He has no Constitutional power to do so. As vinraith notes above, elections lie in the hands of the states, governors, and state legislatures.
That’s a fun conspiracy, but won’t hold up as we’ll see.
Yes. They would do that.
He has no power to do so, in the Constitution. And Presidents have challenged this power, and have been slapped down.
Not sure what that means. They’re welcome to follow his lead. It means those states will not be electing new representatives – and this is the important thing – or electors. Because (just a reminder here) at its core, the election of a president is not a popular vote. Electors choose the president. Majority wins. Alabama is welcome to not send electors, if they so choose.
The FEC doesn’t really do any of this. The FEC’s main purpose is to enforce campaign finance law. They do not get to override the Constitution.
Again, those states are welcome to not send electors.
Probably would happen in this fantasy.
The Supreme Court would very likely not hear the case, because of precedent (Milligan) and explicit rule from Article I, II and the 20th Amendment written into the Constitution.
Finally, should states decide to not have elections, the terms of senators and representatives end just as explicitly as the term of a president. So, there’s no one in the House. But there’s also a bunch of expiring senate terms, too, leaving a very partially filled senate body.
How many senators, you ask?
Well, enough that in such a case, the Democrats would have the majority.
So, counting it back:
President: term expired
VP: term expired
House speaker: term expired
President Pro-tem of the senate: Democrat (probably, hilariously, Pat Leahy.)