Factually, that’s what he did during his time in office as well. I’m not sure what they thought had changed.
A. Win it. (Looking increasingly unlikely)
B. Steal it. Most of the fake electors are still in place, they’ve had four years to hire a new sleepers
C. Coup 2.0 historically the Democrats haven’t been very smart about things and it’ll totally blindside when you pull it again only this time with more people. All those people that got locked up in serious consequences we’ll just tell them that we’ll pardon them again
D. Civil War 2.0. if he doesn’t win it, and can’t steal it, and if there’s actually military protection around the Capital for 2.0. he’ll just openly call for the south to rise again. Only this time it’s not the south, it’s the rural areas, hell plan a Vietnam style offensive where the rural armed people lay siege everywhere.
My real actual best guess is he’s tired. He’s old, he’s out of shape, he’s stressed to the nines and he’s just trying to blow off the stress, he probably does have a plan b in a plan c. His actual plan d is probably two take a flight to Russia.
Even the recent movie “Civil War” didn’t touch on how and why such a thing started, because it just doesn’t make sense. There may be regional conflicts and riots, I don’t doubt that, but there’s no single organization to pull off a new Confederacy or whatever it would be. People watching the film even laughed at the union of Texas and California…what? Maybe that was a subtle message by the writers to not take the overall thing seriously, the movie wasn’t about the background events but about the characters in a hypothetical situation.
It was a real dogshit film. Just gratuitous violence. No real point. No story.
The movie is a counter point to the romanticism of political conflict. It intentionally doesn’t go into the specifics of politics that lead to the war as that would be saying “this political side is bad” which wasn’t the point. The far right romanticizes a civil war, the far left romanticizes a revolution. What you see in the movie is what it would look like if there was a wide spread political conflict. It shows the gory details to ask people on both extremes “is this what you really want?”
For a lot of people the best case scenario is to end up in that refugee camp in the football field. Worst case is to end up in a mass grave because some psychopath decided you’re from the “wrong America”. Does the politics matter to people that wind up in those outcomes? Does it even matter to the soldiers storming the Whitehouse? Just seemed like they had a mission to accomplish, the politics aren’t all that relevant anymore at that point.
People sometimes feel like using violence may achieve a better political outcome. But the reality is everyone is just worse off because of it. That was the point.
C and D might be slipping away from him, and possibly even B. They require a base that’s fired up to support him. He’s starting to lose that. They’ll still vote for him, and his best chance is to take a straight electoral college victory without the popular vote, but nothing extraordinary to subvert the system. If he doesn’t make that, though, he’s probably done.
I think the civil war one is actually the best case scenario.
Imagine a tired con man, not ready to fight, barely any energy. Calls for his die hard supporters to show up en masses and then a very tiny group show up and get arrested by the army (assuming the army doesn’t side with them).
Look at the age of the AVERAGE US farmer.
I am not worried about a civil war lead by the gravy seals.
I’m not too worried either. But The average age of the rural Texan is not 60. The guys that own the farms might be 60.
For D the winning strategy for the United States needs to be to treat them as harshly as we treat eco terrorists. The viet cong had experienced Japanese and French occupation and so were more willing to engage in prolonged conflict. The confederacy had a lot of build up to prepare the common rabble for war. Martyrless crackdowns with a propaganda campaign can remove the will to fight.
