To me, the question should be, "if it happens, what should be the Democratic response?"
The fundamental problem is that the way Article V of the constitution is worded, approval is done by the state legislatures or by a state convention, but it doesn't really identify the mechanism for the latter.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
What this means is that a conservative legislature can ratify the ruling of the convention even if it is not agreed upon by the populace at large. My assumption is that most people, given the opportunity to vote, would likely not vote to ratify anything they see as extremist (such as leaving the union) but the legislature may very well do so (I can see Texas doing it in a heartbeat, for instance). Nor does it provide any indication for how delegates would be chosen for the convention itself, beyond the likelihood of their being 538 such delegates.
If a CC were to be called today, I would assume that it would be Congress that met in a joint session - not ideal for the Democrats, but it would be 217-216 and 53-47 respectively for a total of 270-263 for the Rs, each with very different agendas. Additionally, this is a process to amend the constitution, though this could very well include declaring it null and void, but these would have to be agreed to by 2/3 of congress (roughly 360 delegates), so would require 90 Democrats in addition to all of the Republicans to pass anything.
Expect a provision for secession to be revisited, which would also give a chance to nail down exactly how that would happen and how to ensure that such a transition could occur peacefully (and honestly, I think it SHOULD be in the constitution, just very, very difficult to achieve). Executive authority would also be challenged, but I don't believe Congress would go so far as to cede much more power to the executive branch than they already have (even on the Republican side). I don't see the IRS being defunded or the Fed eliminated, though no doubt an attempt will be made. I think an effort to expand the number of judges on SCOTUS might very well pass. A balanced budget amendment might pass, though I also doubt it will, but a simple clarification that any appropriations bill that is not signed into law would mean that the old budget remains in effect in the following calendar year until superseded may very well pass. Eliminating the Electoral College is likely a non-starter. The filibuster may go the way of the dodo, as would blue card rules and a few other Senatorial enhancements.
In short, with the two possible exceptions of secession and rendering the Constitution null and void (the first might pass, the second won't), I don't see radical change coming out of a CC - IF it was held today. Now, IF there was an overwhelming majority of one party in both houses, this may be a different situation, but the GOP has had as much trouble achieving a large majority as the Democrats.
Second issue - if secession was made legal, which states would go? I assume that, even holding a majority of states, the GOP isn't going to convince a majority of those states to actually leave. However, let's say that FL, the Deep South, and TX left the union, shifting the balance of power considerably over to the Democrats. I don't believe the Midwestern or Plains states would leave the Union either. I would also expect that even with majorities in the assemblies of these states, the likelihood that any of them WOULD leave the union is nil, especially as this would only happen in the case that the amendment to provide a secession mechanism was passed and ratified.
So I think that a constitutional convention would not be the slam dunk rewrite that the most die-hard MAGAts believe it would be. It is, when you get right down to it, a way of fast-tracking amendments.
= new reply since forum marked as read
