Adam Creighton has a recent good piece in The Australian arguing, essentially, that Trump got most things right. It’s hard to argue with that. He lists a string of accomplishments which he summarises thus:
‘On these, the biggest domestic policy and geopolitical issues of the past decade, Trump was right or at the vanguard of a new political consensus.’
So far so good. However, he ends the piece with this:
‘Widespread hatred for Trump among political and media elites has obscured the former president’s prescience on a range of issues. That doesn’t make him a good candidate for president in 2024 or validate his highly dubious claims about the 2020 election being stolen. But it’s a salient reminder so-called experts can be, indeed often are, wrong.’
I posted the following comment, which I fully, and correctly as it turns out, expected to be rejected:
‘That doesn’t make him a good candidate for president in 2024 or validate his highly dubious claims about the 2020 election being stolen.’ Great article, Adam, until the above point, which flies in the face of the evidence presented by the myriad the examples which form the basis of your article. However, as you say, ‘But it’s a salient reminder so-called experts can be, indeed often are, wrong.’ Stealing the election didn’t come down to just voter fraud (although there is ample evidence of that), but also the deep-sixing of the Hunter Biden laptop story, social and mainstream media cancellation and so on.
I could also have added that, given his record as detailed by Creighton, why would he not be a good candidate in 2024? Any particular reasons, Adam? A propensity to be vulgar, to tweet excessively, to lie or exaggerate occasionally?
The Australian pretends to be a bastion of free speech, but rejection of my comment gives the lie to that. There seems to be an unspoken consensus amongst almost all conservative commentators that Trump’s claims of voter fraud must always be dismissed.
I recognise that in giving credibility to the claim that the 2020 election was stolen, puts me on the fringe of commentators, but would it come as a surprise to anyone that voter fraud does happen? Most often it would not affect the overall outcome of an election. Notably, it has been credibly claimed that voter fraud gifted JFK his presidency (I don’t intend to argue the merits of this claim here.)
Setting aside the question of whether alleged voter fraud was sufficient to overturn the result, the real question is what are the odds there was no fraud? Miniscule, I would say. It’s very nearly an American tradition and part of every election. Put it this way, if you believe there was no voter fraud, as Piers Morgan naively alleged on Outsiders last weekend, then you are living in cloud cuckoo land. And if that is so, given the incessant vilification of Trump and the unconstitutional amendment of voter regulations, what are the odds the fraud went considerably beyond what one might normally expect?
I have no doubt that fraud and cheating took place. As a general rule, we already know that political machines cheat and lie. We already know the Democrats have done this countless times during the past five years. Why would we think that party apparatchiks in swing states would suddenly recoil at the thought of doing something – anything – underhand?
Some commentators take the line that ‘yes, probably some cheating went on but not on the scale to affect the overall outcome’. Well, if the perpetrators didn’t think they could affect the outcome, why would they bother? It would only take a few thousand votes in one swing state to turn the election. Do we think that is beyond the people who gave us the RussiaGate hoax?
And it would not take a coordinated conspiracy. Just a bunch of independent but like-minded activists – motivated by media to think of Trump as evil incarnate – ‘acting locally’.
Given all that we know about the relentless, outrageous, and sometimes sophisticated, campaign mounted against Trump (including mainstream and social media collusion), is it so far beyond the bounds of possibility that voter fraud tipped the election, that this possibility must not even be mentioned except in disparaging terms?
Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.