We know that groups are planning for violence on election night and the days and weeks after. Their goal? To pressure, threaten, and force politicians, election officials, and judges into turning President Donald Trump out of office, regardless of the election results.

Nov. 3 will be unlike any Election Day in living memory. Millions of Americans are voting early with a large portion of those voting by mail. Unfortunately, accommodations to voters who fear catching a virus in polling places will lead to delayed election results for five battleground states where state election law prohibits the counting of mail-in ballots before Election Day. These states—Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—combine for 68 Electoral College votes, meaning that its highly likely there won’t be a declared winner until days, or even weeks, after the election.

Several groups plan to step into this tense election aftermath with street demonstrations.

ShutdownDC.org urges its supporters to “Hit the Streets!” after they vote, darkly warning that, because “Trump and his enablers will try to attack democracy… we know that the stakes are too high to sit on the sidelines and wait.” They tell their cadres to, “…come up with a plan to create serious disruption if Trump really tries to steal the election!” They justify revolutionary violence by claiming Trump’s “…racist rhetoric has fueled the murder of Black and Brown people in our communities… (while) …his support of the fossil fuel economy has accelerated the climate crisis,” further claiming that “Trump will not leave office without mass mobilization and direct action.”

Interestingly, this post-election violence was predicted by a group of 100 elite Democrats and “Never Trump” Republicans over the summer in their “Transition Integrity Project.” Billed a post-election wargame, the Transition Integrity Project (TIP) was more a thinly veiled propaganda hit on President Trump than a legitimate exercise in sorting out post-election scenarios. The TIP report suggested that President Donald Trump would likely not leave office without an unprecedented struggle. Their “game” even featured the dubious call by the Biden campaign for the secession of California, Oregon, and Washington unless the Constitution was amended to end the Electoral College.

But the TIP report predicted that it would be Trump and his supporters who would resort to violence. This may well be a classic case of a phenomenon called the Mirror-Image Fallacy in which analysts project their own attitudes and bias onto to their opponents. In fact, on Page 9 of the TIP report they note, “During TIP’s exercises, Team Biden almost always called for and relied on mass protests… participants in the exercise noted that racial justice activists and others will likely act independently of the Biden campaign…” This is a candid admission of the eventuality of the Biden campaign encouraging street demonstrations that might escalate into violence.

Further evidence of the well-connected TIP wargame participants (including John Podesta, Donna Brazile, William Kristol, Max Boot, and David Frum) encouraging Biden to work with urban demonstrators is seen in their report when they write, “If anything, the scale of recent demonstrations has increased the stakes for the Democratic Party to build strong ties with grassroots organizations and be responsive to the movement’s demands.” And what “demands” might those be? Defund the Police? Reparations?

In response to the TIP report, the Claremont Institute and the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) assembled a team of 35 people, with experts in election law, foreign affairs, law enforcement, social and traditional media working over the course of seven days to game out the 79 days from Election Day to Inauguration Day. The post-election simulation was designed and run by the author, a military intelligence veteran of hundreds of wargames. The team produced the 79 Days Report to present their findings.

As with the TIP effort, the joint Claremont-TPPF simulation saw a high likelihood for urban unrest stoked by both hostile foreign powers—China and Russia—as well as by the major media and internet giants who selectively presented (and actively censored) information about the post-election electoral situation. But unlike the TIP report, the violence was one-sided and overwhelmingly due to leftwing radicals, demanding through threat of force what they were denied at the ballot box.

In the end, the Claremont-TPPF team emerged confident that the U.S. Constitution, federal and state courts, American institutions, and the American people themselves would be more than up to the task of determining the winner of the 2020 election and seeing that person inaugurated on January 20, 2021.