Because the army is on Maduro’s side.
In the USA it seems that it is SCOTUS who is on the side of the illegitimate one.
And Putin supports both.
I don’t think the result is predictable, but I remember what happened in Florida with Bush vs Gore. I wonder which lesson from that each side has learned.
PS: And Maduro can still fall, the oposition keeps fighting despite the army’s intervention. And yes, the judiciary is on Maduro’s side as well, I know.
Trump has used Russia, Hungary and Venezuela as templates for his own power grabs, with lots of help from Fox, the Heritage Foundation, the Federalist Society, the Republican Party and certain elites like Elon Musk who perceive a benefit in supporting a “democracy”-in-name-only.
Thankfully, he’s just not that good at it. I can only hope his helpers aren’t, either.
I was heartened to see Merrick Garland’s conference this morning advising of the elections task force he’s put together to protect elections workers, as well as DOJ/FBI’s pursuit of criminal charges against RT employees who were acting on behalf of Russia to influence our elections this year. It all helps.
And since we’re on the subject of election interference in the hope of stealing the election, well done to Brazil. We could take a page from that playbook in this country.
As I’ve said too many times before, when it comes to this election absolute overkill is the only way to squeak through this mess, and the Republicans know this.
The army won’t get involved with any domestic protests here. I’m sure there will be protests, probably bigger than, say, the George Floyd ones, but if they get violent, the police and national guards will step in and shut them down. There will not be any kind of actual violent uprising that tries to actually overthrow the government. The US is too rich for that sort of thing – people aren’t going to put their lives and livelihoods on the line unless they’re desperate, and Americans aren’t desperate.
Me either. The state officials that would try this are probably in a blood-red state going to Trump anyways.
Me too. The election should not be so close in EVs that a swing state or two can manipulate 10,000 votes and thus give Trump the victory.
Which in this case makes the electoral college a feature not a bug since the states count the votes and for the most part enforce voting laws. If the Feds counted the votes, Trump may have won in 2020 using the Maduro technique.
I concur. I mean, unless it all comes down to like 100 votes in just one state, like with Gore and Florida. Then, there could be shenanigans.
You are a hopeless optimist. I only wish I could share that. I have no confidence whatever in having SCOTUS feel it needs any logic in its rulings.
This may be true.
You might want to get the name of the national anthem correct. 
Biden would be commander in chief. But how would he stop the steal? He could order the military to erect barricades around the White House and refuse to come out, but that might still not stop a transfer of power.
@That_Don_Guy’s concern appeared to me to be around the Armed Forces acting on behalf of Trump. The election must be settled by January 6th, and Biden would remain in command until January 20th.
Why would the military listen to a president who hadn’t yet been sworn in?
Why do you think that?
Trump wouldn’t need them to do anything Biden would need the military to overturn the results.
I am not sure we understand the words “stolen” and “results” in the same way.
Oops 
I don’t think there’s going to be significantly more violence if Harris wins decisively than we have these days already. Which is too much, yes; but electing Trump won’t reduce it, it’ll almost certainly make it worse.
In addition: If they were, why didn’t they do it in 2020?
I suppose, if it comes down to a borderline situation in only one state, as in 2000, they might. But I don’t see it for an election that Harris clearly wins.
I don’t know and don’t want to find out. But it might happen that some of the R-majority house delegations would vote for Harris in that situation. We wouldn’t need all of them.
Again – if so, why did they refuse to do that in 2020?
There’s nothing about being in the White House that magically makes somebody president. If there were, Trump would probably have tried that last time. The inauguration could be held anywhere (and isn’t generally held inside the White House, for that matter.)
It all depends on your phrase “perhaps SCOTUS.” Assuming the SCOTUS has ruled for Trump*, the military would consider the election decided. For the Democrats to try holding onto their physical presence in the White House. would then be absurd, since the military, and the courts, would act as if Trump was president regardless of where he was located physically. As for Congress, party control there would not be determinative because, in the current U.S. system, the judiciary can overrule the legislature. Without a super-majority in congress, and state legislatures, it does not go the other way.
For anyone who thinks the Democrats could just refuse to leave the White House, I ask how this is supposed to work at the Pentagon. The system there is that the new Secretary of Defense, or an acting secretary, takes office immediately after the inauguration. So does Lloyd Austin just refuse to leave his office? He doesn’t live there. If Trump wanted to avoid physically arresting Austin, he could starve him out. The minute Austin goes home, orders would go out to never let him back in the building.
This all supposes SCOTUS ruled for Trump. If SCOTUS refused to rule one way or the other, and the same party controlled both houses of congress, I suppose the military would respect a joint resolution. If one party controlled the House and the other the Senate, then we have a real constitutional crisis.
____________________
* This could be done directly, by ruling in favor or Trump, or indirectly, by a majority voting against taking up an appeal of an appeals court ruling in favor of Trump.
But once it reaches the SCOTUS and they pull another “Trump v. United States” what then? No amount of lawyers can appeal SCOTUS ruling
I understand the point you’re making, but IMHO, there is a natural threshold to how far they’re willing to go.
If they go too far, the public will rebel and stop accepting their rulings as the supreme law of the land. If/when that happens, we’re no longer a democracy, we’re a country in anarchy.
And who needs a Supreme Court then?
Though that’s somewhat irrelevant to the OP. There are plenty of discussion of whether that is likely/possible elsewhere
The question here is what to do if that happens?
One thought I had. Would the Democrats be able to expand the SCOTUS after the fact and then rebring the case between election and the inauguration? It would be the hail-iest of hail Marys but whats the alternative, taking to the streets?