The piece itself begins with a categorical dismissal of doom:
DONALD TRUMP WILL NOT BE ABLE to steal this November’s midterm elections. He and his allies will keep trying to manipulate the midterms in their favor, which Democrats, pro-democracy activists, and all Americans who care about our constitutional system should keep working to counter. But he won’t succeed: No matter how much Team Trump disregards norms and laws, there’s no mechanism for taking over state elections, reversing losses, or preventing newly elected members of Congress from sitting, especially if Republicans lose by substantial margins. Vigilance is warranted, but excessive fear plays into the authoritarians’ hands.And then Grossman says this in the second paragraph:
This is not a call for complacency. Backsliding from democracy into authoritarianism is greased by people saying Calm down, it’ll be fine, the institutions will handle it, he doesn’t mean it, someone will stop him. I’m not doing that.But Calm down, it’ll be fine, the institutions will handle it ... someone will stop him appears to be precisely what Grossman's headline and first paragraph are saying. In the rest of the essay, Grossman stresses "Vigilance is warranted" rather than "Trump can't." But he begins with what reads to me like an absolutist dismissal of concern.
I think it's because he's arguing like a person of the internet. Most of us are these days. It's not helpful.
Pure doomers argue that the system now allows Trump to do anything he wants and won't stop him if he cancels the midterms altogether, sends thugs to polling places, or demands that ballots in Democratic strongholds be thrown out. Then anti-doomers say that pure doomers are helping Trump, as Grossman does:
Authoritarianism is partially in our heads. The Trump regime’s desire for domination is bottomless, but its capacity is not. They rely on bluster and fear to make up the difference, to get people to “obey in advance,” doing things the government cannot force them to do. The more the regime cultivates a vibe of strength and inevitability, the more room it has to operate. The more people think the regime is weak and failing, the more likely they are to say no, drag their feet, refuse demands, and resist.But while the Trump regime is not all-powerful, neither is it "weak and failing." Why does that have to be the choice? Why can't we acknowledge that Trump is beatable -- a leader who has sometimes been rebuffed by the general public, the lower courts, and (on rare occasions) even Congress or the Supreme Court -- but is also a very powerful leader who has abused his power in ways that are unprecedented in U.S. history, and continues to do so? Why do we have to divide our side into the evil worriers and the virtuous believers in Trump's profound weakness? Why can't we say Trump has significant strengths and we need to continue fighting him?
The internet discourages nuance and rewards fist-pumping absolutism. I see this in other intramural battles on the left: for instance, between the people who are already angry about Gavin Newsom's likely 2028 presidential candidacy and those of us who are prepared to vote for him if he's the nominee. In this online battle, Newsom is already effectively the nominee, and everyone who would vote for him in the general election is evil -- and, on the other side, everyone who won't "vote blue no matter who" is evil. Can we just have the primaries, please? We can hash all this out. But we'd rather pre-divide ourselves -- which, to me, is doing the Republicans' work for them.
And I worry about mini-versions of this rift in the Maine, Texas, and Michigan Senate races this year. I hope supporters of the primary losers will unite around the winning candidates in these states. But I fear that so much animosity has been stirred up that they might not.
Let's stop fighting this way. It's not helpful.





