Dems already war-gamed the non-election, four months ago… did you see the results?

So there were a bunch of Dems and RINO-never-trumpers who got together back in June to war-game what is going to happen on non-election night, and in the weeks and months that follow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_Integrity_Project

One of the scenarios, understandably, is Trump winning the EC but losing the popular vote. John Podesta, playing the part of Biden in the war-game, refuses to concede. The drama plays out into January. I’ll block quote below, and then link to the source where you can find other links.

This is all right out in the open, folks. Don’t you dare claim, three weeks from now, that this caught you by surprise.


“Far more interesting, and totally unnoticed, is the behavior of former Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. Podesta also took part in the simulations, and unlike the anti-Trump Republicans, he wasn’t pretending to be someone he hates. Instead, organizers did the sensible thing: they had an anti-Trump Democrat portray an anti-Trump Democrat. Because the simulation designers apparently wanted to torment him as much as possible, Podesta had to endure an exact 2016 repeat: he played Joe Biden in a simulation where Trump loses the popular vote but wins a close but convincing victory in the Electoral College.”

Buried at the bottom of a New York Times article, the paper describes what Podesta did:

‘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 actual text of the final report is even more jarring. According to a summary of the game, while acting as Biden — rather than accept defeat — Podesta actively instigated secession, and then issued an ultimatum: Trump could only begin his second term if Puerto Rico and DC became states, California was cut into five pieces, and the Electoral College was abolished. When the ultimatum was refused, Podesta got the Democratic House (played by other Democrats) to declare Biden the president, and then watched to see how the military would react. If you think Cockburn exaggerates, here’s what the document says about ‘Game 3: Clear Trump win’ (a scenario in which Trump wins the Electoral College and the popular vote)

‘The Biden campaign encouraged Western states, particularly California but also Oregon and Washington and collectively known as “Cascadia” to secede from the union unless Congressional Republicans agreed to a set of structural reforms to fix our democratic system to ensure majority rule. With advice from President Obama, the Biden Campaign submitted a proposal to 1) give statehood to Washington, DC and Puerto Rico; 2) divide California into five states to more accurately represent the population in the Senate; 3) require Supreme Court Justices retire at 70; and 4) eliminate the Electoral College, to ensure the candidate who wins the popular vote…’

And it goes on,

‘One of the most consequential moves was that Team Biden on January 6 provoked a breakdown in the joint session of Congress by getting the House of Representatives to agree to award  the presidency to Biden (based on the alternative pro-Biden submissions sent by pro-Biden governors.) Pence and the GOP refused to accept this, declaring instead that Trump was re-elected under the Constitution because of his Electoral College victory. This partisan division remained unresolved because neither side backed down, and January 20 arrived without a single president-elect entitled to be Commander-in-Chief after noon that day. It was unclear what the military would do in this situation.’

https://spectator.us/top-democrats-contemplate-civil-war-biden-loses/

3 thoughts on “Dems already war-gamed the non-election, four months ago… did you see the results?

  1. The problem with the conclusion is that the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Succession_Act#Presidential_Succession_Act_of_1947 — stipulates that if the outcome of the election is unknown (and I suppose “in dispute” could be construed as causing reasonable confusion) then the Speaker of the House will assume the duties of acting President (which will require the Speaker to resign as Speaker and from Congress). If not eligible then the President Pro Tempore of the Senate can take the role of acting President. I don’t know if Pelosi could refuse this in order to let the President Pro Tempore do so; if the Senate goes Democrat and the President ProTem is from a state with a Democratic governor, then that Senator’s resigning form the Senate can be reversed once the question of the President is resolved and the governor can appoint the now-former acting President as a Senator again.

    Who knows… probably won’t be boring though.

  2. Reading through it in normal times, it reads as if it were some RPG involving woke high schoolers with no possible basis in reality. In 2020, it’s possible. I’m currently watching if any close states suddenly lock down just before election day. This would give Governors a “plausible” excuse to declare that “there just is no way that the voter’s voices were reflected due to being afraid for their lives because of COVIDDOOOOOOOM, therefore I will certify a slate of electors as follows….” (insert Biden slate here).

    RealClear Politics (which I assume is reflecting what DNC insiders are getting) Shows, PA, OH, MI WI, NC, GA, FL, IA, TX, AZ, NV all as tossups

    PA, MI, WI, and NC currently feature Democrat Governors. NC’s Gov is up for reelection. But, PA, MI, WI, and NC have a majority GOP legislature

    I can see PA, MI, and WI being states to have sustained spikes in COVID tests and flu/cold/crud cases up at the end of this month because of the normal, Northern-style cold/flu season activity. Thus they are prime candidates for lockdowns. They also have 46 electoral votes between them, which is an 8% surge that can be turned on. Can the Governors do it in the face of a GOP majority legislature? Looking at this document: https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/surveys/2020-10/summary-electoral-college-laws-100220.pdf I’m not really sure how the Governor/Secretary of State in any of them could certify anyone different than what the vote says…but then again, I don’t get how long-dead Democrats vote, either. I’m just not that creative.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.