By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a speech to House Republicans, Donald Trump raised concerns about the possibility of canceling future U.S. elections, although he quickly retracted the statement claiming he was only criticizing Democrats. This is not the first time Trump has flirted with such an idea, previously suggesting delays to the 2020 election and appearing to support the idea of suspending elections under martial law in Ukraine. Despite having no legal authority to do so, Trump continues to voice these ideas while also repeating false claims about the 2020 election being “rigged.”
Read the original article here
Let’s dive into this recurring theme of Trump seemingly flirting with the idea of cancelling elections, and then immediately backpedaling, or at least attempting to. It’s a complex dance, and frankly, a deeply concerning one. It feels like this is more than just off-the-cuff remarks; it’s a carefully orchestrated maneuver.
The whole thing starts with a statement, perhaps a loaded question, or even what could be perceived as a joke, but the implication is always there. The idea is floated, whether it’s “cancelling the election” or suggesting it might be necessary. This is where the process begins. There’s a deliberate ambiguity, a denial wrapped in a hypothetical. He might say, “I won’t say cancel the election,” and then immediately go on to discuss why it *could* be considered, or how “they” should do it. It’s a way of testing the waters, of gauging reactions, and perhaps, more cynically, of priming the pump for such an eventuality.
The immediate pushback is often a familiar one: “He’s just joking,” or “it’s hyperbole, a figure of speech.” The goal, it seems, is to normalize the outrageous, to make the unthinkable seem almost ordinary. The media, of course, plays a significant role. Some will characterize the statements as outrageous, others may call them a gaffe, while some even debate whether such an action could be considered constitutional.
As this is happening, the groundwork for a justification is laid. Maybe it’s a fabricated claim about voter fraud, or concerns about “the other side” and their intentions. Whatever the justification, it’s designed to make the outrageous *seem* like a necessary measure to protect “the country.” It’s about creating an atmosphere where cancelling an election is, at least, debatable.
The strategy that emerges is both troubling and predictable. First, the idea is floated publicly, as if it’s a random thought. Then, supporters and surrogates step in, defending the idea. These “talking heads” will then insist that the president doesn’t really want to cancel the election. But if it were to happen, they claim, it might not be such a bad thing after all. From there, it’s a slow burn, a gradual acceptance. It’s the old “boil the frog” strategy. It starts with small changes and slowly builds the temperature until it is far too late to jump out. The news will then start to publish headlines asking “can the president cancel elections, and are experts divided on this matter?”
Now, the potential for action is there, and as history has shown, Trump does have a well-documented track record of saying and doing things that most people think impossible. The Constitution exists as a check, but it requires checks and balances from a willing public. What happens if the safeguards are subverted? What if the checks are ignored, or the balances are upset? The potential is there for real disruption.
Ultimately, the power to cancel the election is not his, it is run and governed by the states. But the rhetoric is what matters. It’s about maintaining a constant state of chaos and uncertainty. The goal isn’t necessarily to *actually* cancel the election, it is about keeping supporters and people guessing. It’s about undermining faith in the electoral process, and eroding trust in the very institutions of government. It’s a game of brinkmanship, and the stakes are the future of American democracy. This pattern, this constant interplay of suggestion, denial, and normalization, is a dangerous game. And it’s a game that demands constant vigilance, for as they say, the first step is admitting you have a problem.