TRAVIS HAS LOST HIS MIND: HE’S DELUSIONAL!

In this election season that should be defined by ideas and vision, the national conversation has instead been dragged into a swamp of manufactured suspicion. The Free National Movement has shown its hand too quickly—and too recklessly. Rather than offering a compelling alternative to the governing Progressive Liberal Party, the FNM appears determined to poison the well of democracy itself.

It stands to reason why such frantic moves are being made. Pollsters do not whisper sweet lies to party leaders when the numbers are bleak. The word on the street is that the data are grim: the PLP is very strong, and it may be almost impossible for the FNM to win the next general election. That reality, sobering and unforgiving, has triggered what appears to be a desperate effort to shift the battlefield from policy to paranoia.

The FNM witnessed firsthand the groundswell of enthusiasm on Monday at Baha Mar, where supporters gathered in a show of force behind the affable Prime Minister, Philip Davis. It was not merely a rally; it was a statement. When even some of the FNM’s most ardent supporters were seen publicly throwing their weight behind Davis, the symbolism was unmistakable. The handwriting is on the wall: FNM support has weakened. Faced with that uncomfortable truth, the party has opted not for introspection, but for escalation.

And escalation, in this context, looks eerily familiar. The playbook is imported wholesale from the divisive tactics popularized by Donald Trump. The message is repeated verbatim: there are irregularities in the voter registration process. There are shadowy forces at work. The system cannot be trusted. It is a strategy built not on evidence, but on insinuation.

This rhetoric is not harmless. When leaders repeatedly suggest that elections are rigged without credible proof, they are not merely critiquing administrative procedures—they are undermining public faith in democracy itself. If supporters are told often enough that the game is fixed, they may decide the rules no longer deserve respect.

Recent comments by Travis Robinson, who reportedly threatened to “reign terror” on ILTV for conducting a voter registration drive, only heighten this sense of manufactured crisis. Such language is incendiary. It signals to the most volatile elements of the political base that aggression is justified. It gaslights citizens who may already feel disillusioned, offering them a narrative in which civil disobedience is not only understandable but necessary.

Shannendon Cartwright has echoed similar themes, reinforcing a chorus that suggests widespread impropriety. Together, these voices are sowing seeds of discord at a time when calm stewardship is required. The subliminal message is clear: if we are not winning, something must be wrong.

Yet the Parliamentary Registrar continues the quiet, diligent work of democracy—signing up new voters, verifying existing registrations, and processing transfers. These are complex, overlapping tasks that occur every election cycle. Administrative challenges are not evidence of conspiracy. They are the predictable mechanics of a living democracy.

To create doubt where none exists is not opposition politics; it is irresponsibility. Yes, there were questions raised during early voting in a recent by-election involving a ballot box. Those issues should be investigated transparently and resolved through proper channels. But isolated procedural concerns do not justify a sweeping narrative of systemic corruption.

The atmosphere that emerges from this rhetoric is devastating. It breeds suspicion among neighbours, tension at polling stations, and anxiety across communities. It shifts attention away from jobs, healthcare, education, and economic recovery toward an imagined legitimacy crisis. Once public trust erodes, it is extraordinarily difficult to rebuild.

Democracy depends on losers conceding as much as winners celebrating. It depends on shared acceptance of the rules, even when outcomes disappoint. If the FNM continues down this path—choosing chaos over credibility—it risks damaging not only its own standing, but the democratic fabric of the nation.

Elections should be contests of ideas, not exercises in fear. The Bahamian people deserve better than a politics of desperation. They deserve leaders who compete vigorously, yes—but who respect the integrity of the very system that grants them the opportunity to serve.

But the million-dollar question now is: why is the leader of the FNM not talking? Has he been told to shut up and face the wall? Are the FNM conceding that the Bahamian people do not want to hear or see him?  Is the FNM transitioning to Cartwright while finally agreeing with its base that Pintard cannot be sold?