My grandfather once told me that the only people who make predictions are idiots and insurance agents. He was one of those people who are math-smart. His was implying that that insurance agents have a pretty good idea about what is going to happen to people in the future because of actuarial tables: you know with 100% certainty that someone who is 75 years old is not going to live another 50 years. Beyond that, though... everything is guesswork the only people who think otherwise are idiots.
I am not an insurance agent.
Nevertheless, I believe that the risk of vote fraud is not just a possibility but *likely*. We keep talking about — and praying for — the Blue Wave. But the GOP has shown over and over and over again that they will do anything — anything — to maintain and advance their power. I don’t think the national conversation does not take this into account nearly as much as it should, and that we are in for a rude awakening come November 7.
Without further ado…
November 6: The GOP maintains control of the Senate and the House. Democrats pick up 18 seats in the House: not enough to achieve a majority, but enough to alleviate (most) suspicion. All pro-Russian Republicans win their elections, including Nunes and Rohrabacher. Cruz defeats O'Rourke by 3 points. Democrats gain 3 governorships, but Republicans maintain control of the majority of those offices. Official election results differ from both predictive and exit polls in over a dozen House races, in some cases by as much as 30%, exclusively to the advantage of the GOP.
NPR reports surprise at the results, but makes no mention of possible fraud. Mara Liasson is interviewed extensively and reasonably, placing blame on "less than expected turnout among millenials." The New York Times reports similarly: surprise, but with no implication of criminality outside of the editorial page. Like NPR, they blame turnout, and ignore signs of fraud. The Washington Post and MSNBC discuss possible election fraud, but to little effect. Maddow does in fact find evidence, but this is ignored by the rest of the media, Democrats, law enforcement, and of course Republicans.
Conservative media uses this to further the narrative of polls being useless and science untrustworthy.
November 10: AG Sessions and Deputy AG Rosenstein are fired. Protests are widespread. A new pro-Trump AG is nominated. Similar to the nomination of Justice Kavanaugh the previous September, the new AG is a middle aged white male, a Federalist Society member, and has been accused of sexual assault. He is opposed to both the Mueller investigation and Russian sanctions.
Late November: After a few days of perfunctory hearings, the new Attorney General is approved along party lines by the Senate and sworn in.
Early November: After having been granted certiori in June, arguments for *Gamble v. United States* are heard by the Supreme Court.
Second week of December: Chatter about the "deep state conspiracy" sees an uptick on Fox News, especially in regards to the Mueller investigation. Words like "treason", "coup", and similar become the sole focus of discussions on Fox & Friends, Carlson, and Hannity's shows.
Week before Christmas: By order of the new AG, the investigation into Russian interference is shut down. All reports are marked classified. Protests are widespread.
February 2019: In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court decides in favor of Gamble in *Gamble v. United States*. The concept of separate sovereignty between states and the federal government is now eliminated. States can now no longer bring charges against those who have been pardoned by the President.
Late February: Pardons are issued around the Russia investigation. Protests are widespread. State AGs in New York and elsewhere begin to look into ways to prosecutie some of those pardoned that do not conflict with federal law, with varying -- but limited -- success.