In an ominous dispatch out of Colorado Springs on Thursday, The New York Times found trouble in Trumpland, with some of the Republican nominee’s supporters beginning, reluctantly, to gird for a loss. The paper discerned encroaching thunderclouds in Red America, “a dark fear about what will happen if their candidate is denied the White House.”

“Some worry that they will be forgotten, along with their concerns and frustrations,” Ashley Parker and Nick Corasaniti reported. “Others believe the nation may be headed for violent conflict.” Indeed, supporters spoke of “another Revolutionary War” and doing “whatever needs to be done” to oust Hillary Clinton from office if she wins.

“If push comes to shove,” one Donald Trump supporter told the Times, she “has to go by any means necessary.”

Worries about post-election violence certainly aren’t unfounded. Trump incited brawls at his rallies earlier this year and spoke about the violence of “the old days” with wistful nostalgia. His recent attempts to delegitimize the results of the election by insisting it’s “rigged,” and calling on supporters to “go around and watch other polling places,” certainly create conditions ripe for conflict. After recounting how the worst fears of bloodshed in this campaign haven’t come to pass, I myself concluded earlier this month that “The Violence May Yet Come.”

But preparing for isolated incidents of low-level violence is different than bracing for some sort of mass uprising, which remains highly unlikely. The Hill recently “reached out to more than a dozen police departments across the country to inquire if they’re preparing enhanced security plans for Nov. 8. Those that responded said they aren’t making different security preparations than usual, at least for now.”