-- What would these conditions be? Not sure how you are tracking, and no offence, but I think you've normalized a bit of the news and rhetoric.
Quite the opposite, I'd say the rest of the discussion here has.
A formal step like cancelling an election is not how you take control of a nation. You have to be very sure of your support in the police, the military, and every other armed force, and you usually need real popular support.
Trump and his people have done their part appointing fascist cronies like Hegseth and Patel, and by laying the groundwork for the rhetoric that will be forthcoming about votes and insurrectionary states. They control SCOTUS. They have many (but certainly not all) large media organisations under their thumb.
What they don't have is the support and confidence of a large proportion of the population, nor of the states, nor of the institutions, nor of big business. And there's no socioeconomic crisis deep enough—yet—to make these people and enclosures desperate for a resolution as stupid as making the likes of Trump the leader of a transformed republic.
The claim there's a base of 30–35% of the US population that wants this to happen on the terms being discussed is a significant stretch. It hasn't been tested and looks to me to lack support in polling data. Where there is an organised popular constituency for secession is in the former white slave-owning South, but that ex-Confederate constituency lacks the necessary fit with Trump's agenda and people, as well as with his allies in big tech, as well as lacking deep reach into production, as for the most part that's the constituency of the relatively impoverished red state "hinterland".
If an attempted coup far more organised than January 6 were to take place it would be very damaging. But I don't predict any sustained wresting of federal control by the people doing it, and I can't see an enduring breakup of the US occurring from it either.
