this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2024
599 points (99.0% liked)

politics

19073 readers
3872 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago (3 children)

What I expect to happen is this:

  • Donald will double down on the only strategy he knows, and will chew his way through a series of increasingly brief campaign managers whilehe tunes out while he leans into personality attacks and conspiracy theories, galvanizing his MAGA core and alienating an increasing share of Republicans

  • He will continue to chase moderates towards Kamala, expanding into the right, eventually even to include a small handful of politically savvy MAGA types compelled to denounce him to save face

  • Election night is a drubbing in the popular vote with record turnout and a similar map to 2020 with maybe even one or two new blue states

  • Donald will trot out a litany of accusations of interference and refuse to concede, his base will further contract

  • MAGA protests will quickly turn violent and Donald's refusal to denounce his few remaining supporters will pretty much sever MAGA from what's left of Republicans

  • a few MAGA election officials delay certifying anywhere possible, exhausting all legal and some illegal means of avoiding certification

  • At least one or two of these delays will result in a standoff between county and state government or even state and federal

  • All of this likely set against a backdrop of sporadic but increasing violence and rioting by the remaining hardest of the hard core MAGA, with right wing militias playing a large role and even intervening on behalf of at least one of the aforementioned standoffs at one point or another

I'd be curious which of those elements you find to be the most far fetched. I know in their totality they sound like a crazed paranoid rant, but given our recent history, and the insane trajectory we are on, this doesn't really seem like that big of a stretch to me.

[–] TropicalDingdong 8 points 2 months ago

I dont think any of this is unreasonable, but I honestly think if he would have done some of things last go round, it probably would have been a successful coup.

Democrats in particular, but also the entire intelligence state was caught completely flat footed to information that was widely available on OSINT or other very leaky data channels.

I can't imagine they are as naive as they were four years ago? But then again.

Points one and two, I agree. Point three, we shall see but things seem possible again. Trump is deeply unpopular.

On MAGA and MAGA protests.

The energy simply isn't there for Donald this time. This is a key feature 2020 had that the current climate doesn't. White nationalism and BLM were going at it in the streets, and the energy of the Trump movement gave groups like patriot front, the 3%'rs, PB, etc a place to hide. If you are going to keep something like that going, you have to put points on the board. You need W's and he lost big time in 2020. Its the nature of all movements that they wax and wane. I mean look how BLM collapsed after 2020. You need big groups to hide militants. That just is not going to happen this time. Its a different environment and Trump has a core group of supporters that will show up, but it will be nothing like we saw in 2020. This exposes the militant elements in greater relief.

Congress and capitol police won't be fucking around this time and DC will be on lockdown. Every paper clip is going to get a high degree of scrutiny. A fake slate of electors isn't going to make it through, and a state refusing to certify is going to get clapped. Of all of these, I think they are all reasonable, but this is the only one that gives me real pause. Our system is very diffuse and yeah, there are a lot of wackos. Its not that hard for one idiot to throw a wrench in the works.

Again though, the problem Trump has is that he's not in power. SO what if something takes longer to figure out? Biden or Harris will still be in office at that time. Thats the real changemaker. A smoke bomb or confusion of results doesn't work in Trumps favor they way it did in 2020.

If anything I'd say its time to get back on the intelligence channels and start reading the tape to keep an eye on things. I could see some militants disrupting some stuff here and there, but in general, the MAGA movement has fizzled. It doesn't have bodies in the streets like it did in 2020, and Trump would need that for the above to be effective.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This all sounds reasonable, the only thing not mentioned is the risk of enough Trump-loyalist election officials refusing to certify the vote that neither party gets above 270 - throwing it to Congress where Trump wins.

[–] Kiernian 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is definitely a play they're considering.

The only defense against it that I'm aware of is to get the popular vote SO FAR in favor of Harris/Walz that Congress won't be willing to risk their vote being so blatantly opposite and misrepresentative of the will of the people, lest it lead to reform they don't want.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Yes, that's what I've been saying too. People are still doing swing state math assuming 270 is enough, but Harris is going to need a sizeable margin in order to actually have a defense buffer against these election officials.

Likewise, a blue Texas wouldn't guarantee the White House for Kamala since they would under no circumstances accept and certify the result. All it would guarantee is a constitutional crisis.

[–] jimmy90 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

yep this is bang on. they have been election deniers and pro-revolution for 4 years. they have no faith in the US democratic system any more and will do anything to get power