Would you consider this to be an unfair outcome/a coup?

[Conservatopia]

Unfair, undemocratic and completely legal. That's what's scary.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I think this could very well result in a second civil war.

Highly unlikely. Sustained armed insurrections are actually very hard to pull off and require more than just angry citizens and politicians. Rioting and lone-wolf attacks, on the other hand? Much more plausible.

Disagree.  This would not simply be a matter of "lone wolf" people resorting to violence, or riots in the sense of the riots during the 1960s or after the Rodney King verdict.  Biden's supporters nationwide would not be content to see the election blatantly stolen from him and Trump effectively appointed dictator, and I think they would have substantial support in the military.  You don't adhere to "the rule of law" when your most basic rights are being stripped away and your country is being transformed from a democracy into a dictatorship.  There would be more than mere "anger" if that happened.  

Who is going to wage this war? Who will raise the armies? Who will supply the food, munitions, monies, and other supplies to keep them in the field? This would require serious buy-in from military leaders and men and women of industry. If they fail, the leaders of the rebellion will all certainly be put to death. If they succeed, they will be governors of a wasteland —for a civil war would be highly destructive to the nation, its roads, its commerce, and its communities. It is simply in no-one's interest to go to war while the likely fruit of a Republican administration is less than apocalyptic and the chances for a peaceful resolution are greater than zero.

A large part of the country might not think it would be in its "interest" to let Donald Trump become president a second time either.  And many people might think a likely dictatorship (after all, how likely is it that the Republicans would prevent Trump from becoming a dictator when they wouldn't say boo to him even after he LOST the 2020 election?) would be at least close enough to "apocalyptic" to take whatever measures were necessary to prevent it.  

And remember that at the beginning of 2016, it was considered "highly unlikely" that Trump was going to become president to begin with.

These are not remotely comparable.

In the end, it doesn't really matter what "many people" might think because "many people" do not have the resources to wage war against the most powerful military in the world. We have had fraudulent and stolen elections before, even elections for the presidency! (1824, 1876, 2000 ...) in which "many people" considered the rightful winner to have been cheated. Yet these cases did not lead to civil war, because the people with the ability to keep an army in the field (i.e. wealthy, powerful people in positions of influence) have more to lose than to gain by taking up arms against their government.

If there is a second civil war in this country, it will come when the powers that be decided they literally can no longer live with the status quo, and not as the result of a—however brazenly stolen—election.

When you speak of waging war "against the most powerful military in the world," you assume that those who would not accept Trump as president would have no support in the military.  I don't buy that in the proposed scenario.

And didn't the founding fathers have more to lose than to gain by rebelling against Britain?  After all, they would likely have been executed had they lost. 

Definitely not, lol. The livelihoods of men like John Hancock were directly endangered by the enforcement of the Navigation Acts, and ofc there were other material grievances as well, including (after 1775) the fear of "servile insurrection" in the Southern colonies, and a hunger for new lands west of the Appalachians. Even so, the colonies availed themselves on peaceful protest for more than a decade before finally resorting to armed insurrection, and waited a year and more after that to declare independence. As Jefferson put it, "all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

As for a mutiny, it could certainly happen but I will believe it when I see it. Only once before has a significant portion of the U.S. military taken up arms against a sitting president, and it was over a significantly more serious dispute than a stolen election.

[LBJer]

I think this could very well result in a second civil war.

Highly unlikely. Sustained armed insurrections are actually very hard to pull off and require more than just angry citizens and politicians. Rioting and lone-wolf attacks, on the other hand? Much more plausible.

Disagree.  This would not simply be a matter of "lone wolf" people resorting to violence, or riots in the sense of the riots during the 1960s or after the Rodney King verdict.  Biden's supporters nationwide would not be content to see the election blatantly stolen from him and Trump effectively appointed dictator, and I think they would have substantial support in the military.  You don't adhere to "the rule of law" when your most basic rights are being stripped away and your country is being transformed from a democracy into a dictatorship.  There would be more than mere "anger" if that happened.  

Who is going to wage this war? Who will raise the armies? Who will supply the food, munitions, monies, and other supplies to keep them in the field? This would require serious buy-in from military leaders and men and women of industry. If they fail, the leaders of the rebellion will all certainly be put to death. If they succeed, they will be governors of a wasteland —for a civil war would be highly destructive to the nation, its roads, its commerce, and its communities. It is simply in no-one's interest to go to war while the likely fruit of a Republican administration is less than apocalyptic and the chances for a peaceful resolution are greater than zero.

A large part of the country might not think it would be in its "interest" to let Donald Trump become president a second time either.  And many people might think a likely dictatorship (after all, how likely is it that the Republicans would prevent Trump from becoming a dictator when they wouldn't say boo to him even after he LOST the 2020 election?) would be at least close enough to "apocalyptic" to take whatever measures were necessary to prevent it.  

And remember that at the beginning of 2016, it was considered "highly unlikely" that Trump was going to become president to begin with.

These are not remotely comparable.

In the end, it doesn't really matter what "many people" might think because "many people" do not have the resources to wage war against the most powerful military in the world. We have had fraudulent and stolen elections before, even elections for the presidency! (1824, 1876, 2000 ...) in which "many people" considered the rightful winner to have been cheated. Yet these cases did not lead to civil war, because the people with the ability to keep an army in the field (i.e. wealthy, powerful people in positions of influence) have more to lose than to gain by taking up arms against their government.

If there is a second civil war in this country, it will come when the powers that be decided they literally can no longer live with the status quo, and not as the result of a—however brazenly stolen—election.

When you speak of waging war "against the most powerful military in the world," you assume that those who would not accept Trump as president would have no support in the military.  I don't buy that in the proposed scenario.

And didn't the founding fathers have more to lose than to gain by rebelling against Britain?  After all, they would likely have been executed had they lost.  

Definitely not, lol. The livelihoods of men like John Hancock were directly endangered by the enforcement of the Navigation Acts, and ofc there were other material grievances as well, including (after 1775) the fear of "servile insurrection" in the Southern colonies, and a hunger for new lands west of the Appalachians. Even so, the colonies availed themselves on peaceful protest for more than a decade before finally resorting to armed insurrection, and waited a year and more after that to declare independence. As Jefferson put it, "all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

As for a mutiny, it could certainly happen but I will believe it when I see it. Only once before has a significant portion of the U.S. military taken up arms against a sitting president, and it was over a significantly more serious dispute than a stolen election.

Some might argue that the very real threat of death is more important than a threat to one's "livelihood" in the sense you're using the word here.  And why is something like a "hunger for new lands west of the Appalachians" a compelling grievance, but a desire to not live under a man with clear dictatorial aspirations and who wouldn't have even won reelection legitimately in this scenario NOT a compelling grievance?