I was conversing with one of my NPR-ish progressive informants recently and stated my position that 'if the election is demonstrably stolen and some other groups who I could have some degree of confidence in stages a coup, I would support it.'

My informant was shocked.  I tried to describe my philosophy which is, in my opinion very rational, but I'm not sure it sunk in.

My philosophy is that if the election is stolen, the 'victors' are thieves.  If a coup is undertaken successfully, the participants are also thieves.  So it is a matter of picking the thief who one considers to have the highest probability of producing a good outcome.  'Good' is subjective and means different things to different people of course.  For my part, 'good' means furthering of the nation in something close to the form that the framer's envisioned.

Indeed, in the case of a coup dealing with a stolen election in a putative Democracy, it is a matter of a thief stealing from another thief.  In a double-negative-ish sort of way it could be the case that a natural non-thief was converted into one by a bad situation.  So, there is more hope for the coup participants who might be OK than for the election subverters who are 'bad' by definition...as I define it at least.

I also pointed out, or tried to, that there are nations in which coups are not all that uncommon in modern times and those who have pulled them off (often the military) have relinquished power as the threats to the nation diminished.  Or as support drained away, or whatever.  From my crude understandings, Turkey is a good example of this.

---

With respect to the election, I'm sensing quite strongly that there is a media psy-op regarding the polls.  The goal is just to provide some cover for an election theft.  Part of what makes me suspicious is that it is what I'd do as a strategy if I were 'evil' (and paid.)  The other part is that even given the massive media efforts to assult Trump and prop up Clinton, it makes not much logical sense that the polls are doing what is reported (for the most broadly reported of them) and it doesn't square with the on-the-ground support which can be seen/sensed through the media smokescreen.

I'm not saying that my senses here are right, but in just about every other part of this campaign my senses, when they have been this solid, have been right on.  The volumes of Wikileaks data, as well as other sources such as PVeritas, have time and time again simply provided fairly bullet-proof confirmation of something I've sensed with a high degree to be the reality.  It's almost spooky.

I'd almost bet money that we'll at one point see leaked confirmation of a polling psy-op as I've described.  The main reason I would not is that I have little confidence that leaks will be common, or even possible, if the Clinton side 'wins'.  It has ever likelihood of being an earth-changing development and a gateway between today's relative mobility (in multiple ways) and a world with is significantly different in this regard.