The Washington Post has taken fearmongering to a whole new level, projecting that all election scenarios but a Joe Biden landslide will result in violence and chaos in the streets.
Georgetown University professor Rosa Brooks authored the Thursday article titled, “What’s the worst that could happen? The election will likely spark violence — and a constitutional crisis.”
The “experts” gathered by the Transition Integrity Project (co-founded by Brooks) war-gamed what they determined to be the four most likely scenarios.
They were “a narrow Biden win; a big Biden win, with a decisive lead in both the electoral college and the popular vote; a Trump win with an electoral college lead but a large popular-vote loss, as in 2016; and finally, a period of extended uncertainty as we saw in the 2000 election.”
“A landslide for Joe Biden resulted in a relatively orderly transfer of power. Every other scenario we looked at involved street-level violence and political crisis,” Brooks wrote.
TRENDING: Washington Post Promises Catastrophic Violence if Biden Does Not Win
It’s almost like the group was trying to both create a self-fulfilling prophecy and generate fear within the American public of a Trump second term.
The experts who played out the Republican side in the Transition Integrity Project’s war game rank among the most vocal of the NeverTrumpers, including conservative commentator Bill Kristol and former Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele.
On the Democratic side, participants included former Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, former interim Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazile and former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm.
What do all these people have in common? They hate Trump, and they assume the worst about him.
Do you think Trump will win in November?
The people engaging in violence right now are left-wingers like Black Lives Matter activists and members of antifa.
The Washington Post painted a hypothetical in which Trump refuses to step down, citing his refusal to say whether he’ll honor the election results.
Instead of holing himself up in the White House as The Post suggested, however, Trump has simply said he may have to challenge the outcome legally.
Remember the 2000 election? Al Gore conceded and then pulled back his concession to George W. Bush and a legal battle ensued.
Hillary Clinton has yet to accept the 2016 election results, consistently casting doubt on Trump’s win. The Obama administration foisted Russiagate on the country.
Obviously, I’m not advocating Trump do anything of the sort, but he is wise to keep his powder dry regarding the possibility of challenging the results, especially given the mail-in voting irregularities seen in New Jersey and New York this past spring and summer.
A judge has ordered a new election in the case of the former because fraudulent mail-in ballots were discovered.
More one in five mail-in ballots were rejected in New York City during the state primary in June. It took six weeks for election officials to declare a winner in three contests.
The New York Times raised red flags based on these elections in a piece published last month titled, “Why the Botched N.Y.C. Primary Has Become the November Nightmare.”
Trump has repeatedly and rightly raised his concerns about the integrity of the election in states adopting universal mail-in voting, when ballots are automatically mailed to every registered voter on the rolls, whether requested or not.
Attorney General William Barr echoed those concerns in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday, saying the U.S. has never undertaken such widespread use of mail-in ballots, as opposed to a limited number of absentees, when the voter requests the ballot.
“This is playing with fire,” Barr said.
“We’re a very closely divided country here,” he continued. “And people have to have confidence in the results of the election and the legitimacy of the government, and people trying to change the rules to this methodology, which, as a matter of logic, is very open to fraud and coercion, is reckless and dangerous.”
AG Barr drops the hammer on universal mail-in voting.
“You think that’s the way to run a vote?!” pic.twitter.com/YaUJ5iRHkM
— Elizabeth Harrington (@LizRNC) September 2, 2020
Barr explained that what some states are proposing doing is mailing ballots “to everyone on the voter list when everyone knows those voter lists are inaccurate.”
“Do you think that’s a way to run a vote?” the attorney general asked Blitzer.
Last year, California agreed to remove up to 1.5 million inactive voters from its rolls following a lawsuit by Judicial Watch’s Election Integrity Project, KNBC-TV reported.
The suit alleged that in Los Angeles County alone, those registered to vote represented 112 percent of the entire adult population.
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said at the time that there are 3.5 million more names on various county rolls across the nation than there are eligible voters.
Conservative commentator Deroy Murdock, using Judicial Watch data, calculated following the 2016 election that there were 462 counties across the U.S. in which voter registration exceeded 100 percent of the adult population.
States that do not have safeguards in place for mail-in voting are inviting fraud.
Here in Arizona (where approximately 80 percent of people vote by mail), I received a notification in the mail from the county asking me whether I would like my ballot mailed to me or I would like to vote in person, both for the primary and general elections.
I mailed in my response. A ballot wasn’t automatically sent to my address (as is happening in multiple states, including New Jersey), with elections officials having no idea whether I still lived there or was even still a resident of the state.
The Trump campaign has rightfully sued New Jersey and Nevada over their plans to implement mass mail-in voting for this election.
The surest way to invite civil unrest is if people do not have confidence in the vote.
I’d like to offer one more scenario to The Washington Post, given how wrong the media was in 2016: a Trump landslide.
There will probably still be protests as there were after his first win, and maybe with some violence this time, but government of, by and for the people will be preserved.
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
