I don't think people understand that a coup won't be Donald Trump going, "I won't leave and you can't make me." It would be him declaring victory, proceeding to act as though he won, creating a difference of political opinion about who is president as of January 20th. https://twitter.com/AlexandraErin/status/1309564177615400960

I think if he does, then long before the electoral college convenes and officially designates a winner, we'll see contested declarations on both sides, where Democrats will be under pressure to find an agreeable framework for settling the question, and Republicans acting freely.

Why do I think that? Because that's the way it's worked all along, every step of the way. Democrats send legislation; Republicans do nothing. "Democrats fail to reach deal again."

All of the, "Relax, if Trump doesn't win the election, he loses all of his powers at noon on inauguration day and we just escort him out" takes hinge on the idea that the winner is *not* in any way a matter of political opinion.

Which it is, if enough people treat it as one.

If it becomes clear that Republicans will not accept a Trump loss as a legitimate outcome, then the Democrats are essentially faced with the choice of destroying the country today or letting him continue to run it into the ground and hope he's satisfied with two terms.

All along, the people with power to make a difference *now* have chosen to defer action to later in the hopes that he just stops himself, or someone else intervenes, or that some mythical magical clear breaking point is reached.

Because that's what happens when one of two major parties refuses to accept the results of an election and there is an irreconcilable dispute about who wields the powers of high office. https://twitter.com/LorenzoIsHere/status/1309567173870845953

The country is either destroyed because we have two warring governments or it's destroyed because one claimant destroys the other by force. Likely both at once; if the GOP pols and/or base don't back down when he doesn't, do you think that'll change if he gets escorted out?

A number of people responded to this thread with "But don't worry! The law says what happens on inauguration day."

The law says, the law says. Laws say. People do. Have we not noticed this yet?

We don't have any laws in this country that do not rely on cooperation, from the institutions that enforce them, from the people they're being enforced upon, from the bystanders, from society as a whole.

People who want to be reassured are picking a point of law and a set of events and choosing to interpret this as something objective and unambiguous and axiomatic, and then assuming all the subjective stuff will follow naturally and inexorably from it.

"The states will send their electors and it doesn't matter what anyone else says." Does it not matter if roughly half the power structures in the country are saying that some of those electors are illegitimate? Does it really not? "Not under the law." But the law is an agreement.

We have seen again and again that the law does not do anything when enough people in power choose to ignore it. Words on paper cannot forcibly convey legitimacy on a presidency. If there is a difference of opinion regarding who is legally president, one of two things will happen.

One is that the Gunhavers will wade in and answer it with force, the last resort of the law when people don't cooperate.

I don't think this is likely, for reasons I have explained in this thread and the linked one, and many times before.

But even if the Gunhavers do choose to settle the question... the need for cooperation to bestow legitimacy continues. Do we think Trump's base will recognize his defeat if he's escorted out by force? Do we think the GOP, faced with a base that still backs Trump, will?

There's an open question of how much of the country can disagree intensely with the legitimacy of a presidency and the country still function as a country. Wouldn't have to be half, or even a third, I don't think.

And the other is that nobody with guns and an official remit to use guns is willing to wade in and provide the official, inarguable answer to the political dispute. "This is politics, we don't get involved in politics." The parties have to settle it between themselves.

And in that case... I think the pressure is higher on the Democrats to wilt. Because Trump won't care if the country is torn apart or if it comes down to bullets, and they'll prefer to avoid both outcomes and bet that the country can continue to outlast him.

Plus the media will be continuing to both sides it and blame them for failing to resolve the impasse, as it has done all along.

Now does this mean things are hopeless? No, it doesn't. If we give up, if we don't vote, if we don't even try... he wins automatically. Doesn't even have to push things to the breaking point. He gets a "legitimate" victory.

The biggest single thing that we can do as a country to head this off is deliver an overwhelming victory to the point that Biden is a clear victor on November 3rd.

Now, I need to point out that nothing in this world actually is "inarguable". There's nothing that is so manifestly true that a man who cares nothing for the truth can't stand up and say, "No, it isn't." Just like the law isn't magic, the truth isn't magic, either.

But short of physical force that no one has dared to use on him, the biggest limit on Trump's behavior has always been what he feels like he can get away with in the moment. The more powerful and secure he feels, the bolder he will be.

And his allies and enablers in the GOP mostly aren't loyal to him, they're loyal to power and the party, and if they see him as a sinking ship they will hesitate to bail him out.

I need to point out that part of the dynamic there is, they fear him turning his base (formerly their base) against them. For a long time they have backed him in actions they would rather he not do because if they cross him, they fear the end of their party and their power.

And I don't think there are many people in positions of national power in the GOP who *wouldn't* burn the country down if they didn't think they had a shot at ruling it.

Ultimately, though, my point isn't that "These things will happen," it's that nobody knows the future. The law says, but the law requires people to act, and other people to go along. We have learned in four years that nothing in our institutions is automatic.

When people tell me, "He can't do that!", my response is, "Well, then, add it to the pile." Everybody's got a reason why the next thing he can't do is different than the last one he couldn't do (but did). It all comes down to: well, the law says.

Our institutions are not set up for a difference of opinion about the outcome of an election that originates from the highest level. Our institutions do not account for the idea that two parties might both claim to have won.

They know what to do if somebody in a tinfoil hat approaches the White House and says, "I'm the president! Me! I won! The election was fake! The ballots were a disaster!"

They don't know what to do if a major party candidate is insisting this, with his party's backing.

I'm muting this thread now because I don't care to argue with individuals who have convinced themselves that the law in this case is clear and objective and unequivocal in a way that it magically isn't, elsewhere. I can't change anyone's mind for them.

I am not an oracle. I can't see the future and I can't tell you what *will* happen. But I can tell you what *might* happen, and I can tell you that no one else can tell you what *will* happen, either.

The law says.

People do.

Our institutions are not set up for this.

In conclusion,