MAGA dictatorship updates: Rigging the 2026 elections; CN's cruel bigotry

Political science is the study of politics, more precisely power. Marcus Stadelmann, Political Science for Dummies, page 1, 2020

Since 2017, MAGA leader Trump has asserted his desire to be a dictator for life on multiple occasions. In a Nov. 5, 2025 meeting with Trump Party (GOP) Senators in congress, he clearly stated his wish to be a dictator. "If we do what I'm saying, they [Democrats] will most likely never attain power". 

For MAGA elites and Trump, it is all about power and wealth. Trump's lust for dictatorship power cannot get much clearer than that. In view of the circumstances, it is reasonable to argue that the 2026 midterm elections will probably be a crucial last line of defense for what's left of our democracy and rule of law. 

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

The corrupt CN (Christian nationalist) theocrat wing of the MAGA wealth and power movement is intensely hostile to the LGBQT community. Apparently God told CN elites that the LGBQT community is evil and needs to be discriminated against, suppressed and dehumanized. CN bigotry here is arrogant, self-righteous and cruel. Although not a Christian himself, happily Trump goes along with CN's cruel bigotry. First, he needs those votes. Second, he takes real joy in seeing people suffer. Treating the LGBQT community like garbage is a win-win for CN theocrats and the deranged monster Trump.

The authoritarian MAGA judges in our sanctimonious USSC are fully on board with this kind of CN bigotry and cruelty. On Nov. 6, 2025, all six USSC CN  MAGA judges used the shadow docket to allow Trump to enforce a policy restricting passport gender markers to biological sex assigned at birth. That reversed a lower court injunction. The policy comes from Trump's January 20 executive order declaring the government would only recognize two sexes and require government-issued identification to "accurately reflect the holder's sex". That overturned the Biden administration's policy that allowed individuals to select male, female, or "X" as gender markers without requiring medical documentation.

The shadow docket allows the six MAGA coward judges to shaft targeted people and groups without any explanation. The shadow docket is a means MAGA judges on the USSC use to hide their authoritarianism, corruption, cruel bigotry and unprincipled use of law to kill democracy and the rule of law. The tactic is called autocratic legalism.

The dissent by one of the three pro-democracy, pro-rule of law Dems left on the USSC bench explained the cruelty and legal irrationality of this cruel, silent decision. Reporting on this comments, quoting the dissent: "once again [the 6 MAGA judges] paved the way for the immediate infliction of injury without adequate (or, really, any) justification," calling it a "pointless but painful perversion of our equitable discretion". Jackson further argued the Court "misunderstands the assignment" and is misusing its emergency docket to "cavalierly pick the winners and losers in cases that are still pending in the lower courts".

Here, the MAGA cowards hiding behind the shadow docket allowed Trump to discriminate against the LGBQT community without the usual needed showing of irreparable harm to the government as the justification for supporting this bigot policy. The USSC just sided with the bigot Trump simply it because it could. Legal analysis or consideration of harm to affected people be damned.[1]

By dismissing equal protection claims without meaningful scrutiny, the MAGA majority allows government discrimination against transgender people under the pretense of biological essentialism. That approach that could extend beyond passports to other areas of law and policy, e.g., discrimination on the basis of races, sex or national origin.

 

Footnote:

1. The harms here are real, not merely imagined. Bigotry and simple ignorance is widespread. Real harms have arisen from gender-mismatched documents. For example, transgender males who mark their passport as female are sometimes hassled at border crossings if their passport says they are male, their biological designation the government now demands on passports. When border agents or immigration officials see documents that don't align with a person's sex presentation they sometimes face increased scrutiny, interrogation, and potential detention. Forcing transgender people to carry passports that out them against their will increases the risk that they will face harassment and violence, especially in countries with hostile attitudes toward LGBTQ people. 

Deadnaming: Gender mismatched IDs create heightened risks during police encounters. A ProPublica investigation found that in 74 of 85 transgender murder cases since 2015, victims were identified by law enforcement using names and genders from their IDs, not than their lived identities. That is called "deadnaming". It impedes investigations because witnesses only know victims by their lived or actual names.

Lived name, also "actual name" or "affirmed name", is the name a transgender person actually uses in their daily life. That is the name by which friends, family, coworkers, and community members know them. This is their real identity, the name that reflects who they are. Legal name is the name on government-issued documents like birth certificates, driver's licenses, or passports. That is usually the name assigned at birth. It usually doesn't match gender identity for transgendered people.

Bottom line: The harms to transgendered people are real, while harm to the government or American society is almost completely non-existent. Unaffected straight or hetero people who might claim to be harmed are either bigots who fear or hate LGBTQ people, or religious people with religious objections, e.g., many CN supporters. 

A Sea Change on US-Israel Relations: Reflections on Mamdani’s Victory, Antisemitism Narratives, and Accountability

The New York City mayoral election of November 2025 marked far more than a local democratic contest—it signaled a wave of reevaluation in the relationship between the US and Israel, and brought the deeper questions of antisemitism, war crimes, and the role of advocacy organizations into sharp relief.

​

Erdan’s Post as the Bellwether

Israel’s former UN Ambassador, Gilad Erdan, captured the establishment’s alarm in a tweet responding to Zohran Mamdani’s victory. Erdan wrote, 

It’s crucial to internalize this: an Israel-hater who sees us as an apartheid state that commits genocide...was elected tonight to lead the most important city in the world, home to the largest Jewish population outside of Israel. This is a dark day...what happened in New York could soon happen throughout the U.S.—including in Congress and even in the White House. This is a HUGE warning sign. And Israel must wake up and implement a comprehensive plan to rebrand ourselves....

​

Erdan’s focus on “branding” rather than on introspection about Israeli policies illustrates a core crisis: a loss of persuasive power about the justification and consequences of Israel’s conduct, especially in Gaza, among Americans—including 1 in 3 New York Jews who voted for Mamdani. While younger Jews, particularly, are driving this shift, establishment  pro-Israel media such as Times of Israel worked to minimize its significance, claiming “between 10% and 33%” Jewish support despite clear and widely reported  exit polls indicating the latter (33%)—revealing discomfort with shifting generational attitudes and political realities.

​

Rethinking Antisemitism and Lawfare

This moment is driven, in part, by reexamination of what counts as antisemitism. The Guardian’s November 5 exposé details how federal investigations into campus antisemitism surged since October 2023,  yet most complaints were legally flimsy, equating criticism of Israeli policy—often pro-Palestinian speech—with actionable hostility against Jewish students. This conflation stems from advocacy by groups like ADL, ISGAP, and others, who promoted broad legal definitions (notably IHRA used via executive orders, not the law ) and advised on the weaponization of Title VI civil rights law. The “Mamdani Monitor,” created by ADL immediately following Mamdani’s election to protect Jewish New Yorkers from Mamdani, typifies the reactive posture of the US Jewish establishment, which refused to congratulate the victor and instead emphasized the purported danger to Jewish safety, despite little credible evidence of increased violence against Jews on campuses.

​

​Instead, available evidence overwhelmingly documents violence and harassment directed at pro-Palestinian activists—including Jews—by police and organized pro-Israel counterprotesters. As the meticulously documented UCLA case demonstrates, physical and institutional abuse overwhelmingly targeted pro-Palestinian protesters, while counterprotesters were not prosecuted—a pattern confirmed by faculty and union investigations.The war on dissent has repeatedly misclassified peaceful protest and advocacy as threats to safety, distracting from the documented abuses and chilling free expression and academic freedom.

​

The Reckoning on War Crimes and Genocide

Recent  months have seen an eruption of conscience among prominent Israelis and Jewish scholars: former PM Ehud Olmert, ex-ICJ lawyer Eyal Benvenisti, Shael Ben-Ephraim, Omer Bartov, and others have publicly condemned the war in Gaza as criminally immoral, with some even calling it genocidal. The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) went further, with more than 80% of its voting members voting to recognize the Gaza war as genocidal.

​Polling has revealed an extraordinary reversal in American opinion, especially among Democrats: more than 70% now agree that Israel is committing genocide. Meanwhile, AIPAC’s influence among Democrats has waned to the point of toxicity, with candidates and voters rejecting unconditional support for Israel—a tectonic change.

​

Fractures and Fading Narratives

Even Republicans are not monolithic: “America First” figures such as Tucker Carlson have challenged traditional Christian Zionist narratives, indicating cracks in the longstanding AIPAC-GOP alliance. The result is a loss of consensus across the spectrum.

​The original NAS (New Antisemitism) narrative, which reframed anti-Zionist speech as the greatest threat to Jewish safety, has backfired. Its weaponization of US civil rights law to suppress campus speech and activism, coupled with attempts to label leading humanitarian and legal organizations as “Hamas supporters,” has led to dramatic disillusionment.

​

Toward Accountability and Conscience

The unfolding events unmask the profound risk in elevating the US-Israel “special relationship” above constitutional principles and civil rights. Unconditional support, justified by a now-fading consensus and enforced with “lawfare,” has resulted not in Jewish safety, but in democratic erosion and widespread moral outrage—a lesson written in the images of bombed Gaza, starving children, and the silencing of dissent.

​

The Mamdani election and the reaction it prompted, expressed most anxiously by Erdan, should be a wake-up call: the old politics of branding and suppression have failed. The story now is one of conscience—cracks in orthodoxy, a loss of consensus, and a call for accountability. True democratic resilience means restoring a balance between solidarity and truth, questioning policies, and refusing authoritarian creep. The early signs of this reaction may yet rescue both American democracy and Jewish dignity from the wreckage left by the excesses of NAS lawfare and uncritical support for war and occupation.

Sources / References:

The Guardian, “Surge in antisemitism investigations at US universities after October 7 attacks, data shows,” November 5, 2025.

Yahoo News, “Jewish NYC vote breakdown: 63% for Cuomo, 33% for Mamdani in ...” November 5, 2025.

AA News, “New York mayor-elect Mamdani found strong support among Jewish voters: Polls,” November 4, 2025.

Roya News, “How many Jews voted for Zohran Mamdani to become mayor of NYC?” November 4, 2025.

New York Times, “Zohran Mamdani’s Critical Views on Israel Continue to Divide Jewish New Yorkers,” November 5, 2025.

Times of Israel, “Facing an anti-Zionist mayor: Mamdani’s election win puts NY Jews into uncharted waters,” November 5, 2025.

TRT World, “‘Erase Amalek’: Poll reveals mass Israeli support for expulsion ...” May 26, 2025.

POLITICO, “With slim majority, Mamdani takes over a divided city,” November 5, 2025.

NPR, “A question of intent: Is what's happening in Gaza genocide?” September 25, 2025.

Pew Research, “Israeli Public Increasingly Skeptical About Lasting Peace,” June 2, 2025.

Boston Review, “UCLA’s Unholy Alliance,” Robin D.G. Kelley, May 18, 2024.

New York Times, “Democrats Pull Away From AIPAC, Reflecting a Broader Shift,” October 2, 2025.

Fox News, “ADL chief warns NYC mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani poses a ‘clear and present danger’ to Jewish community,” November 5, 2025.

Times of Israel, “Mamdani holds wide edge among Jewish voters in new NYC poll,” July 31, 2025.

NY Post, “Anti-Defamation League launches ‘Mamdani Monitor’ to combat ...,” November 5, 2025.

Jewish Insider, “ADL launches a Mamdani monitor to track mayor-elect's policies,” November 4, 2025.

Times of Israel, Liveblog, “ADL announces 'Mamdani monitor' to track incoming NYC ...” November 5, 2025.

Jewish Times, “ADL to Launch 'Mamdani Monitor,' Jew-Hatred Tipline,” November 4, 2025.

“History and Impact of the IHRA Antisemitism Definition,” Mondoweiss PDF, April 28, 2025.

 

 

DP analysis: Regarding yesterdays elections

Apparently, Democrats won everywhere. That's good. Exit polling data indicates that the economy was voters #1 concern. That's less good. 

The #1 concern here at DP (Dissident Politics) is the impending collapse of democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties, with an attendant transfer of vast wealth and power from the masses to chosen or compliant elite special interests, e.g., Bezos and Amazon, Zuckerberg and Facebook, CBS Broadcasting Inc., Fox News, etc. The reasoning is simple. If kleptocratic MAGA authoritarianism finishes taking full control of the federal government and the rule of law, the economy for the masses is very likely going to suck far worse compared to its current suckiness. 

Clearly, DP's main priority is out of synch with voter's main priority. Voters see economic distress as the big problem. DP sees democratic distress that will cause horrific economic distress if democracy truly collapses into a kleptocratic dictatorship or something else that is authoritarian and very corrupt.

Based on voter research, the economy being the #1 concern is no surprise. That should be expected, especially when voters perceive the economy to be bad. But there is a really interesting story here and it's quite encouraging. 

This could easily be a fascinating but TL/DR post. But I'll keep it short. For those interested, the entire long and complicated analysis is laid out at this link.

• Voter perception of a bad/inadequate economy is reasonably close to economic reality. Inflation has ticked up to 3%. Trump's tariffs have sucked ~$3,800 out of household spending power and that hurts. Based on data like that, voting for Dems makes sense because the economy is the primary driver of votes. 

• Encouragingly, voter perception of the threat to democracy, the rule of law and civil liberties is pretty good. Poll data indicates the threat of Trump/MAGA authoritarianism and corruption come in a fairly close 2nd to worries about the economy. Poll data indicates that (i) 25% of voter made defense of democracy their top priority, which is high for an off-year election, (ii) 59-67% of voters believe Trump is overreaching in his power grabs, and (iii) supermajorities oppose specific authoritarian actions, e.g., 80% oppose using the military against protesters. All in all, voters seem to get it. 

• But on the issue of the threat of deeply corrupt MAGA authoritarianism, there still is a major gap in voter perception compared to expert perception. 25% of voters prioritized concerns for democracy while ≥ 97% of experts rate the anti-democracy threats as severe. The economy still dominated voter priorities, 50%+ in most states, despite experts warning of fastest democracy collapse in modern history.

Based on that data, effective messaging in defense of democracy might do well to express a two-punch combination message. The first part of the message is how bad the economy is and will be due to MAGA policies. Link MAGA directly to the bad economy. Constantly pound on that point, and never stop pounding. Then, a follow-up punch is that the rise of authoritarian kleptocracy to replace less corrupt democracy will make the economy much worse than it should be. 

A last thought. Trump and MAGA elites are acutely aware of the election results. If a person is Trump or a MAGA elite, what to do? At least one option pops right up. It's the righteous MAGA option. Double down on rigging and subverting the Nov. 2026 mid-term elections. Make damn sure the Dems cannot take control of the House or Senate. That's what I would do if I were a MAGA elite.

Qs: Do Trump and MAGA elites need to make damn sure that the Dems cannot take control of the House or Senate in the 2026 mid-term elections? If not, then what was the point of Project 2025 and everything that MAGA has done since Jan. 2025?

Inspector Kemp telling the villagers they need 

to make damn sure they get it right

Some comments by a democracy expert; Some comments about the 60 Minutes CBS broadcast

In an April 2025 NPR interview, democracy & dictatorship expert Steve Levitsky (professor of government, Harvard) made these comments.

• Q: What kind of autocracy might we become? A: I think the most likely outcome is a slide into what I call competitive authoritarianism. These are regimes that constitutionally continue to be democracies. There is a Constitution. There are regular elections, a legislature and importantly, the opposition is legal, above ground and competes for power. So from a distance, if you squint, it looks like a democracy, but the problem is that systematic abuse of power tilts the playing field against the opposition.

• Q: I wonder if there's anything comparable in Putin's rise in Russia, where you had oligarchs who made fortunes and increased Putin's power by allying themselves to his administration. A: The parallel that I see to Putin - and I don't want to draw it too far because the regime in Russia is very authoritarian, much, much more so than anything in the United States, I think, even could become. But the parallel I would draw to oligarchs in the Putin case are more the Zuckerbergs and the Jeff Bezos'. Putin is the guy in charge. The oligarchs are able to make a lot of money, but Putin made it very, very clear soon after he became president that the deal was these guys could make money through legal and illegal means, but the one rule was that they had to stay out of politics. If you financed the opposition, you were done. .... So Bezos and Zuckerberg kind of acquiesce getting on their knees to Trump, that - I see that parallel.

• Q: What's the state of the Republican Party? What's its role in all of this? A: I think the Republican Party has a crucial and really underappreciated role in all of this. It would be pretty easy to put the brakes on what the Trump administration is doing. It would only take a handful of Republicans. It would not take a majority of Republicans. It wouldn't even take a large faction of Republicans could change the dynamic and put the brakes on what is a pretty radical authoritarian turn in the last four months. But the party now, now sort of purged of its last Adam Kinzingers and Liz Cheneys, is almost uniform in backing an openly authoritarian figure or at least acquiescing to an openly authoritarian figure. Unlike 2016, '17, there's no serious debate about Donald Trump's authoritarianism.

Yup, no serious debate about Trump's authoritarianism. 

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

In a weird article, techdirt writes about that nutty interview on 60 Minutes that CBS News aired last Sunday:

60 Minutes is under new management and things are getting stupid faster than you might expect. Last night’s episode featured President Trump, which is currently being described as “nuts.” There are all sorts of crazy moments to call out, but let’s start with the recursively meta nonsense.

60 Minutes edited out a segment where Donald Trump tells them to edit out a segment in which he brags about getting CBS to pay him because of them editing out part of an answer by Kamala Harris, and he notes that CBS clearly did the wrong thing in editing Harris in the same fucking sentence he tells them to edit out what he’s saying.

It is so fucking stupid.

I feel the need to repeat this because it is so incredibly stupid. Literally in the same sentence where he says CBS had to pay him “a lotta money” because it edited a 60 Minutes interview, he tells them to edit the interview not to air that section. Then he claims “you can’t have fake news.” Even though what he’s claiming is literally fake news. They didn’t pay him because they changed the answer. They paid him to get their merger done. Everyone knows it. 

Yup, fucking stupid. Also dangerous, insulting and terrifying. And tens of millions of adult Americans still love the guy, believe he is a truth-teller and on their side. Un-fracking-believable.