---

So How Much of a Buffer Does Trump Need To Overcome the Gap, If Election Fraud Happens (Again?)

(Steve Welsh - SCW 10.27.24) Polls indicate a surging Trump, on track to win both the Electoral College and the popular vote in the 2024 general election.

After widespread speculation, or surmising, that pro-Democrat election fraud produced the aberrations in the final, highly unusual, "official" 2020 presidential election numbers, 2024 faces an obvious question.

What kind of added buffer, how huge an actual "real-world" lead, would former President Donald Trump need to overcome any repeat of election fraud? How much bigger would his lead have to get, to overcome a false deficit occasioned by pro-Democrat election fraud, this time around?

A simple answer might be that, very loosely speaking, he might need an added buffer of 8 million votes or more, over and above an actual margin of victory, since that was the would-be margin of victory attributed to the Biden-Harris ticket in 2020.

In other words, if Trump, hypothetically won 74 million to 60 million in 2020, he would have needed yet an additional 8 million votes, to win by roughly 22 million, to overcome a hypothetical false gap created by election fraud.

Yet, as demonstrated in Trump's win over Rodham Clinton, the ultimate question would be how the vote totals translated into Electoral College counts. In particular, one would have to see how the vote totals played out in so-called "swing states," where hypothetical election fraud tipped the balance.

One interesting point is that, traditionally, recounts were thought necessary where a race in a particular state or locale was considered so close that any accidental error might have tipped the outcome for that state or locale.

However, the magnitude of the aberration in numbers in the would-be Biden victory, compared with other recent elections, begs the question of whether any hypothetical false adjustments would really have been limited to cases where the official numbers looked close. Given that recounts traditionally are for close races, one would have to wonder whether, in the case of hypothetical stealthy fraudsters, it might have occurred to them to deflect scrutiny precisely by trying to make some situations look as if they were not close.

In other words, there would hypothetically be an incentive to inflate numbers so much, as to cause supporters of the inflated outcome to argue, well, it would not have mattered anyhow, since it was, supposedly, not close.

Perhaps more to the point in an extreme situation, how big a Trump lead would force fraudsters into a scenario big enough for the numbers themselves to prove fraud mathematically.

In 2020, a roughly 94% turnout was implied, to reach the numbers in the "official" results -- a fact not publicized by otherwise detailed Federal Election Commission numbers. Instead the FEC apparently sought to manipulate perceptions by comparing turnout with population figures, rather than registered voters.

The FEC claimed that 158,429,631 votes were cast for President. The U.S. Census Bureau indicates that, in 2020, there were roughly 168,308,000 registered voters in the United States [click here for a direct link to their Excel spreadsheet]. That would mean a eye-poping assertion that voter turnout was 94.13%. Curiously, the FEC, as well as certain other sources, seem to have gone out of their way to avoid admitting that assertion, switching instead to percentages of voting age population while nonchalantly ignoring actual turnout of registered voters.

Fairly recently, presidential election victory generally meant votes for the winner, or each of the leading candidates, in the low 60 millions.

As an aside, that fact, of course, also added to concerns that pro-abortion candidates could never form a morally legitimate government in a democracy, given that the number of persons killed by their policies surpassed the number of votes they received. Even when limited to surgical abortions, that was the case, before adding in massive numbers of chemical abortions.

It would be a bit like Hitler murdering 10 million victims in the Holocaust, getting around 10 million votes, and trying to claim he was some kind of democratic leader.

Yet simply in terms of official results, in 2016, Trump won the Electoral College after receiving 63 million in the popular vote, compared with 66 million for pro-abortion Hillary Rodham Clinton.

In 2020, a wildly popular Donald Trump received at least 74 million votes.

But the claim was made that the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris ticket received an outlandish, almost cartoonish total of nearly 82 million votes. Only something like a 94% turnout among registered voters would have enabled that alleged result to avoid being exposed as mathematically impossible.

There has never been a full nationwide auditing, recount, or explanation.

Of particular interest would be whether any particular locales or states were pushed to

The question about the buffer Trump needs in 2024, to overcome fraud, gets amplified by the apparent failure to unearth sufficient "smoking guns" to explain how, when, and where significant 2020 election fraud would have occurred.

In other words, if they still do not know how the fraudsters did it, how are they going to avoid a repeat of the same?

The failure to fully unearth and proffer adjudicated evidence not only impeded the ability of the legal system to address the matter.

It resulted in a leftist activist "news" media trying to transform the notion of unadjudicated, or unproven election fraud into "unfounded" election fraud.

When they use words like "unfounded" rather than "unproven" the left-wing, activist news media implies that they somehow had first-hand knowledge to attest to the matter, as if they had first-hand eyewitness observations of how the processes were handled, voter by voter.

Also quite interesting is the relative silence by analysts or scholars who otherwise, ordinarily, should have been quite interested in explaining such an unsual result.

If Biden-Harris really did receive such a dramatic shift in voting, of historic proportions, one would have anticipated that that left-leaning academics, analysts and journalists would have enjoyed understanding and explaining how such a massive shift occurred.

Yet instead they seemed to avoid addressing the matter. They seemed to fall back on simply trying to act oblivious and matter-of-fact about the idea that "he won, get over it," as if the nature of the result, and the highly unsual numbers, were something other than bizarre.

Presidential election numbers, going from, on the one hand, 66 million vs. 63 million, to, on the other hand, 81 million vs. 74 million, seemed to be met with a nonchalance akin to "nothing to see here," no need to analyze it or figure it out, by left-wing journalists or academia.

Even if the explanation had been that covid boosted mail-in voting options, that some mail-in voters were more likely to lazy, and that lazy people might like candidates that they think will give more benefits to lazy people, might have been at least some effort to figure out the bizarre mystery.

Yet leftists, including leftists who usually like to pretend that they do a lot of thinking and talking, instead, in this case, seemed to prefer to leave it as a new unsolved mystery, and just move along.

Some observers have found something almost eerie about the nonchalance.

One recalls an old Alfred Hitchcock movie, "Rear Window." That kind of nonchalance and apathy fueled a renewal of suspicion.

Just when the Jimmy Stewart character was about to admit that his police detective friend was right, to forget about suspecting Thorwald over the absence of Thorwald's wife, the little dog got killed, after the little dog showed too much curiosity, trying to dig up something in the courtyard flower garden.

Then the Jimmy Stewart character, a globe-trotting photojournalist homebound with a broken leg, came to another sober realization. When the dog's owner started wailing about the discovery, every other tenant and party-goer in all the condos or aparments around the big courtyard rushed to their windows and fire escapes to see what was going on -- except one.

The mysterious Thorwald sat back in the shadows, only the glow of his cigarette or cigar visible, trying to nonchalant pretend that nothing happened, and that he was not involved.

His decision to run off and hide rekindled Jimmy Stewart's suspicions.

Meanwhile, presidential election made a massive, bizarre shift over from 66 million vs. 63 million, to 81 million vs. 74 million. Politics-crazy leftist "thinkers" then tried to act like, "nothin' to see hear, let's just move along." That studied nonchalance and apathy, itself, seems glaringly out place and out of character.

But there is yet another issue on the horizon. What if Trump gets so many votes, that the only way to pretend Harris got more is to push alleged combined totals closer to 100% of registered voters.

Is it enough to simply say that Trump needs to a big enough buffer to make up for a gap caused by hypothetical election fraud.

Could Trump ever conceivably get numbers high enough, that the only way for Harris to hypothetically win by fraud would require fraulent numbers inflated so high, as to push inflated turnout in particular precincts or states to over 100%.

At first it had seemed as if something like that had happened in at least one location, back in 2020. Then updated registration numbers came out, showing that the numbers were not actually mathematically impossible. They were simply highly unusual.

Without knowing, predicting, or figuring out exactly how that kind of fraud could happen, or hyothetically did happen, the question becomes more complicated.

Yet one way to force the issue would be to, in the honest old fashioned way, for Trump to get real votes that give him a big enough buffer to tee up a fraud-proof victory. He would need to win by such a huge margin that it would be impossible for fraudulent votes to be big enough to surpass him, unless they triggered vote totals telegraphing mathematical impossibility.

Current polls, if accurate, show that Trump is on track for victory. Yet how big a lead would Trump need to fraud-proof a victory depends upon the unkown question of how hyothetical fraud would be accomplished, with as big a scale as would have produced the highly unusal Biden-Harris numbers of 2020.

It was understandable the a popular Trump reached what ordinarily would have been considered a record number of votes in 2020.

Biden had been associated with the Obama-Biden Second Great Depression, as well as a stunning decline in meaningful access to health care, combined with draconian pressure for citizens to be forced into partial health coverage that required enormous amounts of self-insurance before limited coverage kicked in for mediocre covereage with exhorbitant premiums.

Trump quickly helped reverse economic stagnation, to foster a robust economic renewal that, later, enabled the country to better mitigate and ride out the inevitable hit taken from the covid pandemic.

Biden and Harris, in turn, seemed to be in denial, or "out of touch," insisting that things had been just fine with the Biden-Obama economy, and repeatedly seeking to invoke a kind of fatasy paranoia in which Trump was some vague, sinister figure out to get people.

Biden, in two major speeches early on, repeatedly started rambling something about large men with bulging veins materializing out of a cornfield for some kind of protest, implying that this was some sinister reality emerging nationwide. It was almost like Hitler trying to paint Jews as sinister figures who were the root of all evil in Europe, with Biden seeking to cast Trump as a sinister fantasy villain.

Today voters face another set of Harris-Biden economic, budgetary and housing fiascoes, aggravated by a wholesale invasion by illegal aliens through a porous border, skyrocketing national debt, a covid epidemic that was never really brought to an end, crime problems, as well as a host of growing international crises and other national challenges. Attacks on human life and traditional American values also remain a focal point for Harris and her running mate Tim Walz.

So surging support for Trump is not at all surprising, and Trump seems destined for victory in the voting booths. The question remains, what "results" will end up "on paper," and does Trump need an even bigger margin of victory to overcome any irregularities or outright fraud

The Wall Street Journal reports that select groups of billionaires and leading businesspersons have helped fund and inspire constellations of nonprofits seeking to encourage and enhance election integrity, including legal action, or the prospect of legal action to help enforce elections law.

Given the enormous amounts of past hard work, and unfolding progress over time with methods, governance and technology, in the field of election administration, such a proactive, humble, dedicated and forward-looking attitude certainly would lend itself to a reaffirmation of traditional American values of honesty and innovation within efforts to safeguard democracy.

Yet the question remains, if Trump would win on a "level playing field" but were hypothetically denied a level playing field, how much bigger would the actual win have to be, to overcome any hypothetical deficiencies or inaccuracies in the election process that end up cutting against Trump.

Key Words: 2020 Election, 2024 Presidential Election, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Election Fraud, Rigged Elections, Kamala Harris, Democrats