YOU AREN'T AN IDIOT IF YOU WORRY ABOUT THE MIDTERMS

Jamelle Bouie wants us all to know that President Trump can't mess with the midterms. Here's what he says in a New York Times roundtable with David French and Michelle Cottle:

... there’s been a lot of chatter on the internet about the president canceling elections. And since we’re talking about the midterms, I feel obligated to say that that’s not a thing. I know the response is going to be: look, he does everything else he wants. But the more accurate response is that there are a lot of ways in which he’s been stopped or blocked. And in a very practical sense, states run elections. States run federal elections — not the president.

The president has no role in federal elections. The president has no role in certifying federal elections. The president has no role in seating members of Congress. When it comes to the conduct and results of federal elections — at least for legislative elections — the president is just a guy. He’s just a guy watching on CNN like the rest of us.

And yes, he has ICE. He has his own little private army. ICE on paper has 22,000 people. Looking at Minnesota right now, in Minneapolis, they’ve committed more than 10 percent of their on-paper agents to try to pacify the 46th largest city in the country, 45th, 46th. And they can’t do it. Obstinate, middle-aged Midwesterners have essentially stopped ICE from operating in Minneapolis in a meaningful way.

I feel like it’s necessary to say that there’s a lot of fear-mongering and scaremongering about what the president can do with regards to the midterms....

But you don't have to believe that Trump "does everything else he wants" to worry about the midterms. You can acknowledge the ways that the system has rebuffed him and still recognize that if he wants to prevent a Democratic takeover of the House and possibly the Senate, he might have ways to thwart the the will of the voters.

But don't even bother arguing this at Bluesky -- or, presumably, any other forum where liberals and progressives congregate. You'll be called an idiot and accused of "obeying in advance," even though you're the one warning that that Trojan horse might have soldiers in it. You'll be told that you're trying to make everyone who opposes Trump feel hopeless, even if what you're really doing is urging everyone to be ready for a bigger fight.

I find much of what Bouie says persuasive. I don't think Trump can shut down elections nationwide at the point of a gun because he doesn't have enough troops to do that. He might do it in Minnesota, because he's clearly decided to single that state out for a special level of abuse. But I don't think he can do it everywhere.

But it's pointless to argue that the law and the Constitution give Trump no official role to play in the midterms. If he declares that the entire process is rotten, we don't know how Republican states will respond. They held the line on behalf of democracy in 2020, and they might do it again, expressing pride in their ability to conduct fair elections. But they might scapegoat Democratic House districts as corrupt if Trump makes clear that he insists on nothing less than that. We don't know.

There are currently 42 Democrats in the House who were elected from states that voted for Trump three times. Not all of those states have unified Republican control, but most do, among them Texas, Florida, and Ohio (25 of the 42 are from these three states, although the numbers are likely to change, especially in Texas because of redistricting).

If Trump demands that Democrats from these states not be certified as winners, what will the states do? Maybe they'll rebuff him. Maybe Democratic court cases will be as successful as they were in 2020.

Or maybe not.

Bouie argues that the system itself acts as a failsafe mechanism.

when the current term of the 119th congress ends on january 2 (or 3, i forget) 227, mike johnson ceases to be speaker of the house bsky.app/profile/gran...

[image or embed]

— jamelle (@jamellebouie.net) January 15, 2026 at 11:36 AM

here's what happens after house elections, which are conducted by each state and locality: the state certifies the winner the winners go to washington they convene a new house they choose a speaker notice who isn't involved here? the president or the current speaker or the senate.

— jamelle (@jamellebouie.net) January 15, 2026 at 11:47 AM

But that's how the system is supposed to work: the members-elect are supposed to choose a speaker on January 3 (it took them a couple of extra days to get that done in 2025) and the speaker is supposed to swear in winners as certified by the states. But what if we're really through the looking glass and the speaker votes of Democratic winners aren't counted? Why couldn't that happen if Trump insists that it needs to happen? Why should we feel 100% certain that Trumpists can't subvert regular order in this case?

I'm not sure even this deeply corrupt Supreme Court would rubber-stamp all this. The Supremes want to continue flying under the radar, rigging the game, but only in ways that are too abstruse for normies to understand.

And, frankly, I'm not sure Trump will fight this fight. I think he might be caught flatfooted by the election results. He had opportunities in 2025 to declare elections fraudulent and he didn't do it -- I'm not sure why. In 2025, it was probably because his party's control of Congress was never threatened. But he might not even try to rig the process -- sending troops to polling places, for instance -- because he genuinely doesn't think he's unpopular.

So, yes, the midterms might proceed in a fair and democratic way. Trump might be lying to himself about his own popularity or might realize that the people who control our decentralized election system won't rig it for him.

Or 2026 might not be 2020, and the center might not hold. Preserving democracy might require more of a fight this time.