News World News

Eerie election prediction that came true

A law professor wrote an eerie prediction more than a year ago of Donald Trump’s election defeat and his refusal to accept he lost, in an uncannily accurate account down to furious tweets in capital letters.The article written by Edward B. Foley and published in the law journal of Chicago’s Loyola University uncannily echoes what…

A law professor wrote an eerie prediction more than a year ago of Donald Trump’s election defeat and his refusal to accept he lost, in an uncannily accurate account down to furious tweets in capital letters.

The article written by Edward B. Foley and published in the law journal of Chicago’s Loyola University uncannily echoes what has unfolded on and since election night.

And what the professor anticipated will happen next is pure nightmare.

This includes Mr Trump being ahead in Pennsylvania, then falling behind, then issuing furious tweets saying the election is being stolen from him, written in capital letters.

In one imagined tweet, Professor Foley has Mr Trump exhorting, “STOP THIS THEFT RIGHT NOW!!!” “DON’T LET THEM STEAL THIS ELECTION FROM YOU!!!”

In another, Professor Foley has him tweeting “THIS THEFT WILL NOT STAND!!!” “WE ARE TAKING BACK OUR VICTORY.”

Professor Foley, an election law scholar, and former Ohio Solicitor General, wrote the article before Joe Biden had even been selected as Democrat candidate, when Elizabeth Warren was touted as the front runner.

The article was published around October 2019 for the Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Winter 2019 edition.

Here is an extract:

“It is Election Night 2020.

“This time it is all eyes on Pennsylvania, as whoever wins the Keystone State will win an Electoral College majority.

“Trump is ahead in the state by 20,000 votes, and he is tweeting ‘The race is over. Another four years to keep Making America Great Again.’

“The Associated Press (AP) and the networks have not yet declared Trump winner.

“Although 20,000 is a sizeable lead, they have learned in recent years that numbers can shift before final, official certification of election results.

“They are afraid of ‘calling’ the election for Trump, only to find themselves needing to retract the call – as they embarrassingly did twenty years earlier, in 2000.

RELATED: Trump’s plan to overthrow Biden revealed

RELATED: The key factor feeding Trump’s denial

“Trump’s Democratic opponent, _________ (fill in the blank with whichever candidate you prefer; I will pick Elizabeth Warren since at the moment she is the frontrunner according to prediction markets), is not conceding, claiming the race still too close to call.

“Both candidates end the night without going in front of the cameras.

“In the morning, new numbers show Trump’s lead starting to slip, and by noon it is below 20,000.

“Impatient, Trump holds an impromptu press conference and announces: ‘I’ve won re-election. “The results last night showed that I won Pennsylvania by over 20,000 votes.

“Those results were complete, with 100 per cent of precincts reporting.

“As far as I’m concerned, those results are now final.

“I’m not going to let machine politicians in Philadelphia steal my re-election victory from me – or from my voters!

“Despite Trump’s protestations, the normal process of canvassing election returns continues in Pennsylvania, and updated returns continue to show Trump’s lead slipping away.

“First, it drops below 15,000. Then 10,000. Then 5000.

“As this happens, Trump’s tweets become increasingly incensed – and incendiary. STOP THIS THEFT RIGHT NOW!!!” “DON’T LET THEM STEAL THIS ELECTION FROM YOU!!!”

“The canvassing process in Pennsylvania has continued, and Trump’s lead in the state diminishes even further.

“Then, several days later, the lead flips. Now, Warren is ahead in Pennsylvania.

“First by only a few hundred votes. Then, by a couple of thousand votes.

RELATED: Trump press secretary’s ‘wild’ interview

RELATED: Melania Trump ditches FLOTUS tradition

“Although the AP and networks continue to declare the race ‘too close to call,’ it is Warren’s turn to take to the cameras declaring victory.

“Trump insists, by tweet and microphone, ‘THIS THEFT WILL NOT STAND!!!” “WE ARE TAKING BACK OUR VICTORY’.”

Foley’s article, entitled Preparing for a Disputed Presidential Election: An Exercise in

Election Risk Assessment and Management, stays true to his theory about US voting counts called, “blue shift”.

This is how the in-person vote counted first favours Republicans and the mail-in votes counted later favour Democrats, causing a shift to the blue party and observers to question the vote’s legitimacy if Democrats win.

Blue shift occurs because young voters, low-income voters, and voters who move often, are likely to vote by mail and are likely to lean Democratic.

Professor Foley writes blue shift did in fact happen in Pennsylvania in 2016, when Hillary Clinton gained 23,659 votes, reducing Mr Trump’s lead of 67,951 in the state to 44,292.

It was not enough to flip Pennsylvania to Ms Clinton.

In 2020, Professor Foley writes, “Trump would go to court in an effort to prevent certification of the canvas based on the blue shift ‘overtime’ vote.”

His prediction of what happens next in his fictional account of Trump v Elizabeth Warren is a truly chaotic scenario.

Warren is declared the winner, but when the Electoral Council meets – as it is due to next month, on December 14 – the Republican-pledged electors cast their 20 electoral votes for Mr Trump.

When Congress meets on January 6, 2021 to count the electoral votes from the states, there are two conflicting results, two winners.

“If … Trump can gain traction with his allegation that the blue shift amounts to fraudulently

fabricated ballots,” Professor Foley writes.

“Then it becomes more politically tenable to claim that the legislature must step in and appoint the state’s electors directly to reflect the ‘true’ will of the state’s voters, who otherwise would be deprived of the result they mandated as reflected on election night.

“The two parties take to cable news and social media to test various arguments as to why their candidate is the winner entitled to be inaugurated as president on January 20.”
Professor Foley’s article is long and detailed, but basically both Republicans and Democrats continue to claim they won the election and Nancy Pelosi steps in as acting president-elect.

“Trump announces that he is proceeding to prepare to be inaugurated for a second term on January 20” as does Ms Pelosi,” he wrote.

“As the clock ticks toward noon on January 20, all of D.C. – indeed all of America – is in turmoil over what will happen.

“Neither … is backing down.

“Both insist that at noon on January 20 they will take the presidential oath and begin to assert the powers of commander-in-chief.

“Both demand the full support and obedience of America’s armed forces upon taking the presidential oath.”

Ms Pelosi warns that military, the FBI, and other federal security forces not to refuse to obey her orders as acting president starting at noon on January 20.

If that happens, Professor Foley’s scenario says “the American people must take to the streets” in massive demonstrations to “show that their democracy will not be stolen from them”.

Given this situation, he asks, “What is the military to do starting at noon on January 20? “Who should the military recognise as commander-in-chief?

“Who should get the ‘nuclear football’ with the launch codes, Trump or Pelosi?”

Professor Foley concludes that Americans must hope the nightmare he paints never comes to pass.

“Instead, the nation will be well served if the outcome of the 2020 presidential election is so lopsided as to be impossible to dispute,” he writes.

candace.sutton@news.com.au

About the author

cvxgBWcuFA

Leave a Comment