws were ignored) this would just cycle back the decision on a remedy back to the state legislatures.

A Friendly Thanksgiving Day Public Service Message to the Supreme Court from Pragmatically Distributed

Giuliani’s message to Pennsylvania’s Republican state legislators – which was that if you don’t punish the Democrats for unprecedented mail/absentee ballot fraud they will do it again and be coming for you next time- applies every bit as much to all six Republican Supreme Court Justices.

If the Supreme Court lets the Democrats get away with using a mail in ballot system that is wide open to fraud opportunities because of minimal security safeguards, extremely dubious ballot harvesting methodology, and with the newly lowered security standards for traditional absentee ballots (which, historically, were already  relatively easy to compromise) then the Democrats will use this “black box balloting” to steal the Senate in Georgia with mail ballot fraud and then the newly Democratic House and Senate will pack the Supreme Court immediately in 2021 with behind the scenes approval from a Biden Administration.

And should the Democrats fail to take the Senate by stealing it in Georgia’s special elections next January, they will definitely steal the Senate and expand their House majority in 2022 with the mail ballot fraud they used in 2020.

Like the Pennsylvania state legislators Giuliani spoke to, the six GOP Justices should not assume that the Republicans will take the House and keep the Senate in 2022 (or even 2021); not with a guarantee that the Democrats will use mail ballot fraud again if they get away with stealing the Presidency this year.

Granted, the six GOP Justices do not have to worry about being voted out via rampant mail ballot fraud like Republican Senators, Representatives, and local GOP officials will if the Supreme Court fails to act.

But they will be left irrelevant when court packing dilutes the power of their votes, and erases the current GOP Supreme Court majority.

Unless they want court packing to erase their perks as Supreme Court Justices as soon as Spring of 2021, or January of 2022 at the latest, they should make sure their rulings on the election smack the Democrats down thoroughly.

The future of their judicial prestige & power depends on their enthusiastically taking up Giuliani’s advice to punish the Democrats.

The Legal & Constitutional Implications of Low Mail Ballot Rejection Rates

The low rejection rates for absentee and mail in ballots look like they can, quite simply, explain everything in terms of 2020 voter fraud.

The rejection rates for 2020 are at least 90% lower in swing states than in previous midterm and Presidential election cycles.

Continue reading “The Legal & Constitutional Implications of Low Mail Ballot Rejection Rates”

Punting the Electoral College Vote to the House

Because this all so much fun, the battle for the Presidency continues for entertainment purposes.

The best path for Trump (short of reversing counts in a number of states) is to maneuver the legal fight to a point where the Presidency is settled by a vote in the House of Representatives. Because the vote would be organized by grouping the Representatives into their respective state delegations, the winner would be whoever wins 26 out of 50 state delegations in the House (not a simple majority vote of the House).

Since Republican Representatives make up a majority in 26 out of 50 state delegations, the vote would probably go to Trump.

To map out the best way to get a House vote, we’re going to break down his paths into their components, the actors involved, and the points of friction that need to be overcome.

Continue reading “Punting the Electoral College Vote to the House”

Trump Will Win Reelection

Tomorrow Trump will carry Florida, Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina, and Arizona by comfortable margins. Those states looked reasonably good three weeks ago on October 8th; and every trendline since has shown Trump fortifying his standing with all of them.

What will put Trump over the top in the Electoral College will be GOP wins in both Pennsylvania and Michigan.

The dynamic working in Trump’s favor in those states is that they will not follow a pattern most other battlegrounds will.

In other states, Republicans will vote Republican and Democrats will vote Democratic.

However, in Pennsylvania and Michigan Republicans will vote Republican but Democrats will not vote Democratic by the same margin as Democrats will be elsewhere.

Biden’s history of favoring outsourcing to China, his facilitating financial deals between Hunter Biden and Chinese officials and businessmen, and Biden’s pro-Green and anti-carbon energy policies will reduce normal Democrat margins among blue collar Democrats in those two Rust Belt states.

Previously, Michigan looked good for Trump.

Today, the fundamentals make Michigan still look good because it is more attuned to Protectionist messages, and suspicious of pro-China politicians, thanks to Michigan’s economic vulnerability to outsourcing.

But as of today, Pennsylvania looks even better.

The first reason is that Pennsylvania’s election day vote will be proportionally higher compared to other states where absentee ballots are more common as a percentage of total votes.

Because the election day vote will matter relatively more than in other states, Pennsylvania voters who were already wary of outsourcing will have had more time to fully adsorb the Hunter Biden scandal (which was, unintentionally, magnified in importance by the media trying to suppress the story in The New York Post).

Trump (as he is elsewhere) also has momentum in Pennsylvania, suggesting undecideds are breaking for Trump. Granted, some of the poll tightening is because pollsters have stopped overweighting Democrats like they did in early October; but not all of the tightening is explained by more realistic sampling methodology.

Some of this tightening is because undecideds are actually breaking for Trump in the final week.

With Trump outworking Biden, and outsmarting Biden in the Rust Belt, Trump will take Pennsylvania and Michigan to win reelection.

Trump & The RNC Should Put Their Election Lawyers on Standby

Now that Barrett has been seated, lawyers for Trump and the RNC should be put on high alert for any election “rule bending” by Liberal judges in any of the swing states.

True, Barrett was not my first choice to replace Ginsburg. I’m still worried she will go moderate as time goes on. However, she was mentored by Scalia, so if she does goes soft it probably won’t happen for years, maybe decades, down the road.

If she does, that is a problem for the future.

Today, the expression “the future is now” is never more applicable than the final week of a Presidential campaign.

As of today, Barrett’s confirmation has given Republicans a 6-3 advantage on the Supreme Court.

The timing for this partisan tilt couldn’t be better for Trump just a few days before an election where he can be 100% certain every Liberal judge with jurisdiction in every single swing state will try to bend state and federal election laws in favor of the Democrats.

The job for Republican election law attorney’s (at least through and during election day, and possibly for weeks afterwards) is to monitor and challenge any and all past, present, or current legal rulings on election law of a questionable nature with requests for emergency injunctions by the Supreme Court.

With Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch owing Trump their jobs, and with Thomas and Alito having impeccable Conservative credentials, there is every reason to believe the GOP can win any emergency injunction request with plausible justification by at least 5-4.

And with Democrats threatening to expand the Court, it is possible that Roberts will also be inclined to join emergency injunctions for fear that his vote as Chief Justice would be diluted on an expanded Court.

Trump Should Order The Military To Monitor Iran for a Pre-Election Surprise Attack

By a “surprise attack” I do not mean monitoring Iran for sending spam emails and Facebook posts that will influence no US voters.

I mean putting the US military on extra high alert for a real, military and/or terrorist, attack.

Because the election stakes are so high for Iran they would be willing to endure the significant counterattack Trump would retaliate with, even if Iran knew Trump would respond by striking multiple Iranian targets like their nuclear program, naval forces, and senior Iranian political officials.

Since the Iranian objective behind a pre-election attack would be political, not military, in nature, they will probably go after high profile military targets to embarrass Trump as much as possible ahead of the vote.

Potential “high visibility” targets would include (but are not limited to) a US aircraft carrier, the Naval Headquarters for the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, US airfields, US military bases, or some other US warship besides a carrier.

The odds of a conventional attack (most likely with Iranian ballistic missiles, possibly naval forces) are about equally as good as a “non-conventional” terrorist attack.

They may even prefer a conventional attack since it can be organized faster and their last missile attack against Saudi oil fields was unexpected because the Iranians used conventional forces directly against another country: The Saudis associated Iranian military strategy with terrorism so closely that the Kingdom deployed its anti-missile defenses towards its Southern border with Yemen.  When Iran launched its missile attack, Saudi anti-missile systems were caught out of position to attempt an intercept.

A large missile attack on a single, or handful, of high profile US targets could be pulled off if multiple Iranian missiles are fired at once because that would overwhelm American anti-missile systems.

Trump should try scaring Iran away from a military strike by warning them he is monitoring them closer than ever.  If Iran believes an attack would be broken by US air and missile strikes before Iran was ready to strike, it should scare off Iran from doing anything before the election.

But if the military detects that Iran is preparing to attack despite Trump’s warnings, Trump should not wait for Iran to shoot first because when they attack they may go so big at a high profile target that it would overwhelm any American anti-missile systems.

Instead Trump should order the military to destroy the attack completely before Iran can fire at any US forces, and before they can make Trump look weak on election day.

Polls Show A Jump Ball & Turning Kamala and Biden into a Single Composite Candidate

State polls look reasonably good for Trump. Good enough to be considered indicators of a 50-50 race in the Electoral College.

The national polls dipped for Trump only because of news he tested positive for coronavirus.

But that dip won’t last because the news was about a surprise event that isn’t clearly related to anything people will vote on.

Whenever there is a surprise election event that isn’t clearly tied to a factor in voter’s decision making, the polls swing erratically.  Eventually it could work to Trump’s advantage because it shows that his Administration is bringing powerful new treatments for the virus onto the market.   But it will take time for voters to make sense of it.

Since Trump looks like he is well on his way to recovery thanks to these breakthrough treatments the impact it had on the race will probably fade in, more or less, a week.

The first debate appeared to change nothing for either candidate.

Battleground polls, however, have been fairly stable.

Whatever the average for each state is in the RCP average I would add +2 points net for Trump as a cautious estimate to account for the effect of “shy Trump voters” and the general polling tendency to overweight Democrats.

Using a net 2 point adjustment for Trump the President looks to be in good shape in Florida and North Carolina. Arizona has been steadily improving to a point where I think it can be considered tied.

That leaves the Rust Belt swing states as the tie breakers. Trump remains only a few points behind Biden in Pennsylvania. If Trump is within striking distance of Biden in Pennsylvania then Trump is probably safe in Ohio because it is usually 4 to 8 points more Republican than Pennsylvania. Michigan looks almost as good as Ohio, and Wisconsin is within Trump’s reach.

To get over the top, Trump should turn his focus on turning Biden and Harris into a single composite Democratic candidate that combines the worst policy weaknesses of both candidates, while ignoring their strongest policy positions.

Trump should continue attacking Biden for outsourcing industry and medical supplies to China (especially because the outsourcing issue has eroded Biden’s standing in the Rust Belt), his senility and the risk of him handing power to an incompetent Harris, flip flopping on fracking, as well as continue going after Biden’s crooked deal making for his drug addled son, Hunter.

Outsourcing is not much of a weakness for Harris because she opposed the TPP while Biden supported it.

To further raise Biden’s personal negatives Trump should bring up the Benghazi fiasco and pin that disaster on Biden being asleep at the wheel.

Biden’s strength was that he isn’t easily linked to radical Left rioters because Biden was never known for having firm ideological convictions.

But Harris is associated with the far Left wing of the Party.

Therefore, Trumps should start emphasizing Harris in his attacks by pointing she is linked to far Left policies on climate, her weakness and incompetence which was put on display by Mike Pence, crime, California blackouts, rioters, California homelessness, etc, etc, and just about any other far Left issue that Trump can’t clearly pin on Biden.

Emphasizing Biden on the issues where Biden is weakest and Harris is strongest, while emphasizing Harris on issues where Harris is weakest and Biden is strongest, will have the effect of turning Biden and Harris into a single, composite candidate that combines the worst weaknesses of both politicians.

For the Debate Trump Should Turn Every Coronavirus Question Into An Answer About China’s Threat to US Medical Supply Chains

Chris Wallace left out China from the debate topics for a reason.

The issue of how outsourcing America’s supply chains to China threatens US economic and security interests damages Biden’s support in the crucial Rust Belt states because he has spent decades being a pro-outsourcing China apologist.

The more Trump brings up Biden’s well documented coziness with Beijing, NAFTA, and the TPP, the more Biden is hurt in the Rust Belt where the race has been tightening faster than it did in 2016.

Continue reading “For the Debate Trump Should Turn Every Coronavirus Question Into An Answer About China’s Threat to US Medical Supply Chains”

Pass on Barrett Because She Isn’t Bitch Enough

In addition to being an ideologically Conservative woman (assuming a man is ruled out), whoever the nominee turns out to be should be a concrete wall who will not entertain emotional appeals from Liberal attorneys, i.e, the nominee should be a complete, and total, bitch.

Bitchiness is called for because the bitchier the nominee is the less likely they are to “grow” on the bench as the media softens them year after year with emotional appeals, as has happened too many times with male GOP Justices like Roberts and Kennedy.

Judges Joan Larsen, Allison Rushing, Barbara Lagoa, and Allison Eid all look bitchy enough to ignore Liberal emotional appeals.

Continue reading “Pass on Barrett Because She Isn’t Bitch Enough”