Next Election When Trump Is Overthrown

Not in 2026

I want to begin my expressing my gratitude to Rohn Kenyatta, whose recommendation has brought me over 90% of my readers as I finally reached a statistical 00—100 readers after three years of plugging my trivia. And I would like to invite new readers—all readers, actually—to engage in dialogue when you disagree with anything I write.

I find myself quite uncertain in understanding why many tend to believe there will be a midterm in 2026. The idea that there will be in a year and a half an opportunity for voters to pass on a referendum of the popularity of Trump’s agenda I find irrefutably misconstrued.

The first indication was Trump’s intention in 2020 not to adhere to the vote. If that is not enough, he announced on more than one occasion during the 2024 campaign that this would be the last time anyone would have to vote. So let’s look at whether he has been adhering to what “he said he would do” and unless you believe he has not been adhering to doing anything he said he would do since resuming office you might consider dismantling of the constitution is the intention and elections are part of the constitution he has never been in favor of continuing.

And what in the world makes anyone possibly think that he or the republicans are at all concerned with the possibility that there might actually be an opportunity to overcome their railroading of the government or submit what they have done to an open opportunity for voters to object. Of course voters will object if such an opportunity was presented to them.

They are fully conscious that what they are doing would never pass muster without strictly limiting both voters and candidates who might present an alternative. And of course we have the twentieth century to guide us.

They are fools who expect this to be different.

So what do I expect? I hate to be predictive as to an absolute timeline. But before 2026 I expect that opposition voices to his takeover will be attempted to be curtailed. His speech at DOJ certainly indicates he was telling his justice department to begin targeting those opponents.

I imagine there will soon be an increased crackdown on media reports he doesn’t like and the prosecution (possibly without trial) of political dissenters. And he will soon begin putting pressure on judicial dissent as well though I’m not sure what manner he will take to chill the judiciary. They have been imperilling some of his mandates and I’m sure the idea of going before the court and telling judges vacuous empty details will increase. I have been seeing several references of late to Andrew Jackson having said , “The Chief {Justice Marshall} made his decision, now let him enforce it,” I believe is false. The first we hear of this statement is in 1865 by Horace Greeley. What Jackson’s correspondence does show is that he thought Georgia would not enforce the decision and Virginia politician David Campbell reported that in a private conversation Jackson had suggested that if he had to enforce the ruling,it almost certainly meant he would have to ask Massachusetts to send their guard to do so because the southern states simply would not do so.

Jackson, in fact, did not like Marshall’s decision in Worcester v. Georgia, but he didn’t directly disobey it. It was an outlier that flew in the face of the 1830 Indian Removal Act which the court had determined constitutional and a year prior to Worcester had stated in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia that the Cherokee nation was a domestic state within Georgia and therefore they had no jurisdiction in the seizure of their territories.

Worcester v. Georgia was about the arrest of Samuel Worcester and ten other missionaries that came about after congress approved the Indian Removal Act. This time Marshall reversed the earlier decision and said that it was not a domestic dispute within Georgia but that the federal government alone had the right to deal with the tribes and form treaties. However the Marshall court did not overrule the Indian Removal Act and enforcing Worcester simply freed Worcester from hard labor in a Georgia prison (nine of the other missionaries had accepted pardons) and congress permitted Jackson to begin the removal with no real court decision declaring he could not do so.

So whatever happens with Trump and the courts will be something anew that hasn’t previously occurred,unless you consider Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus and civilian trials in military tribunals akin.

But understanding that there is no intention by the Trump government to permit a referendum by vote does not mean that a massive coordinated resistance against him and the republican congress cannot bring about their fall. And in fact, the next election occurs after it falls; or at least the next election on policy.

So protests have to become more massive and there needs to be a million man march on Washington and around the country on a designated day.

And the sooner that that happens the sooner we will free ourselves of his tyranny.

After that, my predictive powers become limited. But to democrats in congress, you might as well go home and lead the organizers in protest cause you ain’t gonna accomplish nothin’ in Washington.