Anyone that's saying "they're just going to implement martial law and cancel the elections" is falling into the "all powerful" traps. Some things that might reassure: 1)Elections are held *by the states*. The big government can't pass any sort of sweeping order to stop them unilaterally.

2) If elections are paused, senators automatically lose their seats at end of term and are replaced by state appointed temps. In the event of such a crisis, blue states would certainly send in 100% blue, get the majority, and end it instantly.

3)Even if the entire military agreed to carry out an illegal martial law against their own citizens, they don't have the troops. They could maybe, MAYBE hold two cities. The entire country? Impossible. The numbers just aren't there.

4) The figurehead holding it all together is senile, old, and in bad shape. Trump isn't going to be around forever, possibly not even this whole term. Even if he lives another three years, the party is going to collapse on itself as they fight to fill the power vacuum when he's gone.

They keep doing the big scary things to seem invincible and unstoppable and get folks dooming and giving up in advance. But they DON'T have that power. They have a 6 month window left before they have to start playing nice before midterms, and a year before the power likely breaks entirely.

"Elon rigged the election!" is just as silly as when they claimed Biden did it. Again, power they don't have, just propaganda. If they had perfect, untraceable cheat powers, across thousands of independent districts, without a single accomplice squealing? Why didn't they also take congress 60-40?

Not to shit on your overall point, but that Senate contingency would go poorly. NC, KY, WI, PA, and ME would net +7 blue, but GA, NV, VT and NH would completely cancel it out and then add +1 R.

I'd like to think in the event of such an emergency, states that can go either way, states like GA or AZ, which went blue in 2020, would lean towards *not* the end of everything.

Well you said it would ve up to the governors, and what I listed is the split of D and R governors of states with one or more senators in the other party. Frankly, based on past and recent behavior, the only R governor that might not appoint an R senator is VT but it's a huge gamble.