By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent interview, Donald Trump suggested that the Republican party should seize control of elections in at least 15 locations, falsely claiming widespread fraud in states like Minnesota and Georgia. He repeated baseless conspiracy theories, including a racist claim that Democrats encourage illegal immigration to increase voter rolls, despite non-citizens being ineligible to vote. Trump’s remarks align with his history of disputing election results, even after losing the 2020 election to Joe Biden by significant margins.
Read the original article here
President Donald Trump recently made a notable appearance on Dan Bongino’s inaugural podcast episode, where he articulated a striking directive for Republicans: the imperative to “take over voting” in at least fifteen distinct locations. This pronouncement, delivered during a phone interview, echoed his persistent claims of electoral irregularities, specifically mentioning Minnesota and Georgia. It’s a statement that, in a more conventional political climate, might be met with significant consternation and even calls for impeachment, yet it appears to be business as usual in today’s political landscape.
The underlying message from this call suggests that the integrity of elections remains a paramount concern, not just for voters, but as a perceived threat by those in power. However, the urgency of the situation extends far beyond the upcoming major elections. The commentary surrounding this event emphasizes that significant change and protection of democratic processes don’t solely hinge on presidential or midterm contests. Instead, the real battleground for preserving electoral fairness begins much sooner, in the numerous state, county, judicial, sheriff, mayoral, city council, and school board elections that precede larger contests.
The sentiment is clear: waiting until the midterms is too late. Every single seat gained by Democrats at any level of government is seen as a crucial step in making it more difficult for any attempts to manipulate future elections. This underscores a proactive approach, urging individuals to exercise their voting rights at every opportunity, well before any potential erosion of these rights can take hold. The repeated refrain is to act now, not later.
Further elaborating on this point, there are a significant number of elections occurring in the early months of the year, with dozens taking place in February alone across a multitude of states. These elections, spanning various local and state offices, present immediate opportunities for engagement. Ballotpedia is cited as a valuable resource for tracking this extensive election calendar, which includes states like Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, and many others.
For those looking to actively participate in the political process beyond simply voting, there are multiple avenues. Information on primary dates is readily available, and resources like Ballotpedia’s Elections Calendar are essential tools. Furthermore, organizations such as “Run for Something” specifically cater to progressives under the age of forty who are interested in seeking office. The call to action also includes registering as a poll watcher in one’s state, a vital role in ensuring election integrity on the ground. The advice is to meticulously add all local election dates to personal calendars and set reminders.
The momentum of change is also being tracked and highlighted through recent electoral successes. There are references to specific Democratic victories in Iowa state senate races that blocked Republican initiatives, and other gains in various state-level elections in 2025 and 2026, including special elections in Virginia, Connecticut, and Minnesota, as well as a significant flip of a Texas state Senate seat. These examples serve to illustrate that impactful victories are achievable, even in traditionally Republican-leaning areas.
The implications of Trump’s remarks are interpreted as a direct admission of intent, laid bare for all to see. The suggestion to “take over voting” locations is seen as a thinly veiled euphemism for manipulating election outcomes at those specific sites. This perceived disrespect for democratic norms is further highlighted by the continued support he receives from some segments of the Republican party.
There’s a notable comparison drawn between the current situation and how the public and media might have reacted if a Democratic leader, such as President Obama or President Biden, had made similar statements. The historical context suggests a far more intense backlash and scrutiny would likely have followed. The commentary also touches on the idea that Bongino’s role as a former FBI official adds a layer to the narrative, with some suggesting his involvement is more about aiding a propaganda effort than law enforcement.
The sheer desperation of the current administration is palpable to many observers. With a backdrop of perceived failures in various sectors, including foreign policy, the economy, and growing public discontent, the emphasis is on an administration that feels cornered and is willing to disregard constitutional principles to maintain power. The fear of retribution for alleged past actions is presented as a primary motivator for such drastic suggestions.
The phrase “take over voting” is explicitly equated with authoritarian tactics aimed at subverting the will of the people. The implication is that such actions go against the very foundations of the American system of government, which vests election administration in the states. The question is raised as to how any conservative can align with such proposals, with the hope that legal organizations are prepared to challenge these efforts.
The executive branch’s lack of a constitutional role in federal elections is a key point raised, further emphasizing the perceived overreach. The commentary also posits that if Trump were to truly face consequences for his actions, perhaps his health would be failing him more rapidly, reflecting a deep frustration with the perceived lack of accountability. The suggestion that Stephen Miller, not Trump himself, is the architect behind these ideas is also put forth.
The Raffensperger call is frequently cited as a critical moment, suggesting that it alone should have been enough to warrant severe legal repercussions. The observation that Trump’s vote totals in instances of alleged fraud were inexplicably 100% is used as an example of the perceived absurdity of the claims. Legal action from organizations like the ACLU is seen as a necessary immediate response, though the time-consuming nature of court cases is acknowledged.
The idea of “winning with popular platforms that actually help people” is presented as a stark alternative to the current strategy. The frustration with the perceived inaction of the Department of Justice is also evident, with a lament that opportunities to prosecute have been missed. The observation that even significant personal incidents, like pants-wetting, are not gaining traction in media coverage, highlights a perceived desensitization to extreme behavior.
The suggestion that election day should be a national holiday to facilitate voting is made, alongside the firm stance that no single party should have control over the electoral process. The commentary expresses a strong rejection of the notion that any party should “take over” voting. The immediate call to action is for Democrats to initiate impeachment proceedings and force Republicans to publicly defend such statements.
There is a strong emphasis on being prepared and organized, with a warning that online organizing may be subject to surveillance. The need to be “on the ground” at protests is highlighted as potentially the last chance to defend democracy. A stark message is delivered to Republicans: “stop hating America.” The interpretation of the desire to “take over voting” is framed as a confession of past cheating and a desire to “cheat better.”
The broader issue of what is termed the “Epstein class” is raised, viewed as a “cancer” that must be eradicated to save the country. The idea of defending election sites ourselves is presented as a potential necessity, though this is also acknowledged as possibly leading to martial law and the nullification of elections altogether. A lack of basic civics understanding in the president is highlighted as a fundamental problem, leading to a belief that the dictator knows his administration’s survival depends on rigging the system.
The prospect of Americans “kissing organised elections goodbye” if this “clown” remains in power is presented. The behavior is unequivocally labeled as “insane dictator behavior” and an impeachable offense. The idea that certain locations will see increased ICE presence during elections is also floated, suggesting a plan to exert control. The hope for a dramatic conclusion where “the good guys save the day” is expressed, alongside a grim fascination with the darker theories surrounding the situation.
The frustration with the current media landscape and the way issues are handled is a recurring theme, with observations about the president’s exclusive use of his own social media and reliance on sympathetic news outlets. The perceived childish nature of the president, from his alleged attractions to his tantrums and memory issues, is also highlighted as a symptom of the larger problem. The call for the president’s removal from office is direct, with states urged to proceed with elections as constitutionally mandated, regardless of his pronouncements.
A crucial question is posed: “What are current democrat leaders doing to protect voting?” This highlights a desire for visible and decisive action from those in power to counter the perceived threats to the electoral system. The overarching sentiment is one of alarm, urgency, and a demand for proactive measures to safeguard the democratic process.