What Trump may try in November 2026 midterms even fascists and communists did not do

 Edited and updated  Feb 5,2026 post.Also published on Substack Feb. 7, 2026 

Senior Trump advisor Steve Bannon announced on right-wing network Real America’s Voice on Wednesday that ICE agents will be present at polling locations for the 2026 midterm elections. Bannon said the purpose of ICE’s presence is to ensure that everyone voting is a citizen. I can’t recall any fascist or communist dictatorships even trying this armed force vote control. They at least try to look like they are democratic, and the guaranteed 80% of the vote for their dear leader is legitimate. Appearances still mean something, even if the fox is guarding the henhouse door.

In Colorado, we have mail-in ballots ...but also a small number of ballots are cast in polling places on election day. This attempt to frighten voters away from a polling place will not work very well in my state. But for others, imagine you have darker skin or look like you are not a white Anglo-Saxon type, and you are confronted by one of these ICE paramilitary masked men in front of your polling place. This is one fear of how the ICE private militia of Trump will try to suppress votes.. eyes appearing over a mask, garbed for war, armed to the teeth, are demanding to see your papers. That is what the GOP is trying to set up today in Congress. (Got a certified birth certificate, a tribal card membership, a passport in your back pocket?No papers? Aww, too bad. Better luck next time proving you are a citizen.) All driver’s licenses do is verify it is you, but it is not proof that you are a citizen. We have no national ID card for citizens. The other way Trumpists tried in the past and are trying now is to let the GOP give the codes to the ballots and tabulating machines to a political buddy, just like Tina Peters did in Colorado. She is still sitting in a state penitentiary after losing in jury trials and appeals.

Now, Trump would like only the GOP to run elections. We are supposed to trust Trumpists to be fair? Oh, wait, Peters was a Republican, wasn’t she? What? No evidence blue voters did anything like that in 2020 either? The only violent perpetrators were followers of Donald Trump on January 6 (oh, wait, he was a Republican, too, and they were waving Trump banners as they peacefully injured 150 police, broke a lot glass, and broke into the sacred halls hunting for Nancy and Pence for the noose waiting outside?) Who is going to protect the rest of us from this kind of partisan behavior?

What we can expect is for the Trumpists to try once again what failed in 2020: to challenge every swing county and state-by-state vote in the US in the courts to keep the results up in the air for as long as he can keep his party in power in the House or tie that body up in knots. He will fabricate every pretext and pretense he can, and like 2020, lose in court when courts in every instance demanded actual evidence. His fake elector scheme also failed in 2020. Pence didn’t play along. Of course, when the Trumpists win, as they did in 2024, then, yes indeed, the elections were fair. Right? That November 2026 would be fair to him, and if his partisans did pull off a win and still control Congress, of course, that would be due to his extreme measures of keeping those phantom migrants still on the voter lists from voting. Wait, in 2024, both the White House turned red, and all of those phantom migrants voted anyway then?” Now that was a fair election”. Could it be that only fair elections are when Trump and MAGA win?. Oh, for heaven’s sake. Give me a break. Obviously, evidence and logic have little meaning to his true believers.

So why begin now, 8 months ahead, to use this unconstitutional display of force and raid Fulton County, GA., to hone his tactics and see how much Trump can get away with? States, per the Constitution control the vote and it is the power of each of their separate states. It is really hard to control who can vote, and how the vote is counted if there are over 51 states/DC, and thousands of county clerks. It would be so much easier for a dictator to hack and control all of vote if the feds were in charge of elections across the entire ballot everywhere, from the lowest position to the highest.

Why is Trump trying to federalize the vote, and even using the threats of armed force? Changing the Constitution will not happen in time for either Nov. 2026 or Nov. 2028. Using the threat of ICE and the fabricated lie that those brown and black voting is a pretext is a to destroy a democracy de facto by destroying the faith that elections are free and fair.

It also has to do with keeping up appearances. It looks like to me it is the use of theater to make a political power play point and to justify eliminating fair and free elections, the other 70% of us once trusted. To give his unthinking base, a good portion who still believe 2020 was stolen, will feel soooo secure this time around because if Trumpists paramilitary act like this, it must be true that all of those illegals are trying to vote, so acting like it is true is proof it is true and “thank you, DJT, for protecting us. You are the greatest.”

The most extreme fear I have is still worth red flagging, because of Trump’s use of a violent coup attempt he either planned or invited others to do on his behalf on Jan. 6. It is even more likely he could use violence now with his newly minted ICE paramilitary loyal to him. It is not out of the question for Trump to use the pretext of unevidenced election fraud on election night and to declare a national emergency, suspend the Constitution, direct ICE strong arms or call out active and guard military, and take over the vote and the outcome, grabbing every ballot box they can and lord over its recount. That is how other wannabe dictators have done it, and they also destroyed democracy for future decades to keep themselves or their ideological successors in dictatorial control. It usually works.

Felicia Muftic is a former elections official for Denver, Colorado

https://www.msn.com/.../bannon-says-ice.../ar-AA1VJne1...

MUFTIC FORUM BLOG: Trump wants to GOP nationalize elections and control the vote count: that’s what dictators do

https://www.msn.com/.../bannon-says-ice.../ar-AA1VJne1...

MUFTIC FORUM BLOG: Trump wants to GOP nationalize elections and control the vote count: that's what dictators do

Democrats need to frame the debate of democracy v autocracy as real life consequences

Update: November 1, 2022   The attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband by politically motivated man is just another example of what we can expect if voters do not slap down those who inspire violence to gain political power.  For much of the mid terms cycle, the issue of keeping democracy as our form of governance has been expresses as democracy v autocracy. Ho hum. The gist of the column was that the consequence of Trumpism and the Trump base was not an autocracy, but more violence to determine the outcome of an election in th future.  The question should be reframed as it is a choice of who will govern us, not as democracy v autocracy, but as democracy v violence, of vote in fair and free elections or be government by threats of terrorism and violence.  Last night, Rachel Maddow framed the choice in those stark terms: democracy v violence.

There are still more voters who could grasp the importance of preserving democracy if the debate of democracy v Autocracy and the threat of Trumpism to democracy, but the argument needs to be framed in terms of real-life consequences.  

One of the real fears I have had for the Democrats to argue the reason that they are defending democracy is the political science and history case (remember Hitler, Mussolini and how they rose to power) that it is not appealing to enough voters. There are still some voters on the fence but the argumentation is just too intellectual, long-term, and speculative for many. and that 39% still believe that Trump was no threat to democracy, per an August 2022 New York Times/Siena poll. 37% of independents believe likewise.  The fear of autocracy and the potential subversion of democracy needs to be put in terms of how it will hurt them and their own daily lives.   The Trumpsters, on the other hand, say they are defending democracy by fighting fraud at the ballot box. Evidence that not enough fraud occurred to change the outcome of 2020 gets explained away by believing in all kinds of theories without evidence, paranoid speculation, and delusions.  Per the Siena poll, 76% of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen.  What is disturbing is an undercurrent of belief now more openly expressed is that an autocracy, rule by a person instead of the rule of law, is just fine with some if it is "our" autocrat we like who supports our beliefs and goals, "It is Ok..  We will get our way faster and more certain, so bring it on."  Voters inclined to prefer authoritarian government are around 26% of all voters per a June 2021 Morning Consult poll.  26% of Americans Are Highly 'Right-Wing Authoritarian,' New Poll Finds (businessinsider.com)

Examples of real-life consequences of an attempt to establish an autocracy could be presented like this: We have already seen what happened on January 6:  violence and riots. We have seen what happened to the free and fair election process with an attempt to count only certain votes and ignore the popular votes. We have seen the death threats and intimidation of poll workers and election administrators who refused to lie or to violate rules and laws to tip the election results to the loser.  Your vote may assume to be for "the other side" and may not be fairly counted. Is the use of violence, threats, intimidation, and chaos to determine who won and who lost what you want to see happen in the future.? That uncertainty, that fear of violence, that failure of trust in the election system means a destabilized country. That distrust was the creation of Trump backers in the last four years, The exhortation and acceptance of violence and threats of violence as a political tool is a recent development and new in the experience of those alive today.   

The ability to go to the polls and be certain the process will be fair, your vote will be counted as reported correctly, and you will not be harassed and intimidated, or unnecessarily inconvenienced is a fundamental key to democracy. . The ability to be certain your vote still gives you the power to voice the direction of governance is your fundamental right in a democracy that has been taken for granted until now. Keeping that trust depends on more than just faith, it now requires assurance no one "fixed" the computers or no election officials gave access to the cast ballots solely to the supporters of candidates they favor. 

For those who support Trump because it benefits their business interests, consider this:  There is nothing worse than instability, conflict, fear, and uncertainty to damage the business climate.  If you are willing to ignore the threat of democracy's end because you like Trummpist policies that help your business,  a strong democracy equates to strong capitalism,  where an element of fairness and rules and laws are followed by all. and observed impartially in the courts.  Justice is not just for those who support and contribute money to a strong leader who determines the winners and losers in business as well as in politics.. 

 What will happen to America if Trump wins again? Experts helped us game it out. - The Washington Post  

How Educational Differences Are Widening America’s Political Rift - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Many American Voters Want to Upend System, Poll Finds - The New York Times (nytimes.com)   The poll cited asked if voters thought Trump was a danger to democracy. '''Among all voters, 49 percent said the Capitol riot was an attempt to overthrow the government. Another 55 percent said Mr. Trump’s actions after the 2020 election had threatened American democracy. As with so many other issues, voters saw the riot through the same partisan lens as other issues"  Siena Poll: 37% of independents still believe Trump was not a threat and 76% of Republicans also believe Trump was no threat to democracy.

New research provides insight into why our education says way more about our politics than it used to (psypost.org)

Rephrasing the advocacy message means avoiding political science jargon

Better messaging is needed on terms like gerrymandering, vote stealing, fair and free elections, and other political science and legal terms. Plain English would help. 

Have you noticed that both public officials and journalists tend to get into a rut using one or two technical words to substitute for common English?  They wrongly make the assumption that audiences will understand how it will affect them, It is particularly a problem when abstract political science concepts are at issue. Often foul is called if a rule or law is broken, but that requires a brief legal case to be made instead of a sound bite. Frequently the point gets lost in the weeds of technical legal Iand hair-splitting definitions. Just claiming something is undemocratic is also too vague.   For better advocacy,. there are some terms that can be retooled by walking in the shoes of the audience and helping them understand how it affects them. The operative alternative word to "against the law" is being " fair", because most people like to think they are fair or want to be treated fairly as others are treated.  What the bad guys are doing may be fair to themselves, but not to anyone else.    It might need a short phrase to explain it, or even simply ditching the jargon word and replacing it with a plain English phrase.   "Fair and free elections" could be "counting your vote the same way as all others are counted". Basically," the the bad guys do not want so many votes opposing their opponents to be counted or even cast." " Fair is not their goal; winning if losing is".   Elections are " stolen" when all votes are not counted. Elections can be called " unfair if who controls the counting is one party or one candidate ". .   The term "voter suppression",  assumes you get the point, and the bad guys are those who do not want you to vote. . If you are a victim of it, you get it, but if you are not, why should you care?.  It might be called "making it harder (more inconvenient, more expensive) for certain people to vote for the candidate they want"  "Gerrymander" is another jargon word, as well.  Voters may think it is a bad thing, but how it affects them is not very clear..  .  For "gerrymander", an explanatory phrase would be"drawing district boundaries to reduce the numbers of certain targeted peoples'  representatives in government".  

The subpoints of example to illustrate the unfairness of elections can follow the plain English phrase  with examples, and relate them to "fairness".  For example, removing ballot drop boxes for mail in votes and in person polling places from areas you suspect will vote for your opponent is not fair.  Locking up paper ballots or counting machines so only candidate loyalists and supporters can do the counting is not fair.   Those may be good examples of voter suppression, but they are above all not fair. Giving rural areas with lower population or one racial group than urban ones with another racial group more representative districts in the legislature is gerrymandering and unfair. Those practices may break the law or may not, but they are unfair.  

 There is an old preacher rhetorical trick that works well, too. First you tell them what you are saying, then you make your point with examples , and then close with a word of what you said. Here is how it could uld done in a short comment in plain English:: "It isn't fair for just my opponent's loyalists to count the votes. True story: A clerk in Colorado locked away the paper ballots and the vote tabulators in a room so only those loyal to her candidates could count them. Not only did that break the law and the rules, that is not a fair election that makes sure are votes are counted and no elections are stolen." .   Another sound bite:",An equal ability for all to vote is fair. True story in another state: Polling places and mail in ballots drop boxes were removed from precincts expected to vote for an opponent, but not in precincts expected to vote for another candidate.  That is  called voter suppression, but it isn't fair.  Drawing district lines to favor one party and to give them more representatives in the legislature than another party is not fair. True story in Colorado: An opponent running against the governor wants to change district boundaries to the legislature so that all urban counties with most votes  are put in one district and rural ones with few voters are divided up into more districts.  That may or may not violate a law, but it is not fair.