The certification step is where this sort of optimistic case on election subversion becomes too tenuous, as I think I've mentioned to @DouthatNYT before (can't find the thread)
nytimes.com/2021/10/05/opi…
nytimes.com/2021/10/05/opi…
The refusal to certify an election on a pretextual basis could change the game as we saw it in 20. It would around flip the politics of the fight, by denying the winning party the appearance of what was their most important advantage in '20: the reality of an uncontested election
Realistically, the courts would eventually intervene--but it's not quite enough to be sure. The state laws are often very vague, and often don't have clear evidentiary standards. Litigation could take longer than the safe-harbor deadline.
More importantly, refusal to certify would immediately become a plausible pretextual basis for a state legislature to intervene, or simply refuse to send electors, esp if the courts and election officials are playing badminton with the outcome.
This is a lot more credible than the oft-discussed scenario, where Republicans look at a certified, uncontested result and just decide to get it to the other side anyway
A successful state-level subversion event would flip the burden on Congress around, as well. Now you're counting on Congress to intervene on behalf of democracy--as opposed to merely acquiescing to a fait accompli
Anyway I can't assess the likelihood of a 'coup.' But it would not take many nefarious actors to escalate the crisis to a very different place than it ever reached in 2020, and no one can be sure of how it would play out--especially if they concede politics favor nefarious acting
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
