US midterms 2026: What happens if Trump's allies refuse to accept the results? | This Is America

This is America, and this is a country asking an uncomfortable question in the lead up to the midterm elections. What if the president over there in the White House, or his allies, refused to accept the election results? We'll be sorting the rhetoric from what's actually legally possible. But first, Alex Marquardt in our DC studio. Thank you, Alex. Democrats hope that they are on the cusp of a blue wave. They look poised to retake the House of Representatives, but control of the Senate is very much up in the air. What will Democrats do if they are in control of one or both houses of Congress? What if Republicans keep the majorities? There's also a real question of whether the Trump administration could decide to contest the results and what that would look like. Now, we're going to get into all of that, A major defection in Michigan, a state that is so key to Democrats taking control of the Senate. Democrat Haley Stevens of Michigan said that she would support Abdul El-Sayed, but has announced that she will instead go for his Republican opponent, Mike Rogers. It is a political earthquake. So how much of it will actually have an impact on that race? To help us. Answer those questions. We are joined now by our stellar midterm election analyst. We have Mark Fifeley. He is a Republican strategist and a former communications official for President George W. Bush. And we also have Mally Smith, a Democratic strategist who worked. On the 2024 Kamala Harris campaign, gentlemen, thank you both for being with me. Lots of big questions to answer, but some major, major news to respond to. This has been an election cycle full of twists and turns, and one of its biggest has now come at the 11th hour with Haley Stevens defecting, turning her back on her party, and endorsing the Republican Mike Rogers. Let's take a listen to some of what she said. Hey, Michigan. As you may have seen, our Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, Abdul, said that I was no longer welcome in his campaign and that I should stay away. And he's right. And that's why I am endorsing Mike Rogers for the United States Senate. I'm still a very proud Democrat. I still very much believe in everything I voted for and said, and I've worked really hard and will continue to do so in all the ways life's opportunities afford. So, Mally, given what she has said now in different fora, this does feel rather punitive versus being ideological. She said that she didn't feel welcomed by Abdel El-Sayed, so it feels kind of personal. But big picture, how does it impact things for Democrats? Well, look, if you're El-Sayed, obviously you don't want this as the news cycle going into the last two days of the election. But with that being said, I don't think this is going to make a huge difference because this isn't President Obama. This isn't Biden. This is someone who didn't even win the primary herself. She couldn't convince people to vote for her. Why do we think she's going to be this big draw to get people to not vote for Al-Said? And I also think, as you said, her rationale in that video wasn't this big condemnation of Abdul saying he isn't fit for the Senate necessarily or that she loves Mike Rogers. It was that she was disinvited and she was unhappy about that. And she went on and did an interview with CNN. For 15 minutes with Anderson Cooper, that was one of the most awkward interviews I've ever seen, where she, again, couldn't really articulate, in my opinion, a solid reason for this sudden shift in endorsement. So I think all of that is going to mute it, and the fact that the New York Times just put out a poll showing Al-Said up 12. So I don't think this is going to really affect the race. Yeah, an issue for her, at least one of the main issues, was that he didn't condemn an ad that he wasn't actually responsible for, that his campaign wasn't responsible for. I also want to highlight the fact that the chair of the Michigan Democratic Party, Curtis Hertel, he posted this on X. Quote, Congresswoman Stevens is not a current member of the Michigan Democratic Party, nor will she be in the future. So she's getting kicked out of the Michigan Democratic Party. Party, Mark, do you think Republicans will see this as As a fracture in the Democratic establishment or is this isolated? I think it is because the Democrats are coming out so harsh against her. It almost gives her endorsement of Mike Rogers more power and more influence and then it moves it to the next news cycle as well. It's kind of playing out in a fight over the heart and the soul of the Democratic Party right now and leading up to 2028. If El-Sayed, if he loses, then that's a loss for the Alexandria Cortez movement for Mondami, who is kind of the new Socialist Democratic Party leadership. And it shows that maybe that that old Democratic guard, you know, talking about the Kentucky governor Rahm Emanuel, some of these guys that are thinking of going in that are not of that progressive wing. And we'll see that. Play out the day after the election as we move into a presidential campaign who who's going to be the nominee? They've tried to put like a bernie sanders type, but they always get thrown under by the more establishment Can these progressive elements of the democratic party make a a movement larger than just uh, the new york city? New york suburbs and massachusetts and other places can it play nationally and michigan is the test for that Mally, does this also just speak to what a lightning rod Israel is and will continue to be? This ad that I just mentioned was a couple in a grocery store blaming rising prices on Israel. It was widely decried, including by Haley Stevens, as being anti-Semitic. Again, Abdullah Syed said that he wasn't responsible for it. But as we move beyond these midterms, how much... Of that debate is still going to be present as we move into 2028 was interesting if you look at the polling even among Democratic primary voters. This doesn't really break the top issues but it is really something folks care about in the base. And what you're going to see is it's going to cause problems for 2028 presidential candidates because they're going to have to toe a line. They're either going to have to come out and say they are unhappy with Israel's actions and formulate a plan, whether that's withdrawing military aid Or they're going to take a more firmer pro-Israel stance. I think the energy in the base is with taking a harder line with Israel. But again, there are real pitfalls there because some of the rhetoric, I'm not saying all of it, but certainly some of the rhetoric on the left against Israel, and I have my criticisms of Israel, can turn anti-Semitic. So that is... Something I think Democratic candidates are going to have to think through. Putting this ad aside, just an understanding or interpretation of what happened in Gaza. You have a guy like Abdel Syed and many on the progressive side, Mamdani as well, calling it a genocide. But you just mentioned, Mark, a couple Democrats who are probably going to be running for president. I don't think anybody who's on that list of folks who are probably running have gone that far. So let's move on to some of the bigger issues, because what happens once Americans have had their say and cast their votes? How could the coming days and weeks unfold? Alex Baird lays it out for us. So the midterms are nearly here. We don't really know what's going to happen, but we know it's going to matter. So why are we at the White House? That's the oval office over there where the president does his day job, and whatever happens is going to have a massive impact on him. So let's unpack the various scenarios. You've got option one, not much change, the House and Senate still red. Option two, the Democrats only flip the House. They could launch investigations into the administration, think hearings and subpoenas. The Republicans also would lose their majority to easily pass legislation. Then the Dems could flip both sides. They could force the White House to negotiate over legislation. It also sees control of confirmations for Cabinet officials, ambassadors and federal judges. And if that happens, what would Donald Trump do? Well, let's go to the press briefing room where he might announce that and have a little look. So, last week, Donald Trump was asked if he would accept the midterm election results, no matter what they would be. This is what he had to say. You'll have a president and you won't have the House or the Senate. They'll be sending stuff up. You veto it. And eventually, after a month or two of getting all vetoed, you know, it's ways they just wish they come over and you make a deal. But he also said this. You'll respect the results, whatever happens. I will if there are honest elections. Yeah. Thank you. And there's the caveat. The big. If, because Donald Trump has already been raising questions about election fraud, election interference. He's already said that he'll mount a legal challenge in Alaska if the voting there doesn't go his way. And then there have also been concerns raised about mail-in ballots. Listen to the Speaker of the House. I mean, obviously, it opens the door for all sorts of hijinks. You've got a state like California. They just claim to have all these new, you know, tranches of ballots which are delivered in people's trunks with their ballot harvesting. So, if the White House does declare that there has been some kind of kind of fraud? Will that lead to any concrete action? Maybe it'll be announced from here in the press briefing room. Some MAGA allies have even suggested the idea of using martial law. Now, the president hasn't said anything like that, nor does he actually have the power to do that under the Constitution. But if the Republicans do lose control of both the Senate and the House, the question is, what will Donald Trump do? So today we have some news. We have Donald Trump, who's been going back and forth on the issue of voting in California. And the administration has asked the Supreme Court to set aside 20,000 ballots in California. There's also some action that DOJ has been taking up in Alaska. Mark, how worried are you about the administration contesting the results? Because there has been, over the course of the past few days and weeks, Some reporting about him being encouraged by some allies to use, to go so far as to use martial law. I think it'll depend how the votes come in. He has been talking about this election being rigged and numerous elections going back to 2020. Thank you very much. If you look at his rhetoric, it looks like he might move into that sort of an area. And then if you look at California, it is kind of a mess. You know, it took the Democratic primary for L.A. mayor forever to count those votes. Spencer Pratt was ahead at first, or at least in... The timing to get on the ballot for the general and then his vote just went down. Now, it's probably just the turnout of the election. He didn't do enough to get his voters out because he was on Fox doing interviews in New York City. But at the end of the day, that's what puts that mistrust into Republicans and I think into Trump's orbit to try and do something. Then we go to 2020. With Rudy Giuliani having daily press conferences at lawn care centers and that sort of thing, which just turned into kind of a chaos type of thing. That's what Trump depends on, is that chaos in the system. Then we have the phone call to Georgia saying, find me this amount of votes, those types of things. I think Trump and his legal team have to be very, very careful. Because this is a very solemn experience that we're going to have in the United States of America. He is the sitting president of the United States. He has to find a way to use legal and use rhetoric in a way that doesn't sow dissension and harm into the system. I'm glad you mentioned all those different factors in 2020. In each of those cases, the institution, if you will, held, whether it was the state election officials in Georgia or Congress, which certified the vote. On January 6th, 2021, Malley now, you know, Trump is again president and he has formidable instruments of power at his disposal. And when it comes to elections, you know, he's got DOJ, he's got the FBI. How much faith do you have in these institutions and in these levers of holding if Trump decides to test that legal authority? Well, let me be clear, I have no faith in Trump. President Trump has sowed discord in our elections since he lost the primary in Iowa to Ted Cruz. He said that was rigged. Every time he loses, he says it's rigged. In 2016, when he won the general election, it was rigged that he didn't win the popular vote, even though he won. So we know he's going to do this. I do have faith, though, in our institutions because our institutions, first off, are so decentralized. All the states run elections. Courts accept that states run elections and they don't let the President Trump meddle. But the actions we've seen from the Trump administration is to, A, try to sow discord and, B, try to get in there and cause confusion. You mentioned in California these names they've floated out that could be noncitizens. Well, we saw in Nevada they had a list of about 10,000 names and they said these were noncitizens. Well, Nevada came back to them and said, actually, No, what are you talking about? They then brought them a smaller group of names, it was about 140 names, and said these 140 names are actually not citizens. And then Nevada checked every one of them and said they are. They trot out these huge numbers of supposed non-citizen voting and then upon further examination it falls apart. So what I'm worried about is this rhetoric by the administration, these actions by the administration making Americans afraid to vote, making Americans deterred from voting voting because they think their vote won't count. Or they believe there will just be something nefarious on Election Day. But Americans need to remember that voting is safe and secure, and the biggest things they need to worry about is apathy and confusion, and as long as they make a plan to vote, they will be fine. Another potential deterrence, though, could be fear over ICE and other federal federal agents posting up at How real do you think that possibility is? I think it's something the Trump administration certainly is floating. I have advised everyone if early voting was possible to vote early to make sure that your vote is in and that you don't have to wait until election day because the more votes that are in, the harder it is to play games in the system. I understand the fear people may have there, but there's also a lot of election protection I think it's important to make sure that you are organizing that Democrats are doing and then also nonpartisan groups are doing to make sure that if you are a legal U.S. citizen, you can vote. All right. Let's talk about the politics of the different scenarios that may play out. The easiest one to imagine is a split congress. Essentially Democrats take control of the house of representatives but Republicans maintain the majority in the senate. So, mark, how does the dynamic in Washington change if dems Probably more frustration and confusion, control the house, Republicans control the senate? more threats to shut down the government, even more than there were the last two years, which saw several shutdowns. You're going to see if the Democratic congressmen in the House, if they have the gavel, it's going to be a very difficult... The process of those Trump officials go before the House committees and testify. You're going to see where they have subpoena authority and they have FOIA capabilities that they don't have right now. And how they run these committees moves towards the Democratic agenda, which could stifle a lot of things that Republicans have been doing when it comes to the war, when it comes to making the big, beautiful bill that they passed this past cycle into power. And then if we have a financial problem, Which, if we look at it right now, because of the higher gas prices and diesel prices, that's really the challenge that we have as a country, is that when we do have power, and America likes that different kind of power. We like it when Congress is controlled by one party, the president by another party. But that also brings about that it's very hard to get things done. America has a lot of problems. We have a $40 trillion deficit. Social Security Trust Fund is going to be insolvent and is only going to be able to pay about 70% of the money into the fund in 2032. That's the problem that we have. We have enormous problems. We have six-second attention spans, and if you throw all of this partisanship into it, it could be with a Trump White House and the Democrats that are just raring for a fight for the next two years leading up to the 2028 elections. It could be a difficult time in Washington. We would have a novice House speaker in Hakeem Jeffries who would take over from Nancy Pelosi when she last had it. So, you know, if Democrats don't have the Senate, it would make... I think it's going to be a lot harder to get legislation through a lot harder. So, Malley, does that mean that democrats, to mark's point, focus more on those subpoenas, on those investigations, potential impeachment rather than legislation that would go nowhere? I do think the democratic house is going to pass bills pushing forward solutions on affordability. To make a point? To make a point. They'll be messaging bills, especially if we don't have the senate, because they'll die there. But they'll set up for if we This is what that might look like. So I think you would see pretty strong unanimity around some sort of health care expansion. You would see them pushing back on tariffs, something on the Iran war and energy prices. But I do think where the action is going to be is on two fronts. First off, investigations. When we have control of these committees, they're going to investigate the many instances of Trump corruption. And then the second one is government funding, because they can pass these messaging bills that will get vetoed. The president, maybe a Republican Senate and a Democratic House are going to have to figure out how to fund the government, and there's going to be a lot of pressure on Democrats on the war in Iran, if it's still raging, putting pressure there, and then this ICE funding. Because you mentioned the war in Iran, and remember, when it comes to impeachment, the House carries out the proceedings, and then it gets kicked up to the Senate for the trial. That's why it died for Trump in the last time around. But, Mark, you're a national security guy. Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, seems like one of the biggest targets for impeachment by the Democrats. How much would you expect Dems to go after him? So I was serving in the Pentagon in 2006 when it was the thumping that the Democrats gave the Republicans. The day after that, Donald Rumsfeld resigned and we had to put the surge into effect into Iraq. Al-Ambar was the Strait of Hormuz at that point. So I could see some changes would have to happen. I don't know how you impeach. Pete Hegseth, specifically, unless it's just to say, I don't like your Iran policy and we want to have somebody to blame for it. But I think overall, America has to figure out we have spent billions of dollars on, for example, on the THAAD and the Patriot missiles. We have to replenish that. That's going to take an enormous amount of money. We need those right now in Ukraine. We need it right now in the Gulf. So for at least some part, we have to put aside our politics. Six. Yes. Have the investigations, make it very difficult for a Republican or a Trump appointee to go before the House Armed Services or Foreign Affairs Committee, make their life tough. But we have bigger problems to do than investigation. And if you do try and impeach Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of War, it's not going to get through the Senate anyway. So it's an exercise in futility. Messaging, as Mally just mentioned. Let's move on to the dream scenario for Democrats. Managed to flip at least four of the seats in the Senate and take control of the Senate, take the House at the same time. So that means... To your earlier point, Mally, they will be able to do some legislation, but as we just heard from that clip that Alex played, Mr. Trump is already out there calling himself Mr. Veto, and presumably he can do that endlessly. So does that change at all what you were saying before about messaging bills, or do you think Democrats, if they can, could they get something, would they try to work with Republicans to try to get something to Trump's desk that he actually would sign? I still think there's going to be a lot of messaging bills because it's D.C. I do think, though, there is an outside possibility with a lame duck President Trump, who, in my opinion, doesn't really care about the fortunes of the Republican Party, going off script and doing a deal with Democrats to potentially pass a bill that would be anathema to conservatives on certain issues. Maybe it's health care expansion. Maybe it's another issue. I just don't think he is ideologically tethered to Republicans. Democrats could present him with an opportunity to say, look, if you do this, millions of more people will have health care or millions more people have lower utility bills or whatever they're trying to get him to go on. I think he could do it because, again, he isn't an ideological Republican in many instances. And I don't think he cares about Republicans overall prospects. So there's that. I think the big thing, though, is if we have a Democratic Senate, he's probably going to tell everyone in his cabinet. Please don't resign, or I'm not going to be firing you, because whoever he gets to replace them, they're going to have to be approved by a Democratic Senate, and then we'll potentially have a battle. Where if a Supreme Court nominee decides in these, like, couple weeks before we get a new Senate to retire, which, my God, I hope that doesn't happen, but that could easily be something on the horizon. Yeah, Republicans, of course, will have their eye on the clock, just like Democrats will over the next two years. And, Mark, to what extent do you think if the GOP is in the minority in both chambers, that they would actually try to get some legislation done on issues like health care, on anything that could help improve. How do you move the cost-of-living crisis in order to prevent Democrats from having a long list of things that Republicans rejected when it comes to 2028? Historically, there's a short time frame. You've got about a year, maybe nine months after this new Congress is sworn in, and then we get right into the 2008 presidential. So they better do it really fast. I think that if this scenario happens where the Democrats have both the House and the Senate, then the most powerful person in Washington becomes... U.S. Senator John Fetterman, because he's the one person in the Democratic caucus that is willing to go against the leadership, Mr. Schumer, whoever runs the Senate Democrats, and thus the Senate. And then you're going to see a lot of challenge. Mr. Trump, and I agree with Melbert, Mr. Trump is not tied to ideology. What he is tied to is victory, success, and good headlines for himself. If he can get something in that first year to show. Better health care, lower drug prices, better economy, moving forward with a way to figure out a way to end this war in Iran in a way that gives him somewhat of a victory lap that he can do. I think that he'll move towards that direction. And I can tell you Democrats are talking about wanting a Fetterman-proof majority because there is a worry that if it's 50-50 or 51 that he could become a Republican and then screw us over. Yeah, you guys are playing this out and taking the words out of my mouth, but let's lay that out for the audience. The math is that Democrats need Flip four seats to take a majority. Fetterman from Pennsylvania, who still has two years left on his term, has really changed over the course of the past few years to the point where he appeared at Donald Trump's midterm convention back in Dallas in September. So in your view then, Mally, do you think Democrats genuinely need to flip five seats if they want to have real control of the Senate? I would want that buffer because I don't really trust where Fetterman's going to go, but Fetterman is a man without a party because right now his voting record is still 95 percent Democratic, but he is aesthetically, he is a Republican. He likes going on Fox. He likes annoying Democrats. So I think he's a man without a party. And when we get to the primary. When he's up again, he will lose the Democratic primary, but is he strong enough to win a Republican primary with his voting record? I don't know. So I think... He is going to be done, his Senate career is done after this term. There's no future in either party for him. And as we were just saying, Israel is going to be one of the biggest factors for Democrats when it comes to foreign policy over the next two years. And Fetterman has, that's probably been the biggest split for him from the party has been over the question of Israel. Mark, one final scenario. Democrats only pick up three. That takes it to 50-50. And of course, the vice president, J.D. Vance, he is the president of the Senate, so he can cast the tie-breaking vote. So if it is 50-50, is that essentially still just Republican control? Then the busiest person in America is J.D. Vance's driver, who has to take him from the White House to the Capitol building that's 16 blocks on Pennsylvania Avenue. And it means that then... Vance, who is likely to run for president, that gives him the bully pulpit at some points as he tries to get the president's agenda on these very thin votes. But that's the difficulty that Republicans have right now, is this is kind of the best case scenario, is that Republicans have a tiny majority or 50-50 with Vance coming over. And it all comes down to what. Is the price of gasoline tomorrow? How many people are filling their car up with gas? And that they see that that costs more money. And there's not a whole lot that Republicans can do. Democrats can run the most expensive race in Texas in the history of politics outside of a presidential race. They still will. Possibly win that by a small percentage at this point. It's razor, razor thin as we go into Election Day. Well, we didn't have time to get into it today, but the New York Times is out with some stunning new polling that has Tallarico and Texas up by quite a bit, Abdullah Syed and Michigan up by quite a bit. And so if those numbers were to hold, and that is a huge... Huge if the Democrats would have a good night. And you guys are going to be with me on that night. So we'll be able to pick apart all these numbers in the coming hours. Mally Smith, Mark Feifley, thank you both very much. Appreciate it. And that's all from myself and the team here in Washington. I want to hand it back to Alex Baird and Al Jazeera's global headquarters in Doha. Well, that's all from this edition of This Is America. We'll be back tomorrow at 18.30 GMT or 1.30 p.m. Eastern here in the United States. On behalf of the entire team, thanks for watching.