Will Democrats Have to Do More Than Defeat Trump in 2020 to Get Him Out of Office?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

President Donald Trump has his eyes on 2020. Like many of the Democrats who have declared their intention to oppose him, he’s even weighed in on reparations. Kind of.

On Sunday, Trump retweeted a frightening idea from prominent evangelical Jerry Falwell Jr. “After the best week ever for @realDonaldTrump — no obstruction, no collusion, NYT admits @BarackObama did spy on his campaign, & the economy is soaring,” Falwell wrote. “I now support reparations-Trump should have 2 yrs added to his 1st term as pay back for time stolen by this corrupt failed coup.”

Link to tweet

?s=20

Though Trump lately has made a habit of going on largely indiscriminate retweet sprees, he seems to have genuinely adopted Falwell’s theory that the first two years of his presidency were stolen. He tweeted it in his own words later on Sunday, noting that, despite the theft, the first half of his first term still amounts to the “most successful first two years of any President in history.”

Link to tweet

?s=20

The president endorsing the idea that his first term should be extended for two years has renewed concerns that he would not leave office voluntarily were he to lose in 2020. Trump has already alleged without evidence that widespread voter fraud took place during the 2016 and 2018 elections. During the former, he’s said often and without evidence that millions of votes were cast illegally to his detriment. During the latter, he’s claimed (again without evidence) that Democrats illegally tried to steal the Florida senatorial and gubernatorial elections away from the Republicans who were ultimately declared winners after recounts. The elections were close, so Trump did all he could to promote the idea they were illegitimate. It goes without saying he would do the same for his own election in 2020.

So warned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) during a recent interview with the New York Times. “We have to inoculate against that, we have to be prepared for that,” she said of the potential that Trump won’t leave office even if he loses, adding that she held similar fears regarding the race for control of the House of Representatives last November. “He would poison the public mind. He would challenge each of the races; he would say you can’t seat these people,” she said. “We had to win. Imagine if we hadn’t won — oh, don’t even imagine. So, as we go forward, we have to have the same approach.”

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-president-2020-democrat-race-831539/

[gldstwmn]

1. You should add a poll.

[treestar]

2. That's not a thing

It's just not in the Constitution - it's a stupid made up theory. Dream on, idiotic Republicans.

[LonePirate]

3. I'm perfectly fine with the new Dem President sending in the FBI or DC police to arrest him.

[empedocles]

4. This could be a war. Need more prep for war than a phone call to FBI or DC police.

[LonePirate]

6. A war? He would have to fortify himself somewhere for that and we would know before inauguration.

[empedocles]

7. I used war colloquial sense. War like 'National Emergency', war powers, etc questions in the

courts, unreliable Robber Baron 'con wing of SCOTUS, etc.

[delisen]

5. Giuiiani floated the same idea after 9/11-he wanted to stay in office

and not hold election the due to the attack.

Fortunately no one in New York fell for that.

Trump is projecting as usual. He know H. Clinton and Kaine won. Trump and Pence need to vacate and get Clinton and Kaine in office for the rest of their term.

The first two years of Clinton's presidency were stolen by Putin and true American patriots who have gained from the heist need to vacate their offices--including judges.

[Leghorn21]

8. "best week ever"

[JHB]

9. This isn't the first time Republicans floated extra-consitutional balloons...

In 2000, they were gearing up for a full-court press to throw the electoral vote to Bush in the even of a Bush popular-win/electoral-loss.

https://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/bush-set-fight-electoral-college-loss-article-1.881690

BUSH SET TO FIGHT AN ELECTORAL COLLEGE LOSS
By MICHAEL KRAMER
| NEW YORK DAILY NEWS |
Nov 01, 2000

They're not only thinking the unthinkable, they're planning for it. Quietly, some of George W. Bush's advisers are preparing for the ultimate "what if" scenario: What happens if Bush wins the popular vote for President, but loses the White House because Al Gore's won the majority of electoral votes? "Then we win," says a Gore aide. "You play by the rules in force at the time. If the nation were really outraged by the possibility, then the system would have been changed long ago. The history is clear."

Yes it is, and it's fascinating. Twice before, Presidents have been elected after losing the popular vote. In 1876, New York Gov. Samuel Tilden won the popular vote (51% to 48%) but lost the presidency to Rutherford Hayes, who won by a single electoral vote. Twelve years later, in 1888, Grover Cleveland won the popular vote by a single percentage point, but lost his reelection bid to Benjamin Harrison by 65 electoral votes. The same thing almost happened in 1976 when Jimmy Carter topped Gerald Ford by about 17 million votes. Back then, a switch of about 5,500 votes in Ohio and 6,500 votes in Mississippi would have given those states to Ford, enough for an Electoral College victory. But because it didn't happen, the upset over its having almost happened faded rapidly. Why do we even have the Electoral College? Simply put, the Founding Fathers didn't imagine the emergence of national candidates when they wrote the Constitution, and, in any event, they didn't trust the people to elect the President directly.

A lot has changed since then, including the anachronistic view that the majority should be feared. But the Electoral College remains. So what if Gore wins such crucial battleground states as Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania and thus captures the magic 270 electoral votes while Bush wins the overall nationwide popular vote? "The one thing we don't do is roll over," says a Bush aide. "We fight."
How? The core of the emerging Bush strategy assumes a popular uprising, stoked by the Bushies themselves, of course. In league with the campaign - which is preparing talking points about the Electoral College's essential unfairness - a massive talk-radio operation would be encouraged. "We'd have ads, too," says a Bush aide, "and I think you can count on the media to fuel the thing big-time. Even papers that supported Gore might turn against him because the will of the people will have been thwarted."

Local business leaders will be urged to lobby their customers, the clergy will be asked to speak up for the popular will and Team Bush will enlist as many Democrats as possible to scream as loud as they can. "You think 'Democrats for Democracy' would be a catchy term for them?" asks a Bush adviser. The universe of people who would be targeted by this insurrection is small - the 538 currently anonymous folks called electors, people chosen by the campaigns and their state party organizations as a reward for their service over the years. If you bother to read the small print when you're in the booth, you'll notice that when you vote for President you're really selecting presidential electors who favor one candidate or the other. Generally, these electors are not legally bound to support the person they're supposedly pledged to when they gather in the various state capitals to cast their ballots on Dec. 18. The rules vary from state to state, but enough of the electors could theoretically switch to Bush if they wanted to - if there was sufficient pressure on them to ratify the popular verdict. And what would happen if the "what if" scenario came out the other way? "Then we'd be doing the same thing Bush is apparently getting ready for," says a Gore campaign official. "They're just further along in their contingency thinking than we are. But we wouldn't lie down without a fight, either."