for me is Rump reelection or a scenario where he pulls the State of National Emergency lever and assumes almost full dictatorial powers.

I unfortunately can see many paths to chaos that end in a Rump reelection, most all of the involving 2 huge prerequisites:

1 The economy remains stable and suffers no real downturn or even grows a bit

2 We really, really cock-up the Impeachment

If we do ok with the Impeachment, and Biden wins on a first ballot, and picks a great VP, then I can see Rump surely going down, unless he goes completely batshit crazy (it is a possibility with him, I think him capable of ANYTHING) and declares a State of National Emergency, which gives him VAST, near or actual dictatorial powers (including suspension of the election, which he CAN do in theory.)

The only way then to get him out is to hope the Rethugs in the Senate finally do something (which they MIGHT but I am not even sure if he would honour a conviction and removal at that point), or the Cabinet and VP uses the 25th Amendment remedy (doubtful) or barring those, the true nightmare scenario of a military coup d'état. IF the military sides with him, and the other 2 things fail, then we are off and running to an eventual civil war in some shape or form, and the world's future is in grave danger. ZERO hyperbole at that point.

A true dictator Rump could unchain Putin to vacuum up vast swathes of Eurasia (goodbye Ukraine, goodbye Baltics for sure, plus who knows what else), Turkey to go wild in a real Caliphate attempt, unleash Israel to nuke Iran, and allow China to do multiple smash n' grabs in SE Asia (goodbye Taiwan, goodbye even partially free Hong Kong, etc etc, hell they might make a move on other nations as well.)

Dog only knows what NoKo would do, but if I were Japan and SoKo, at that point, I would be looking out every window for incoming nukes (Japan) or millions of rounds of artillery tube and other style bombardment followed by 5 million NoKo ground force troops invading (SoKo).

I wish I were having a laugh, but I am not.

The Alarming Scope of the President's Emergency Powers

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/presidential-emergency-powers/576418/

snip

But will they? Unknown to most Americans, a parallel legal regime allows the president to sidestep many of the constraints that normally apply. The moment the president declares a “national emergency”—a decision that is entirely within his discretion—more than 100 special provisions become available to him. While many of these tee up reasonable responses to genuine emergencies, some appear dangerously suited to a leader bent on amassing or retaining power. For instance, the president can, with the flick of his pen, activate laws allowing him to shut down many kinds of electronic communications inside the United States or freeze Americans’ bank accounts. Other powers are available even without a declaration of emergency, including laws that allow the president to deploy troops inside the country to subdue domestic unrest.

This edifice of extraordinary powers has historically rested on the assumption that the president will act in the country’s best interest when using them. With a handful of noteworthy exceptions, this assumption has held up. But what if a president, backed into a corner and facing electoral defeat or impeachment, were to declare an emergency for the sake of holding on to power? In that scenario, our laws and institutions might not save us from a presidential power grab. They might be what takes us down.

1. “A LOADED WEAPON”

The premise underlying emergency powers is simple: The government’s ordinary powers might be insufficient in a crisis, and amending the law to provide greater ones might be too slow and cumbersome. Emergency powers are meant to give the government a temporary boost until the emergency passes or there is time to change the law through normal legislative processes. Unlike the modern constitutions of many other countries, which specify when and how a state of emergency may be declared and which rights may be suspended, the U.S. Constitution itself includes no comprehensive separate regime for emergencies. Those few powers it does contain for dealing with certain urgent threats, it assigns to Congress, not the president. For instance, it lets Congress suspend the writ of habeas corpus—that is, allow government officials to imprison people without judicial review—“when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it” and “provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

Nonetheless, some legal scholars believe that the Constitution gives the president inherent emergency powers by making him commander in chief of the armed forces, or by vesting in him a broad, undefined “executive Power.” At key points in American history, presidents have cited inherent constitutional powers when taking drastic actions that were not authorized—or, in some cases, were explicitly prohibited—by Congress. Notorious examples include Franklin D. Roosevelt’s internment of U.S. citizens and residents of Japanese descent during World War II and George W. Bush’s programs of warrantless wiretapping and torture after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Abraham Lincoln conceded that his unilateral suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War was constitutionally questionable, but defended it as necessary to preserve the Union.

The Supreme Court has often upheld such actions or found ways to avoid reviewing them, at least while the crisis was in progress. Rulings such as Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer, in which the Court invalidated President Harry Truman’s bid to take over steel mills during the Korean War, have been the exception. And while those exceptions have outlined important limiting principles, the outer boundary of the president’s constitutional authority during emergencies remains poorly defined.

snip

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden

crazytown

(7,277 posts)

15. The very act of selecting trump would be 'the end of the world'

Reply to Celerity (Reply #13)

Thu Nov 14, 2019, 11:19 PM

Nov 2019

for American credibility and leadership. It would change forever how people would view us. 2016 can be dismissed as an abberation, with the funny business going on, 2020 would not.

All those judges trump has appointed have already loosen the reins. If he gets to replace RBG, it's devil that hindmost. I would expect the SC to take an expansive view of a 'national emergency' then, inching towards the war powers of the pPesidency.

Then social media would amplify everything

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided

Celerity

(43,408 posts)

16. +100000

Reply to crazytown (Reply #15)

Thu Nov 14, 2019, 11:22 PM

Nov 2019

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden

UncleNoel

(864 posts)

6. Sorry...Straight from 538

Reply to highplainsdem (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 14, 2019, 10:06 PM

Nov 2019

The aggregate average and the trends tell a differnt story. The aggregate average shows Warren and Buttigieg on top and Biden last, but the trends show Buttigieg and Biden on top and Warren and Sanders lagging.

The last poll is gold standard. Did Biden's Town Hall have an effect?

All in all, they are bunched together and anything can happen.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Joe Biden