Spinoff of the many “what if Trump does not accept defeat” threads:
Suppose that Biden absolutely crushes it on Election Day (wins popular vote by double digits, wins Electoral College 400-138) but Trump, through some sort of political machination, somehow manages to get certified as the winner prior to Inauguration Day (can’t cook up a scenario in my mind but I’m sure a Doper can help us come up with something plausible) - and the Supreme Court helps Trump out at every turn by a 5-4 vote.
In other words, this far surpasses Florida 2000 (which was not a stolen election, despite the rhetoric) and the Comey letter or Russia in 2016.
Now, thread question is…what would the opposition party (in this case, the Democrats) do as a result of getting absolutely jobbed? Call for revolution? How? Would they try to mobilize many thousands of supporters to charge the White House? Impeaching Trump would probably be futile, and even if it did, it would just mean President Pence. Resort to terrorism?
(Question also applies if a Democratic incumbent president did this to a Republican challenger)
It won’t matter what the Democratic Party does, the country will be in revolt and they will either join us to put down the illegitimate government or they will be considered part of it. This won’t take long because not even a majority of the traitors and fools in the Trump base will abide the destruction of the country.
Luckily this can’t happen as you describe. What can happen is that Democratic house decides the election for <not Trump> and the country splits down the middle, the Union will be broken once again. We have to pray that the members of the military hold to their oaths.
Becoming the political face of the insurgency is one strong option…if they even have that much freedom. Think of Sinn Fein’s role in The Troubles in Northern Ireland. You’ve described a situation where the Constitutional checks and balances clearly and obviously failed. There’s no good reason to assume what follows will have any recognizable constitutional basis.
Do you want a full reading list about intrastate warfare and insurgencies in their various forms? Part two (Chapters 4 and 5) of FM 3-24/MCWP 3-33.5 (Insurgencies and Countering Insurgencies) provides a pretty good intro in a short read. One of the phrases floating around the Army in the back half of my career was that counterinsurgency is the graduate level of war. It’s a complicated subject.
Famine, violence, or fear of death are prerequisite for revolution, not political malarkey. The only good hope would be that a few R Senators suddenly develop a conscience, or that Clarence Thomas, or one of the other repugnant Justices, decides to go down in history as the Man who Saved Democracy.
Don’t expect the House of Reps to help. If you’re referring to Article II, Section 1 clause 3, recall that the single Rep from Wyoming has as much power as 53 California Reps added together.
Violence and fear of death are predictable results if the Republicans overthrow the legitimate government. Starvation won’t take long because importation and transportation of food ceases quickly.
I don’t know where you get the idea the House could help, they are more likely to cause the problem.
If you are talking about Democratic politicians, who knows?
If you are talking about Democratic voters, there would be a shitload of tweets. I don’t know why you would expect them to do any more than what they’re doing now. We’re getting frog-boiled as it is, every day is a new bottom, stealing the election would just be raising the temp one more degree.
But that’s what I’m asking - it’s easy to say, “There will be revolt if X or Y happens” - it’s considerably less likely that it actually would happen. It is much harder to organize or get going nationwide than just saying, make it happen.
I disagree. It’s not really a revolt, it’s the loyal citizens who believe in the Constitution deposing an illegitimate government. Just because you’re willing to stand by and watch the destruction of freedom doesn’t mean everyone else will.
We had the same questions in 2012 and 2016 about Obama. We had the same questions in 2008 and 2004 about Bush. And Clinton before that. And Bush and Reagan.
If the Democrats win in November 2020, Trump will stop being President in January 2021.
As I have pointed out in another thread, there is nothing in the constitution that would prevent the Republican legislatures of Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, … from deciding to abort the results of the vote and put in their own slate of electors. So it could happen. But it won’t.
Cite? Just for the final sentence. We already see the criminal party defying subpoenas, planning to rig the census, torturing children and probably practicing treason. The Mueller report shows that Trump committed obstruction so DoJ will now … investigate Mueller. It certainly isn’t shame that would stop these criminals from more crimes. And their crimes would be fancied up; they’d tell everyone on Fox&Friends that they were the aggrieved party, that it was the Ds who’d cheated in Pennsylvania, and they were just undoing that cheating. By the time their propaganda machine got through there’d be calls to cancel the 2024 election for fear the Ds would keep cheating.
I can’t imagine a scenario in which Trump stays if the official results show Biden winning with 400 electors and upwards of 10-15%+ in the popular vote. For one thing, it would almost certainly be the case that a lot of Republicans would go down with Trump. Most of the apocalyptic scenarios that have been discussed (AFAIK) have hypothesized what would happen if the elections were close and appeared to show either suspicious results in favor of Trump or a close set of races that initially go to Biden but through procedural hacking end up going to Trump.
But if Trump is on the wrong end of 400-138 or something like that, Trump’s out. and he’d probably resign and ask for a pardon from Pence long before then.
You appear to be pointedly ignoring the hypothetical. The question isn’t “will this happen”, it’s “what would happen in the highly unlikely event that it did?”
Please don’t say things like this unless you know what you’re talking about. I’ve still got copies of papers presented at JSM in 2001 and 2002 that say otherwise.
AFAICT the exceptions to the ex post facto clause were in criminal cases. The case I am thinking of was for retroactive requirements for sex offenders.
I am not aware of any exception that was made for federal elections. Maybe you know of some - I haven’t researched it much. Do you know of any case where the courts have ruled it OK to change the rules of an election after the election was held? That isn’t what happened in Florida in 2000 AFAIK. There, I believe the Supreme Court ruled that they could not change the rules for counting ballots/timelines/certification after the fact.
Part two (Chapters 4 and 5) of