What percentage of ReThugs do you think are willing to carry out violence?

[True Dough]

Based on the article cited below, a poll of ReThugs found that 14.2% said they would be willing to "take action to overturn election results." So parsing that, perhaps some respondents don't really mean violence when they say they'd "take action." Others will not live up to their word.

So maybe 4 or 5% might really be willing to get involved in another Jan. 6 type of situation? Perhaps not even that many.

A new report by the World Justice Project, an international group that assesses the rule of law in different countries, includes some startling findings regarding the 2024 U.S. presidential election.

Nearly half of Republican respondents, 46 percent, “said they would not accept election results as legitimate if the other party’s candidate won.” In addition, 14.2 percent said they would “take action to overturn election results,” though “the type of action—whether legal or illegal—was not specified in the survey question.”

The numbers were lower for Democrats: 27 percent said they would not accept the election results if the other party’s candidate won, and 10.6 percent said they would take action to overturn them.

Republican respondents expressed significantly less faith than Democrats in electoral processes, results, and authorities. They lacked confidence, for example, in the trustworthiness of election officials and the legitimacy of vote counts. On a few electoral issues, namely voting rights, Democratic respondents’ concerns tended to exceed those of Republicans.

https://newrepublic.com/post/186031/poll-republicans-election-results-another-january-6

[True Dough]

1. Yeah, it's probably more like a fraction of 1 percent

The vast majority are all talk.

[wnylib]

6. I read the same claim here on DU that "it's all talk"

in December of 2020.

I would not expect a mob attack on the Capitol this time around. I also would not expect large groups of people from the general public to just spontaneously take violent actions on their own. Some would, but not a large, unified group.

If there is violent reaction from the right to the election outcome, I believe that it would come from armed, trained militias composed of current and former military and LE, under the direction and orders of right wing political or military leaders. They would use strategically planned guerrilla tactics.

[Kaleva]

7. The only person all such groups would listen to is Trump

Otherwise they'd be fractured and may possibly fight each other for dominance.

Based on Trump's history and the words of many who worked in his Administration, I very highly doubt Trump has the brains or skill to coordinate diverse groups in taking effective action . Trump running an efficient command center is rather far fetched in my opinion.

[wnylib]

8. Of course Trump does not have the knowledge or skills

to organize and lead such a coordinated effort. But, Trump is only the public face for a right wing movement. He is the vote getter. I can think of two people who could unite and lead militia groups which would accept their leadership. I'm sure that there are others, but I'm thinking of Eric Prince or General Michael Flynn.

[Silent Type]

2. One thing to say it, another to actually do anything. Next time they won't make it up the Capitol steps.

Might be some losers shooting at government offices, etc., but that’s about it. Not that it’s inconsequential, it’s just that I’m not concerned about most the white wingers I know.

[Tweedy]

3. Not too many

We have already discovered that one of the loudest, most violent sounding maga people was described by her own father as an angry person who drank too many beers and rarely left her couch.

Nobody showed up when Mr. Trump begged “his people” to come disrupt his Manhattan criminal trial.

There are some no doubt. Most however do not want to harm anybody. They just get riled up by conservative fabulists all day long until they can hardly see straight.

[Enter stage left]

4. Me thinks they have had too much to drink...

98.35%* of those xitter warriors couldn't rouse themselves out of bed by 6:30 AM to stand in formation before breakfast, and even if they did, they'd probably fall asleep with their faces in their pablum.

Talk is cheap, until the lead starts flying.

* statistics found on the xitter intertubes...take them for what it's worth.

[pat_k]

5. It would only take a dozen in a battleground state. . .

. . .to subject key polling places, vote tabulating centers, courts, and election officials to terrorism in the form of bombs, vehicle rammings, shootings, or other forms of attack.

It would only take one to attack a single target.

And protests can descend into mob violence, whatever the original intent of a vast majority of the people who show up.

Security in counties that are likely targets needs to be extremely high. I think officials know the risks and are doing their best to prevent the unthinkable. I hope it is enough.

[LiberalFighter]

9. How many would actually do it? Not more than 2,000