Radio Atlantic: "Will 2026 Be a Fair Fight?"

Date: November 6, 2025
Host: Hanna Rosin
Guest: David Graham, The Atlantic staff writer

Main Theme

This episode examines the aftermath of a sweeping Democratic victory in the 2025 elections and explores the mounting concerns over election fairness as the 2026 midterms approach. Host Hanna Rosin and guest David Graham analyze how Trump and his allies may systematically disadvantage Democrats—through legal, legislative, and extralegal means—and what that could mean for American democracy, the integrity of the 2026 elections, and the limits of institutional resilience.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Democrats’ Surprising Wins in 2025 Elections

• Democrats’ "Romping" Wins:

  • "Democrats won big. That's the main takeaway from this week's elections." (Hanna Rosin, 00:45)
  • Noted decisive victories in New Jersey (Mikie Sherrill), Virginia (Abigail Spanberger), a California redistricting ballot measure, and New York City (Zoran Mamdani elected mayor).

• Republican Reactions and Trump's Response:

  • Trump posted, “And so it begins,” after the losses—a cryptic post that fueled debates about his next steps.
  • Trump was quoted as threatening that if Democrats take power, they would make D.C. and Puerto Rico states:
    • “They're going to do all of the things, they're going to pick up electoral votes… If we do what I'm saying, they'll never…attain power because we will have passed every single thing that you can imagine.” (Donald Trump, quoted by David Graham, 03:51)

The Landscape of Election Interference as 2026 Approaches

• Strategies to Tilt the Playing Field:

  • Graham warns Trump has “never tried to moderate” but pursues intensification: “I don't think what they're going to do is moderate their policies. I think what they're going to do is go even harder…” (04:47)

• Definition of “Competitive Authoritarianism”:

  • Graham frames the tactics as aiming for "competitive authoritarianism":
    • “You try to tilt the playing field well ahead of the election…Opposition candidates are allowed, but they might be investigated or intimidated or arrested.” (05:30)

Examples of Current & Anticipated Tactics

• Intimidation and Election Disruption:

  • Threats to withdraw federal funding from New York and discussions of deporting political opponents (e.g., NYC Mayor Zoran Mamdani).
    • "It's telling voters, if you vote for this candidate, we will make you suffer for it." (David Graham, 06:31)
  • Concerns raised by experts over potential use of the military; weaponizing the DOJ; intimidating donors, media, officials.

• Manipulating Voting Processes:

  • DOJ’s conspicuous monitoring of elections in New Jersey and California as a potentially strategic "dry run" for bigger actions in 2026.
    • “It looks like pressure on election officials and pressure on voters… testing methods ahead of the midterms.” (07:54)

Redistricting & Gerrymandering: A Nationalized Showdown

• California’s Ballot Measure:
  • California reverses its independent redistricting by popular vote, mirroring Republican gerrymanders in states like Texas and North Carolina.
    • “California had to do it by a vote of the people because there is a law that sets up independent redistricting already in place.” (David Graham, 08:56)
  • Unusual nationalized rhetoric in a state ballot proposition targeting Trump and MAGA Republicans.
    • “It’s a sign of how nationalized these elections are—California voters are concerned more about the balance of power in Washington…” (09:57)
  • Both parties “racing to the bottom,” adopting each other's tactics to protect themselves, to voters’ detriment.

How Election Interference Could Unfold in 2026

[12:04] Scenario "Play-out"

• A Plausible 2026 Scenario (David Graham):

  • By end of election night, results are close—Trump prematurely declares victory.
  • Uses the DOJ/FBI to “stop the count” or interfere through lawsuits, pressure on local officials.
  • If necessary, claims a national emergency and deploys the military—"sends in Marines"—to seize voting machines in close districts.
    • “Trump sends in Marines from a base in Yuma…to seize the voting machines. We have already broken the chain of custody on these machines.” (12:30)
  • Chaos leads to confusion—uncertainty about the true winner; if Republican House majority is narrow, the chaos could yield a result rejected as illegitimate by half the country.

• Creating Ambiguity to Contest Results:

  • "I think the ambiguity is really important. That's why you see Trump and people around him talking about 'election integrity'…so they can argue the election was unfair once results come in." (13:58)
  • Pressure to switch voting machines based on conspiracy theories, not true security needs.

Chilling Effect: Legal Pressure on Democratic Donors and Candidates

• Targeted Investigations:

  • Charging or investigating prominent Democrats to intimidate donors and dissuade strong candidates from running.
    • “You don't have to go after everyone. All you have to do is convince some people that it's not worth running because they're going to become a target.” (David Graham, 15:24)
  • Example: Investigations into ActBlue (Democratic small-dollar donor platform).

• Impact:

  • “It means you may get worse candidates…they will be underfunded…spend money on things like legal defense instead of campaigning.” (16:30)

Undermining Election Administration and Security

• Appointing Election Deniers:

  • Appointment of Heather Honey (who raised questions about the 2020 election) as DHS's top election integrity official.
    • “Now she is the Department of Homeland Security's top official for election integrity.” (David Graham, 17:03)
  • Federal overreach or false determinations of “unfair” results by federal officials could destabilize faith and process.

• Resource Withdrawal:

  • Slashing CISA support, reducing assistance for local election officials—leaving systems more vulnerable, not less.
    • “CISA has been cut drastically. And so…they're also not getting the help that they've traditionally gotten to make sure that systems are safe.” (David Graham, 18:32)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "You try to tilt the playing field well ahead of the election…opposition candidates are allowed, but might be investigated, intimidated, or arrested..."
  — David Graham (05:30)

• “It's telling voters, if you vote for this candidate, we will make you suffer for it.”
  — David Graham (06:31)

• "It’s a sign of how nationalized these elections are — California voters are concerned more about the balance of power in Washington than about the specifics of their state."
  — David Graham (09:57)

• "Trump sends in Marines from a base in Yuma…to seize the voting machines. We have already broken the chain of custody..."
  — David Graham, describing a plausible 2026 scenario (12:30)

• “If people come out to vote, I think that triumphs over almost anything else.”
  — David Graham (23:50)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Opening and 2025 Election Recap: 00:38 – 02:27
• How Trump May Respond to Losses and Prepare for 2026: 02:27 – 05:30
• Tactics of Election Disruption / “Competitive Authoritarianism”: 05:30 – 06:40
• Worries About Military and DOJ Interference: 06:40 – 08:47
• Gerrymandering and California’s New Approach: 08:47 – 10:49
• Potential for Election Disruption in 2026 (Scenario): 11:55 – 14:21
• Intimidation of Donors and Candidates: 15:18 – 16:30
• Federal Interference and Election Denial Personnel: 16:47 – 18:32
• Spectrum of “Free and Fair” Elections / Institutional Backstops: 18:32 – 21:41
• Local Election Officials and Gaps in Defense: 21:41 – 22:26
• Vulnerable Races & Prospects for 2026: 22:26 – 23:23
• Reasons for Democratic Optimism (and the limits thereof): 23:23 – 24:43

Safeguards and Grounds for Hope

• Court System as Partial Backstop:

  • Lower courts have so far generally rejected overreach (“There is…cautious optimism…about the courts as a backstop.” – David Graham, 20:20)
  • Supreme Court has been “more tempered” on some voting issues than other matters.

• Resilience of Local Election Officials:

  • Some held firm in 2020 (“the laws are the laws…. Officials tried to do Trump’s bidding…and were often stopped by courts” — 21:05)
  • But officials face intense pressure and harassment: “It’s just really hard when you’re a local official trying to deal with pressure from the President… and from your own party.” (21:51)

• Structural Diffuseness of U.S. Elections:

  • System’s decentralized nature makes comprehensive manipulation difficult but creates many pressure points.

• Voter Turnout as the Ultimate Safeguard:

  • “If people come out to vote, I think that triumphs over almost anything else.” (23:50)

Strains of Optimism

• Broad Blue Margins Hard to Cheat:
  • “A really broad margin like this would be really hard for Trump to cheat in 2026.” (23:50)
• Voters' Willingness to Reject Authoritarian Tactics:
  • Turnout and broad opposition to Trump’s methods signal Americans’ continuing commitment to democracy.

Summary Takeaway

The 2025 elections buoyed Democratic spirits, but the hosts caution against complacency. They detail a growing “competitive authoritarian” toolkit being assembled to tilt 2026, involving lawfare, intimidation, legislative manipulation, and potential use of force. Yet, American elections retain legal, institutional, and civic “backstops”—if battered ones. The episode ends on a call to vigilance, engagement, and the enduring, if embattled, hope for free and fair elections.