╌>

Dems Reveal Their 'Doomsday' Action Plan If Trump Gets Re-Elected

  
Via:  XXJefferson51  •  4 years ago  •  41 comments

By:   New York Times Washington Examiner

Dems Reveal Their 'Doomsday' Action Plan If Trump Gets Re-Elected
Democrats have participated in a “war game” in which they considered several possible outcomes of the election. In one scenario, John Podesta — the former chair of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, and a leading figure in party circles — played former Vice President Joe Biden, and refused to concede the election. The result: the threat of secession by the entire West Coast, followed by the possible intervention of the U.S. armed forces: But conveniently, a group of former top...

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

This is simply awful.  That a party would ruin a nation it couldn’t rule and would yet again try to break up the most exceptional nation on earth.  


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



5f2a9438d0911download%20(27).jpg

Democrats are prepared to burn the country to the ground rather than accept another loss to President Trump in November and are war-gaming doomsday scenarios in advance of the most important election in American history. 

The party is already laying the groundwork with media and operatives spreading the idea that the winner will not be known on election night or possibly for months as their army of ruthless lawyers will challenge votes in any state won by Trump. 


***News Junkie? Stay Informed With Our FREE Trump News Mobile App***

5f2a8ff3256ba.png

Failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams is "warning" voters not to expect to know who will occupy the White House on November 3rd due to mail-in voting but a New York Times story is much more ominous.  

The bulk of the story by former BuzzFeed reporter Ben Smith who is notorious for being the first one to publish the lurid Steele dossier lays out the rationale for delayed results but also reveals that a group of influential Dems have been wargaming scenarios for what comes after.

The group of which creepy former Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta is a member (he role-played Joe Biden) is preparing for outcomes that would end America as it has existed and include civil war and the secession of the entire west coast from the U.S. 

5f2a92305ec0e.png

Via Breitbart News, "Democrats’ ‘War Game’ for Election Includes West Coast Secession, Possible Civil War" :

Democrats are contemplating secession and potential civil war as they game out possible scenarios for a closely contested election, according to a report by Ben Smith in a  New York Times  column Sunday.

The bulk of Smith’s column is devoted to the question of how the media will handle Election Night coverage, given that the result may not be known for weeks. Vote-by-mail, which many states have only recently adopted — ostensibly, to prevent the spread of coronavirus in polling places — could lead to an uncertain result.

However, buried near the end of Smith’s column is a report that Democrats have participated in a “war game” in which they considered several possible outcomes of the election.

In one scenario, John Podesta — the former chair of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, and a leading figure in party circles — played former Vice President Joe Biden, and refused to concede the election.

The result: the threat of secession by the entire West Coast, followed by the possible intervention of the U.S. armed forces:


But conveniently, a group of former top government officials called the Transition Integrity Project actually gamed four possible scenarios, including one that doesn’t look that different from 2016: a big popular win for Mr. Biden, and a narrow electoral defeat, presumably reached after weeks of counting the votes in Pennsylvania. For their war game, they cast John Podesta, who was Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, in the role of Mr. Biden. They expected him, when the votes came in, to concede, just as Mrs. Clinton had.

But Mr. Podesta, playing Mr. Biden, shocked the organizers by saying he felt his party wouldn’t let him concede. Alleging voter suppression, he persuaded the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan to send pro-Biden electors to the Electoral College.

In that scenario, California, Oregon, and Washington then threatened to secede from the United States if Mr. Trump took office as planned. The House named Mr. Biden president; the Senate and White House stuck with Mr. Trump. At that point in the scenario, the nation stopped looking to the media for cues, and waited to see what the military would do.

***Get your Patriotic face masks with FREE SHIPPING today***

It was Podesta whose inability to practice password security on his personal email account allowed for thousands of his messages detailing embarrassing political skullduggery to be published by WikiLeaks in the month before the 2016 election, now he's back for round two. 

The current cancerous incarnation of the Democratic party has made it clear that either they retake total power or they will unleash their ANTIFA paramilitary goons on the nation but the secession of the entire west coast takes their extremism to an entirely new level.  

To paraphrase iconic Democrat John F. Kennedy - the anti-American party must be splintered into a thousand pieces and scattered to the winds. 


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1  seeder  XXJefferson51    4 years ago

Via Breitbart News, "Democrats’ ‘War Game’ for Election Includes West Coast Secession, Possible Civil War":

Democrats are contemplating secession and potential civil war as they game out possible scenarios for a closely contested election, according to a report by Ben Smith in a New York Times column Sunday.

The bulk of Smith’s column is devoted to the question of how the media will handle Election Night coverage, given that the result may not be known for weeks. Vote-by-mail, which many states have only recently adopted — ostensibly, to prevent the spread of coronavirus in polling places — could lead to an uncertain result.

However, buried near the end of Smith’s column is a report that Democrats have participated in a “war game” in which they considered several possible outcomes of the election.

In one scenario, John Podesta — the former chair of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, and a leading figure in party circles — played former Vice President Joe Biden, and refused to concede the election.

The result: the threat of secession by the entire West Coast, followed by the possible intervention of the U.S. armed forces:

But conveniently, a group of former top government officials called the Transition Integrity Project actually gamed four possible scenarios, including one that doesn’t look that different from 2016: a big popular win for Mr. Biden, and a narrow electoral defeat, presumably reached after weeks of counting the votes in Pennsylvania. For their war game, they cast John Podesta, who was Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, in the role of Mr. Biden. They expected him, when the votes came in, to concede, just as Mrs. Clinton had.

But Mr. Podesta, playing Mr. Biden, shocked the organizers by saying he felt his party wouldn’t let him concede. Alleging voter suppression, he persuaded the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan to send pro-Biden electors to the Electoral College.

In that scenario, California, Oregon, and Washington then threatened to secede from the United States if Mr. Trump took office as planned. The House named Mr. Biden president; the Senate and White House stuck with Mr. Trump. At that point in the scenario, the nation stopped looking to the media for cues, and waited to see what the military would do.

***Get your Patriotic face masks with FREE SHIPPING today***

It was Podesta whose inability to practice password security on his personal email account allowed for thousands of his messages detailing embarrassing political skullduggery to be published by WikiLeaks in the month before the 2016 election, now he's back for round two.

https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/9470/dems-reveal-their-doomsday-action-plan-if-trump-gets-re-elected

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1    4 years ago

https://www.instagram.com/p/CDh5KXWjID2/?igshid=12nxmei11a0lp

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1    4 years ago

What nonsense.  Doomsday scenarios?  Give me a break.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1    4 years ago

Your source for this 'piece' is highly questionable:

Trending Politics

right011.png?resize=600%2C67&ssl=1https://i2.wp.com/mediabiasfactcheck.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/right011.png?resize=300%2C34&ssl=1 300w" sizes="(max-width: 600px) 100vw, 600px" > MBFCMixed.png?resize=355%2C131&ssl=1https://i2.wp.com/mediabiasfactcheck.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/MBFCMixed.png?resize=300%2C111&ssl=1 300w" sizes="(max-width: 355px) 100vw, 355px" >

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

A questionable source exhibits  one or more  of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the  deliberate attempt  to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence ( Learn More ). Sources listed in the Questionable Category  may  be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list  are not  considered  fake news  unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source.  See all Questionable sources.

  • Overall, we rate Trending Politics Right Biased and Questionable based on poor sourcing, promotion of propaganda, and conspiracy theories as well as several failed fact checks.

Detailed Report

Reasoning:   Extreme Right, Poor Sourcing, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Failed Fact Checks
Country:   USA
World Press Freedom Rank:   USA 45/180

History

Founded in 2019 , Trending Politics is hyper-partisan conservative news and opinion website. They fully disclose their bias on the   about page   as follows: “We provide conservative commentary on the news stories of the day. Studies have shown that 90%+ of the stories about President Trump is negative, so we like to bring the other side of the story to you. With that being said, we aren’t shy to admit we’re biased. The majority of our articles will have a good amount of Pro-Trump opinion weaved into it.”

They do not disclose editors or ownership on the website.

Read our profile on United States government and media.

Funded by / Ownership

Trending Politics does not openly state who owns them, however social media links on the homepage   connect   with   Ilovemyfreedom.org , which we have rated as a Questionable source. I Love My Freedom discloses on their about page that “ILoveMyFreedom.org is Co-Owned by A. Ferretti, R. Nosbish,  Jack Murphy  and  Clayton Keirns . We are proud to say that we’ve never taken a single penny from any donor and we are completely funded by our loyal customers and subscribers by the revenue generated through the website.” They also have an  online store   that sells Pro-Trump and Conservative merchandise. Trending Politics displays ads and links to the ILoveMyFreedom store.

Analysis / Bias

In review, Trending Politics rarely publishes original reporting, but rather offers commentary to news stories from other sources. Headlines and wording of articles often use emotionally loaded language such as this:   House Democrats Sue Trump For Another Ridiculous Reason . This story is sourced to the Questionable   Breitbart , which has failed numerous fact checks. When it comes to the sourcing of information they use of a combination of credible sources such as the   New York Times ,   Politico   and   Reuters   as well as poor sources such as the   Gateway Pundit   and   Defiant America .

Editorially, story selection always favors the right and typically reports on President Trump positively:   Don’t Impeach Trump. He Puts America, Not Ukraine, First   and negatively on liberals such as this,   Schiff Exposed After Report Reveals Disturbing Ties Within His Own Committee . Trending Politics also promotes conspiracy theories such as this:   Investigation Into Ilhan Omar Reveals Fraudulent Tax Returns Possibly Linked to Marriage to Her Brother . Fact-checkers have determined that the claim she married her brother is   unproven   and hence a conspiracy theory at this point.

Failed Fact Checks

Overall, we rate Trending Politics Right Biased and Questionable based on poor sourcing, promotion of propaganda, and conspiracy theories as well as several failed fact checks. (D. Van Zandt 11/27/2019) Updated (5/22/2020)

Source:  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.3.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  XDm9mm @1.3.1    4 years ago

I don’t review the buttheads at MBFC to check every time they take a previously fine conservative site and rerate it questionable in some update.  It’s why I’m spending less time here and more at another site that actually is welcoming to all its members including evangelical Christian conservatives who believe in creation and don’t buy all the climate change and global warming bs.  Virtually nothing I seed there would be allowed here anymore but virtually all of it used to be fine here.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2  Jeremy Retired in NC    4 years ago
The result: the threat of secession by the entire West Coast, followed by the possible intervention of the U.S. armed forces:

I'm a bit confused.  They threaten secession then at the same time think they are going to maintain control of the U.S. military?  How stupid does one have to be in order to think that is even an option?  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2    4 years ago

Well, they are democrats...

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2    4 years ago

The thing is that the entire west coast Would not secede.  Large chunks of all three of those states would demand to stay in the union and like West Virginia, become our own pro union states.  And the pro union states would make up 80% of the land mass of the area. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2.2.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  XXJefferson51 @2.2    4 years ago

Given that many areas that won't secede would fall right in the middle (northern Caliportajohnia) it would make their "country" unstable.  Not that the democrats are stable in the first place.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.2.1    4 years ago

That’s my point.  I’m talking about all of Washington state except along the eastern shore of the sound from Olympia to the northern Seattle suburbs, all of Oregon except a corridor From just south of Eugene to Portland over to Corvallis and Astoria, and all of California except the coastal corridor from Los Angeles to Eureka with a jog inland to Davis and Sacramento would not participate in such an insurrection against the USA. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3  Sean Treacy    4 years ago

The Democrats have lost presidential three elections this century. They’ve refused to accept the results each time.

i doubt it will change 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
3.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    4 years ago

They think that the country is theirs to rule over and that there’s no legitimate way that they and their ideas could possibly lose.  They are of course wrong.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4  seeder  XXJefferson51    4 years ago

Dear Democrat Party,

So now you’re advocating what amounts to domestic terrorism because you didn’t get your way in 2016 and yet again when you were afraid of losing the liberal legislature at SCOTUS. So, there can be no civility with a party that wants to destroy everything you stand for – gotcha.

We’ve tried “civility” with a party that wants to destroy everything we stand for. All eight years of the Obama presidency was a full-on assault of America, the rights enshrined in our founding documents, and the legitimacy of the institutions that sprang from those ideals. All done under the faux outrage of identity politics and “fairness.” Cultural Marxists have been hard at work at your party, and now they’ve hijacked it. The reasoned few have been replaced by those like you and your leaders who advocate the violent overthrow of a duly elected government. Do I want to destroy that? You bet.

But like your pals who fly airplanes into buildings, you don’t want civility. Like your allies who riot in the streets of Portland and vandalize opposition election offices, you don’t want tolerance. Like the Hive Mind drones who verbally and physically assault conservative college students on campus, you have no desire for peace.

You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are far too emotionally immature to assume the mantle of responsibility that marks free citizens of a free Republic. You’ve assaulted lawmakers. Hell, you’ve tried to murder them. Your ‘entertainment’ arm has repeatedly called for wholesale murder, up to and including the President of the United States. Your leadership continues to endorse violence either via public statements or complicit silence. You have gone from a legitimate opposition party to Hamas and Hezbollah in less than a generation. You give violence a pass with a wink and a nod, hiding behind a one polymer layer thick veneer of legitimacy. You justify it with meaningless, nonsensical terms like “social justice” or “white privilege” or “toxic masculinity.” You cloak terrorism in noble, democratic terms, but it remains terrorism.

The three-year smear job/witch hunt unleashed on a sitting President revealed in clear and concise terms the depths of depravity to which you’ll stoop to hijack power over your fellow citizens. Just like your Islamic allies, until you police the fanatics in your own ranks who would effect political change by violence, you are the enemy of the Republic. You have joined the howling barbarians, clamoring at the gates of civilization.

The COVID-19 pandemic has clearly revealed your true agenda, despite all your classical rhetoric. Closet fascists in your ranks have forbidden worship, ruined entire industries, and sent small businesses into the black maw of bankruptcy by the score in your unholy quest for complete control over a free people. It has provided an excuse for you to indulge your lurid fantasies of power.

People of genuine conviction take an oath to defend the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I took it myself in 1986. The last three-plus years have shown the rest of the nation exactly into which category you have chosen to belong. So as your childish foot soldiers call for open conflict and the sloppy, faux intellectuals who populate your ranks bloviate or stand mute – one wonders if you’ll follow through. Make this your Lexington and Concorde if you dare.....Read more...

https://www.conservativedailynews.com/2020/08/op-ed-random-thoughts-to-democrats-on-an-uncivil-war/

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4    4 years ago

Pure projection.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tessylo @4.1    4 years ago

No, it’s not.  It’s analysis is right on!  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5  seeder  XXJefferson51    4 years ago

In one scenario, John Podesta — the former chair of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, and a leading figure in party circles — played former Vice President Joe Biden, and refused to concede the election.

The result: the threat of secession by the entire West Coast, followed by the possible intervention of the U.S. armed forces:

But conveniently, a group of former top government officials called the Transition Integrity Project actually gamed four possible scenarios, including one that doesn’t look that different from 2016: a big popular win for Mr. Biden, and a narrow electoral defeat, presumably reached after weeks of counting the votes in Pennsylvania. For their war game, they cast John Podesta, who was Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, in the role of Mr. Biden. They expected him, when the votes came in, to concede, just as Mrs. Clinton had.

But Mr. Podesta, playing Mr. Biden, shocked the organizers by saying he felt his party wouldn’t let him concede. Alleging voter suppression, he persuaded the governors of Wisconsin and Michigan to send pro-Biden electors to the Electoral College.

In that scenario, California, Oregon, and Washington then threatened to secede from the United States if Mr. Trump took office as planned. The House named Mr. Biden president; the Senate and White House stuck with Mr. Trump. At that point in the scenario, the nation stopped looking to the media for cues, and waited to see what the military would do....Read more: 
https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/08/02/democrats-war-game-for-election-includes-west-coast-secession-possible-civil-war-john-podesta/
 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5    4 years ago

So those are the four scenarios. In only one did a candidate win a clear victory and the opposing candidate refuse to accept the result. And the loser who refused to accept the result was Biden — not Trump. That is precisely the opposite of the Trump-won't-accept-results speculation that has dominated the media in recent weeks. Even though Trump clearly won the presidency in that scenario, "the game play ended in a constitutional crisis, with threats of secession, and the potential for either a decline into authoritarianism or a radically revamped set of democratic rules that ensure the popular will prevails."

The report gave some reasons why Democrats would be willing to defy the constitutional structure of American presidential elections to put Biden in the White House. The scenario game-playing "revealed that for many Democrats and key Democratic constituencies, this election represents an existential crisis, the last chance to stop a rapid and potentially irreversible U.S. decline into authoritarianism and unbridled nativism," the report says. "Some participants in the exercises observed that if former Vice President Biden wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College, there will be political pressure from the Democratic Party's rank and file and from independent grassroots organizations to prevent a second Trump term." Prevent a second Trump term, that is, even in the face of a clear and legitimate Trump victory.

When one side believes the stakes are so high as to be existential — a last chance to stop authoritarianism and unbridled nativism — then virtually any means are justified to prevent the other side from winning. One lesson of the Transition Integrity Project game-playing is that today, less than 100 days from the election, some of the president's most passionate opponents believe Democrats might willingly throw the Constitution aside in their desire to put an end to the Trump presidency......read more: 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/will-democrats-accept-election-loss-new-report-says-no

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1    4 years ago

Your doomsday scenarios are freaking ridiculous.  

Again, projection plain and simple.

All the things you accuse dems/libs/progressives of is what the 'president' is doing now.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.1    4 years ago

First of all they are not my scenarios.  They are democrat scenarios they role played or war gamed out as reported on by a journalist from the New York Times.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6  Sparty On    4 years ago

Best thing that could ever happen.   Let the left coast go.

Washington, Oregon and California?   Buh bye.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @6    4 years ago

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @6.1    4 years ago
jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

Yeah i agree, the Democrats who are suggesting this are nuts.

Glad we agree.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.1    4 years ago

The democrats/liberals/progressives are not suggesting this.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.2    4 years ago

Really?  Who is then?  

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
7  The Magic 8 Ball    4 years ago

the message is clear...

if we do not elect and allow democrats to destroy our country...          they will destroy our country.


 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @7    4 years ago

"the message is clear...

if we do not elect and allow democrats to destroy our country...          they will destroy our country."

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

The message is clear as mud.  

Again, sheer nonsense and projection.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8  JohnRussell    4 years ago

Perhaps this article, which was easily found by 30 seconds of search, can shed a little reasonable light on this "topic".  

www.bostonglobe.com   /2020/07/25/nation/bipartisan-group-secretly-gathered-game-out-contested-trump-biden-election-it-wasnt-pretty/

A bipartisan group secretly gathered to game out a contested Trump-Biden election. It wasn’t pretty - The Boston Globe

Yvonne Abraham
10-12 minutes

Using a role-playing game that is a fixture of military and national security planning, the group envisioned a dark 11 weeks between Election Day and Inauguration Day, one in which Trump and his Republican allies used every apparatus of government — the Postal Service, state lawmakers, the Justice Department, federal agents, and the military — to hold onto power, and Democrats took to the courts and the streets to try to stop it.

If it sounds paranoid or outlandish — a war room of seasoned politicos and constitutional experts playing a Washington version of Dungeons and Dragons in which the future of the republic hangs in the balance — they get it. But, as they finalize a report on what they learned and begin briefing elected officials and others, they insist their warning is serious: A close election this fall is likely to be contested, and there are few guardrails to stop a constitutional crisis, particularly if Trump flexes the considerable tools at his disposal to give himself an advantage.

“He doesn’t have to win the election,” said Nils Gilman, a historian who leads research at a think tank called the Berggruen Institute and was an organizer of the exercise. “He just has to create a plausible narrative that he didn’t lose.”

The very existence of a group like this one, which was formed late last year, underscores the extent of the fear in Washington’s political circles — and beyond — that Trump will take the same hammer he has used to fracture the norms of executive governance over the past three years and upend the nation’s delicate tradition of orderly political transitions of power by refusing to concede if he loses.

“We have norms in our transition, rather than laws,” said Rachel Kleinfeld, a senior fellow in the Democracy, Conflict and Governance Program at the Carnegie Foundation, who was not part of the game. “This entire election season is something a democracy expert would worry about.”

It is a fear that has been stoked by the president himself, who has repeatedly warned, without offering evidence, of widespread fraud involving mail-in ballots — which voters are likely to use at unprecedented levels because the pandemic has made in-person voting a potential health risk — to cast doubt on the results of November’s election.

“I think mail-in voting is going to rig the election, I really do,” he  told Fox News’  Chris Wallace  last Sunday. When asked if he would accept the election results, he said: “I’ll have to see.”

Former vice president Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has taken to issuing foreboding warnings of his own. “This president is going to try to indirectly steal the election by arguing that mail-in ballots don’t work — they’re not real, they’re not fair,” he said at a fund-raiser on Thursday night. He has also  mused  publicly about Trump having to be escorted, forcibly if need be, from the White House.

That happened in one of the four scenarios the Transition Integrity Project gamed out, according to summaries of the exercises provided to The Boston Globe. But constitutional experts — and the game play — was less focused on the possibility of a cinematic, militarized intervention on Inauguration Day, which is a possibility many still consider remote, than the room the Constitution appears to leave for a disastrous and difficult transition if the incumbent does not accept a loss.

“How well is our constitutional legal system designed to deal with an incumbent president who insists that he won an election but for the presence of fraud?” said Lawrence Douglas, a professor at Amherst College who has written a book on what would happen if Trump took such a stand. “And I think the rather unfortunate answer is our system is not well designed at all to deal with that problem,” said Douglas, who was not involved in the game.

Brooks got the seed of the idea for the Transition Integrity Project after a dinner where a federal judge and a corporate lawyer each told her they were convinced the military or the Secret Service would have to escort Trump out of office if he lost the election and would not concede. Brooks wasn’t so sure. She and Gilman decided to turn the Washington parlor game into an actual exercise; they held an early meeting in Washington, with about 25 people, in December.

“When we started talking about this we got a lot of reactions — oh, you guys are so paranoid, don’t be ridiculous, this isn’t going to happen,” Brooks said.

Two things have happened since then: Trump has displayed increased willingness to challenge mail-in ballots, and his administration has deployed federal forces to quell protests in front of the White House and in Portland, Ore., and has threatened to do so in other cities.

“That has really shaken people,” Brooks said. “What was really a fringe idea has now become an anxiety that’s pretty widely shared.”

Brooks, Gilman, and others recruited a slate of players including a former swing state governor, a former White House chief of staff, and a former head of the Department of Homeland Security. They invited both Democrats and Republicans who they knew had concerns about Trump’s comments on the election; nearly 80 people in all were involved. The Republicans were described by participants as “never Trump” or “not Trump Republicans.”

They played using the so-called Chatham House Rules — in which participants can discuss what was said, but not who was there; some participants were willing to be named. They included Republicans Trey Grayson, the former Kentucky secretary of state, and conservative commentator Bill Kristol, as well as Democrats Leah Daughtry, who was CEO of the 2008 and 2016 Democratic National Convention Committees, former White House ethics czar Norm Eisen, and progressive Democratic strategist Adam Jentleson.

The game was elaborate. The participants took on the roles of the Trump campaign, the Biden campaign, relevant government officials, and the media —generally, Democrats played Democrats and Republicans played Republicans — and used a 10-sided die to determine whether a team succeeded in its attempted moves. The games are not meant to be predictive; rather, they are supposed to give people a sense of possible consequences in complex scenarios.

Each scenario involved a different election outcome: An unclear result on Election Day that looked increasingly like a Biden win as more ballots were counted; a clear Biden win in the popular vote and the Electoral College; an Electoral College win for Trump with Biden winning the popular vote by 5 percentage points; and a narrow Electoral College and popular vote victory for Biden.

In the scenarios, the team playing the Trump campaign often questioned the legitimacy of mail-in ballots, which often boosted Biden as they came in — shutting down post offices, pursuing litigation, and using right-wing media to amplify narratives about a stolen election.

To some participants, the game was a stark reminder of the power of incumbency.

“The more demonstrations there were, the more demands for recounts, the more legal challenges there were, the more funerals for democracy were held, the more Trump came across as the candidate of stability,” said Edward Luce, the US editor of the Financial Times, who played the role of a mainstream media reporter during one of the simulations. “Possession is nine-tenths of the law.”

In multiple scenarios, officials on both sides homed in on narrowly decided swing states with divided governments, such Wisconsin, Michigan, and North Carolina, hoping to persuade officials there to essentially send two different results to Congress. If a state’s election is disputed, a legislature controlled by one party and governor of another each could send competing slates of electors backing their party’s candidate.

Both sides turned out massive street protests that Trump sought to control — in one scenario he invoked the Insurrection Act, which allows the president to use military forces to quell unrest. The scenario that began with a narrow Biden win ended with Trump refusing to leave the White House, burning government documents, and having to be escorted out by the Secret Service. (The team playing Biden in that scenario, meanwhile, sought to patch things up with Republicans by appointing moderate Republican governors, including Charlie Baker of Massachusetts, to Cabinet positions.)

The scenario that produced the most contentious dynamics, however, was the one in which Trump won the Electoral College — and thus, the election — but Biden won the popular vote by 5 percentage points. Biden’s team retracted his Election Night concession, fueled by Democrats angry at losing yet another election despite capturing the popular vote, as happened in 2000 and 2016. In the mock election, Trump sought to divide Democrats — at one point giving an interview to The Intercept, a left-leaning news outlet, saying Senator Bernie Sanders would have won if Democrats had nominated him. Meanwhile, Biden’s team sought to encourage large Western states to secede unless pro-Democracy reforms were made.

That scenario seemed highly far-fetched, but it envisioned a situation in which both sides may have incentives to contest the election.

“There is a narrative among activists in both parties that the loss must be illegitimate,” he said.

According to the Constitution, the presidency ends at noon on Jan. 20, at which point the newly inaugurated president becomes the commander in chief.

The games, ultimately, were designed to explore how difficult it could be to get there.

“The Constitution really has been a workable document in many respects because we have had people who more or less adhered to a code of conduct,” said retired Army Colonel Larry Wilkerson, a Republican and former chief of staff to Colin Powell who participated in games as an observer. “That seems to no longer to be the case. That changes everything.”

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @8    4 years ago

The seeded article, using Breitbart and other far right "news" sources, is little more than hysteria. 

The truth is the world has Donald Trump to thank for these "scenarios", with his repeated hints he may not respect the election results due to his imaginary fear of "mail in votes".  This "war game" merely draws attention to Trump's insanity. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1    4 years ago

From this 'source': 
"The party is already laying the groundwork with media and operatives spreading the idea that the winner will not be known on election night or possibly for months as their army of ruthless lawyers will challenge votes in any state won by Trump."

No, it is tRump who is laying this groundwork, not democrats.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1    4 years ago
The truth is the world has Donald Trump to thank for these "scenarios"

Nah, it's all just more TDS running rampant through some liberal/progressive ranks.

Trumps is not responsible for any of their TDS driven butthurt.

Period!

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
8.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  JohnRussell @8    4 years ago

It was so bi partisan that all the republicans involved were committed never trumpers and or part of the Lincoln project.  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
9  JBB    4 years ago

Yes, if need be Trump will be hauled off by US troops!

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  JBB @9    4 years ago

That will never happen.  He would simply be the voice of the opposition for the next three years if he somehow doesn’t win re election.  Maybe with his own media source...

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
9.2  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @9    4 years ago

Lol .... now that is funny.     Thx for a good belly laugh first thing in the morning

I remind you that you and your ilk haven't turned the USA into a the type of Banana Republic where that regularly happens.

And good luck trying to get it there .....

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
9.2.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Sparty On @9.2    4 years ago

I hope you are right!  When Trump wins re election in November the left will likely burn down their cities over it. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
10  seeder  XXJefferson51    4 years ago

Where There’s Smoke – A.F. Branco Cartoon

Posted by: A.F. Branco in Featured, Political Cartoons August 7, 2020 0

image-11.png
 
 

Who is online

Igknorantzruls
JohnRussell
devangelical
Just Jim NC TttH
Kavika
Ozzwald


95 visitors