How the Trump campaign is already planning to keep power after the election

Originally published at:


Be prepared, because the regime is definitely preparing.


“The pathetic response of the Democratic Party and its presidential candidate to Trump’s conspiracy is determined, above all, by its fear that any call for resistance would trigger a mass movement from below that would get out of control and threaten the capitalist oligarchy.”

“The Democrats fear such a development more than anything. Their entire focus over the past four years has been to divert popular opposition to Trump behind the conflicts within the ruling class over foreign policy, centered on the demand for more aggressive action against Russia.”

Wonder why Chuck and Nancy have been so passive?


Come on, now. I’m sure stern letters will be written…


Sooo stern:

"On Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who proclaimed that her quiver was “full of arrows,” reached an agreement with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to extend funding for the federal government until after the election, removing the threat of a government shutdown in response to Trump’s effort to push through his Supreme Court nomination.

With this craven capitulation, the Democrats are not only giving up a seat on the Supreme Court, they are going a long way toward surrendering to Trump’s coup.

Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said on Wednesday that Trump is seeking “to discredit the votes of millions, stack the Supreme Court to disenfranchise millions and perpetuate himself in office,” warning that this is “how you see democracies end.”

Schiff’s only response, in addition to blaming “foreign assistance” for Trump’s actions, was to propose legislation to restrain future presidents. He expressed the hope that voters would “turn out in such massive numbers that there’s a landslide repudiation of Trump and Trumpism.”

Dem leaders are bailing out without a fight.

Dems are playing like there is a tomorrow and the GoP are playing like there is no tomorrow.

I sincerely hope that after Nancy and Chuck honor the legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg today at the Capital, that they come out fighting with more than quivers full of toy arrows and toothless legislation. I really do.


I think the root of his assumption he is going to lose is the ever present voice in his head:

“Surely the people of this country aren’t stupid enough to elect me again. Can there possibly be that many suckers in America? I just can’t believe it…”


Two reactions to The Atlantic piece worth keeping in mind:

And my thread on the subject:

Stay calm and KICK ASS.


Part of a plan would have to be to mobilize the MAGA/2ndA gangs to protest and/or cause incidents to justify a crackdown. They’d need social media to organize that, but I’m sure that Facebook would be quick to pull the plug. /s


Because NYT paywall, here is excerpt of an opinion piece calling trump a blustering bully hiding weakness while trying to scare the F out of voters…

"New York Times columnist, Michelle Goldberg, has a piece this morning entitled, Trump Wants You to Think You Can’t Get Rid of Him , where she reviews his bombastic attacks on people especially political opponents but not too worry because in his own mind, he is a weakling. Here is an excerpt (the full column is below):

Trump may be behaving like a strongman, but he is weaker than he’d like us all to believe. Autocrats who actually have the power to fix elections don’t announce their plans to do it; they just pretend to have gotten 99 percent of the vote. It’s crucial that Trump’s opponents emphasize this, because unlike rage, excessive fear can be demobilizing. There’s a reason TV villains like to say, “Resistance is futile.”

We cannot allow Trump’s constant threats to undermine voters’ confidence that their ballots will be counted or discredit the outcome in advance,” Michael Podhorzer of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. recently wrote in a memo to allies. Podhorzer said that the organization’s polling suggests that “this close to the election, we do Trump’s work for him when we respond to his threats rather than remind voters that they will decide who the next president will be if they vote.”"


All the noise about a Trump coup is sucking the oxygen out of discussion of stuff like 200K+ American dead.

eta: He only needs a coup if he actually loses.


Every Trump rally should be surrounded by “die ins”, grave markers, and such.

Fury and indignation.

We’re doing a Four Corners protest tomorrow. I haven’t made my sign yet; not I know what I’m going to do.


I suspect they are level-headed that right now they have a weak hand, but they are about to win an election, and that move is more important than any ticky-tocky thing they can achieve in the House or Senate today.

I could be wrong, and would love to hear more tactics we should be doing right now. I found the advice in the article to be the best I’ve heard so far: if a coup occurs, we need to take to the streets to protest. Prepare today by finding the 5 people you trust to take action with.


One potential way to counter this would be to get the EU, China, or other major trading partners to publicly announce (or pass) policy prohibiting trade with a un-democratically elected USA. If done before the elections, that would bring enormous financial pressure against a coup attempt such as this. If there is anything more powerful than corrupt GOP politicians, it’s the power of the CEOs and corporations that own those politicians.

1 Like

The only issue here is for any strangle hold to happen he needs the military.

He doesn’t have them, at all.


While it doesn’t inspire confidence in our system of government. Marines frog-marching Donald Trump from the White House will make for great television.


I’m not so sure he thinks that.

there will be blood


This was about my reaction. The bulk of the Atlantic article is the same scare mongering about Trump could “just do” xyz we’ve been hearing forever. The bit that’s become a major news story, about the electors, isn’t exactly new. The GOP recently lost a Supreme Court case on the subject of faithless electors. Arguing electors could break with state requirements by their own volition. Afterwards they publicly announced they’d be taking that strategy to the states.

The format of that presented in the article is extremely unlikely. These things are dictated by state laws, and many states it’s written into the state constitution. Are we to believe that Trump, after the election will get many states to pass new laws, amend their constitution, or win multiple court cases arguing against state laws and constitutions between November and deadlines for certification? Before his term ends in January? The article lacks any discussion of how any of it would be done, just tells us it is already gaurenteed. That GOP legislatures have the power to alter this stuff at their whim, at any moment. And that there will be no opposition or response. That a Democratic governor in PA will sign such a law, that state populations will vote in favor where that’s required. That multiple courts, and multiple rounds of appeals will quickly validate arguments designed to kill time.

There’s some important original reporting (on this one subject) in there. But it’s all framed as a forgone conclusion, which always carries the don’t vote stay home implication.

Framing the GOP’s vast, long lived, work to undermine elections this way isn’t helping. It’s meant to grab easy views and only serves to make people complacent. That’s half the reason they’re being so bald about this.



I really hate " :heart:"-ing that, but I have to agree, there is a better-than-even likelihood you are correct.