Who says they actually are?
If you were the White Hats, you have several objectives.
-
If it was apparent that Trump is really running away with the election and it's a landslide, then Democrats would know that massive cheating isn't going to change the results. The massive election fraud would halt and the cheaters would stay in the shadows. Cheating works when an election is close, within 1% to 3% or so. If you want to catch people cheating, vote fraud, bribery, illegal funding, fake ballots, etc... then you convince everyone that the election is very close and Kamala can win. By election day, when they realize Trump won easily, it's too late. They all just massively cheated and many will be caught.
-
If it was apparent that Trump is winning in a landslide and Kamala has zero chance... the Deep State (uniparty) would spare no effort to disrupt the election. They would step up to next level, including another 9-11 event. Anything they can do to disrupt the election would be done. Desperate people do desperate things. As long as they believe Kamala has a chance and is within a 1% or 2% margin of beating Trump, then the election continues and they wont disrupt it. After all, they might win by cheating again. White Hats are smart to keep them thinking that Kamala has a chance.
-
If White Hats want to ensure that the election cheaters, those funding them, those giving the cheaters legal protection, etc... remain in place waiting for election results, rather than going into hiding or hiding assets... then make it look like Kamala has a good chance to win, and that the cheating may put her in the White House. Nobody will run or hide assets until its known that Trump really won in a landslide. By then, all the bozos can be rounded up, bank accounts frozen, yachts seized, names added to no-fly list, etc... .
There are good reasons why White Hats want to keep people thinking it's a close election.
I dunno, think back to Hillary and how she had a 98% chance of winning according to polls. She clearly believed that, which means their internal polling was either super biased or she was flat out lied to. They would have had to change their polling, if the former. Did they? Who would be brave enough to lie to Hillary, knowing she had 56-suicided friends (if those were friends, what does she do to her enemies??).
It's a great discussion point for sure. I'm guessing the people in charge of bringing in busloads of people to the Kamala rallies know the truth. But who will tell the emperor that he (she) has no clothes?
My issue with this point is that they were unprepared for Trump votes in 2016. In 2020, they may have overcorrected but it still worked for them. This time around everyone is playing a shell game with the polls.
The only one's who believe these polls are the ones still drinking the Brawndo. For the rest of us, we are filling our cups with hopium because the alternative is awful and we believe its the right outcome.
We know our options:
I am more concerned at this point about what happens after this election at this point. The election will show us what kind of damage we have done over the last eight years. The aftermath will show us how much more work is left to be done.
Especially if their incoming data is being corrupting by WH saboteurs. Look at the MSM for example and how they don't appear to be getting the same 4AM talking points like in 2020 when all of the channels were lockstep parroting the same dialog. This time around we see some MSM swamp critters trying to distance themselves or go into retreat while others are tripling down.