Why Democrats May Lose the November Elections Even Though Polls Now Say They Can Win

Trump has already rigged the race to crush Democratic voters and ensure a Republican victory—but Democrats don’t want to hear it

The polls confirm a growing surge of voter enthusiasm for Democrats. Are they wrong? No. They may just not be relevant.

While Democrats deliriously high-five themselves at the release of each new favorable poll, Trump has been diligently rigging the electoral process to ensure that Republicans keep control of Congress (and incidentally keep him from being impeached, convicted and thrown in jail for tax evasion and the sexual abuse of minors).

So why may the pro-Democratic poll numbers be irrelevant? Because they only show how people intend to vote, not whether they will actually be able to vote. Or even if they do vote, whether it will make any difference.

Consider these 12 dirty tricks that Trump will use to crush Democratic voters flatter than in the illustration at the outset of this article.

1. Aggressively Partisan Gerrymandering:

Eight state legislatures have already redrawn congressional districts to lock in an artificial Republican House majority even before voting starts. This will dilute millions of Democratic votes across entire states so they will have little or no impact, regardless of overall turnout. Six more states will soon follow their example. And don’t look for the courts to strike down these biased electoral maps: The Supreme Court has already ruled in their favor.

How many House seats will gerrymandering steal for the Republicans in November?

According to redistricting analyses from the Brennan Center for Justice and the Princeton Gerrymandering Project, these new Republican electoral maps now provide a net structural baseline advantage of 14 to 20 House seats for Republicans over a neutral national map.

In a narrowly divided House, where majority rule often hinges on fewer than five seats, gerrymandering alone can determine control of the chamber, regardless of a national lead in the popular vote for Democrats. Having 14 to 20 more seats locked up can make Republican control of the House a slam-dunk, turning the predictive headline of this article into a reality.

2. Announcing “enhanced poll surveillance by ICE to preserve order and prevent illegal voting”:

This will have a chilling effect on Latinos, naturalized citizens, and people of color in general. Many will decide to stay home, because they know that ICE sweeps are fueled by racial profiling, so that even U.S. citizens can disappear into unmarked cars, wind up in detention camps for days or weeks, and even be deported to El Salvador before they are able to prove their citizenship.

Although federal statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 592, forbid the government from stationing armed federal troops or civil officers at “any place where a general or special election is held,” that will not stop Trump. He will exploit jurisdictional gray areas that permit the staging of immigration or federal enforcement operations outside statutory boundary lines (e.g., 100 to 500 feet away from the polls).

Since many eligible voters live in mixed-status households, with U.S. citizens residing alongside undocumented relatives or green card holders, the threat of immigration sweeps at bus stations and roadways leading to the polls will significantly depress turnout.

Ironically, Trump does not even have to deploy ICE agents at the polls. His mere promise to do so will be enough to trigger the desired chilling effect.

Is there any remedy? Yes. Emergency injunctions can be issued by federal district judges on Election Day under the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, which bars conspiracies to intimidate or coerce voters by word or deed. But in the real world, injunctions issued hours into voting will come long after the narrative has already discouraged voter turnout among “suspiciously colored” voters.

How many votes can this tactic affect?

According to U.S. Census Bureau Voting and Registration tables, approximately 245 million Americans are eligible to vote, although only about 174 million are actually registered to do so. Of those 174 million registered voters, Latino/Hispanics account for 20 million (about 12%); Black/African Americans, including Haitians, Jamaicans and Sub-Saharan Africans, such as Nigerians and Ethiopians, account for 22 million (about 13%); and Asian Americans, from China, the Philippines, India, Vietnam, South Korea, and Japan account for 15 million (about 9%).

That’s approximately 57 million voters—33% of the electorate—who might not want to run into a hooded ICE agent on the way to the polls. Or worse, be followed home from the polls because their accent or skin color suggests that they might have friends or family members ripe for deportation.

Since many House races are decided by a margin of only a few thousand votes, even a tiny percentage of voters who stay home out of fear, can swing an election. For example, here is a calculation by Google’s Gemini AI that estimates how many extra seats Republicans could gain by frightening minority voters into staying home:

Of course, some things that AI says turn out to be nonsense. But you can verify Gemini’s calculations. I have saved its data sources and rationale in this file. You can follow every step and draw your own conclusions.

3. Mass Voter Roll Purges (Name-Matching):

Republican-controlled states have purged massive numbers of legitimate voters from the polls using these two questionable tactics.

Mass Challenges: Any citizen can compile a list of allegedly ineligible voters and file their names with the state or local election board. Some challenge-lists can contain more than 300,000 names, all from primarily Democratic-leaning areas, and each challenged name must be verified by the relevant state election boards. But overworked and understaffed election boards have little or no time to accomplish this huge task before the start of voting. So any challenged voters will be turned away from the polls. Instead, he or she will receive a provisional ballot, pending validation of their voting status.

But the joke, or tragedy, is that the validation almost never comes. That is because 30-40% of all provisional ballots are never counted, even though 99.5% of challenged names turn out to be legitimate voters.

Election analyses from organizations like the Brookings Institution and certified House election results show that every cycle features 5-10 battleground races decided by fewer than 500 votes (e.g., Iowa’s 2^nd District in 2020 decided by 6 votes; California’s 13^th and Colorado’s 8^th decided by tiny fractions of a percent).

“Loose” Name-Matching: This strategy looks for the same surname and/or first name appearing at two different addresses or in two different states. These are then flagged as either erroneous duplicates or instances of someone attempting to vote more than once. Either way, the names are purged. The trick is not to look at middle names, suffixes (e.g., Jr) or Social Security numbers, which would prove that these are different individuals.

As a result, those purged are mostly Latino, African American and Asian voters, among whom a small cluster of names account for a large percentage of voters (e.g., Garcia, Rodriguez, Washington, Lee). It does not matter that almost all prove to be false positives. They will not be able to vote, which is the purpose of the purge.

In its landmark report Purges: A Growing Threat to the Right to Vote, the Brennan Center for Justice concludes: “Purges are particularly concerning when they are conducted improperly or in error…With razor-thin margins in critical elections, an erroneous purge can alter the outcome of a contest.”

Although the effect of improper voter purges on elections is not as large as as that of gerrymandering (estimated to cause a potential swing of 14-20 seats in the House) or the threat to deploy ICE near the polls (estimated to swing as many as 9-14 seats), it still matters in tight races.

In those districts, the effect of voter purges falls well within the margin of victory, mathematically (according to a Gemini AI) placing 2 to 5 close seats within range of their power.

4. Polling Place Closures and Long Lines:

Drastically cutting the number of physical voting sites in densely populated urban areas forces hours-long waits and travel times, driving away hourly workers and lower-income voters who cannot afford the time.

Academic research on voter wait-times (Stephen Pettigrew, Harvard University/Public Opinion Quarterly) establishes that, for every extra hour someone has to wait in line, the likelihood of voting drops by about 1%, with similar immediate drop-offs on Election Day for hourly workers and parents who cannot wait. That drop-off applies directly to Black and Latino voters, since Republican-controlled states force them to travel much farther and wait on line for a significantly longer time on average than white voters due to deliberate reduction of voting machines and poll workers in dense areas, according to studies by the MIT Election Data and Science Lab and the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

How does this translate into extra House seats for Republicans?

In an average congressional district (calculated for this analysis at 760,000, although congressional districts can vary in size from 500,000 to over 1 million), if the number of polling places is cut back in areas such as dense city neighborhoods or college towns, this wait-time friction will cost roughly 600 to 1,500 total votes.

Since such neighborhoods heavily favor Democrats (typically voting 65% to 80% Democratic), losing those votes creates a net loss of 300 to 700 votes for the Democratic candidate in that single district. This vote shift may seem modest, but it can flip races decided by razor-thin margins. Out of the 5 to 10 closest toss-up races in the country that are decided by fewer than 1,000 votes, this vote loss (or “friction,” as election analysts call it) is estimated to move 2 to 4 House seats into the Republican column in November.

5. State Takeovers of Urban Election Boards:

From 2021 to 2024, seizing direct control of local election boards by state officials was frequent in Republican-controlled states. Such control allows state officials to shift the vote by delaying, altering or refusing to certify vote tallies in major Democratic-leaning cities. So expect many more usurpations of local election boards by Republican state officials leading up to the November elections.

This could swing 1 to 5 more House seats to Republicans.

But the 1-to-5 seat figure is not a guaranteed prediction of what will happen in November; it is a mathematical model of what could happen if officials in Republican states conduct aggressive, high-friction administrative takeovers, e.g., closing polling places to create long lines; massively purging voter rolls by “loose matching”; sharply rejecting mail-in ballots; and demanding personal ID, such as passports or birth certificates, that many Democratic voters might not possess. Replacing local non-partisan clerks with partisan loyalists also allows direct interference with precinct rules, ballot handling, and final local certifications.

Across the country, only about 10 to 20 congressional districts are both competitive within a 2–4% margin and at the same time rely heavily on votes cast in jurisdictions targeted by state takeovers (e.g., suburban Atlanta, suburban Houston/Dallas, the Phoenix metro area, and suburban Philadelphia). So in a high-impact scenario where administrative friction depresses net urban turnout by 2–4% in those specific counties, quantitative models estimate a potential net swing of 1 to 5 U.S. House seats nationwide.

The mathematical model that predicts this 1-to-5 swing of House seats is supported by research from the University of Virginia Center for Politics; Protect Democracy; Political Science Research and Methods (Cambridge University Press); and Economic Innovation Group (EIG).

6. Curtailing Mail-in Ballots and Drop Boxes:

Eliminating ballot drop boxes and restricting mail-in options significantly reduces turnout in dense metro areas where voters rely on off-site voting methods.

Research and quantitative modeling derived from the following sources estimate that eliminating drop boxes and restricting mail-in balloting can depress urban and minority turnout by 1% to 3%, resulting in a potential net swing of 1 to 5 House seats to Republicans in tightly contested suburban crossover districts. For example:

ResearchGate / King County Drop Box Turnout Study documents that physical proximity and access to ballot drop boxes measurably increase participation, while severe geographic restrictions disproportionately depress turnout among lower-mobility and urban voters.

Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR) analyzes the compositional effects of mail-in options, finding that, while aggregate turnout baseline changes are modest, administrative restrictions introduce friction that can decide razor-thin margins in highly polarized environments.

Votebeat / Brennan Center for Justice Reporting tracks how state-level restrictions on mail-in lists, drop-box caps, and tighter application deadlines reduce off-site voting volume and strain metropolitan in-person infrastructure.

Democracy Docket / Georgia SB 202 Litigation Analysis details empirical data from Georgia showing a 77% drop-box reduction across major metropolitan counties and a corresponding 23-point drop in absentee mail participation among non-white urban voters.

7. Proof-of-Citizenship Registration Mandates:

Demanding hard-copy documents like birth certificates or passports creating an additional hurdle could block millions of citizens who lack ready access to physical paperwork from registering at all. The federal SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act), which would demand such documentation to register, has already passed the House. Passage in the Senate seems improbable though [Senate Majority leader John Thune has repeatedly stated that he doesn’t have the votes needed to overcome a Democratic filibuster); Trump would of course sign it in a heartbeat.

This would affect the 21 million voting-age citizens (about 9% of eligible voters) who do not have ready access to any documentary proof of citizenship, such as a passport, birth certificate, or naturalization papers. [VoteRiders / Brennan Center / CDCE National Survey]

Moreover, up to 69 million voting-age women who changed their names upon marriage lack a birth certificate matching their current legal name, which would create additional documentary hurdles that might prevent them from voting. [Center for American Progress Analysis]

Given those statistics, how would the SAVE Act (and the Save America Act, which is even more restrictive) disadvantage Democrats in November?

When Kansas passed its own SAVE Act (in force from 2013 to 2016, until it was struck down as unconstitutional), approximately 9-14% of the electorate could not comply and had its registration suspended or blocked.

Significantly, nearly half of those blocked from voting were under age 30, a demographic segment that votes heavily Democratic.

Although I have not seen predictions of how provisions of the SAVE and Save America Acts would translate into House seats swung to Republicans, the number has to be significant.

8. Aggressive Poll Watcher Deployment:

Flooding urban precincts with confrontational observers creates procedural delays, lengthens wait times, and intimidates both voters and precinct workers.

9. FBI Election Probes:

Launching high-profile federal investigations and issuing subpoenas to election offices in swing-counties creates administrative bottlenecks and chills local election administration.

10. Penalizing Voter Registration Drives:

Imposing felony risks and massive fines on non-partisan civic groups will shut down high-volume registration efforts in traditionally Democratic communities.

11. Criminalizing Ballot Collection:

Barring neighbors and volunteers from turning in sealed mail ballots will depress turnout among the home-bound, elderly and rural non-drivers.

12. Banning “Line Relief”:

Outlawing the distribution of water or snacks to voters stuck in multi-hour lines (which will be the norm in many Democratic areas due to tendentious reduction of polling sites) will increase physical attrition, forcing exhausted voters to abandon the queue before casting a ballot.

Can the above 12 dirty tricks really allow the Republicans to prevail in November even though, as polls indicate, a substantial majority of the electorate may wish otherwise?

If this were a just world—considering how far Trump’s popularity has fallen (he has a 60% disapproval rating, according to a recent New York Times/Siena poll); how his illegal war against Iran has pushed up prices on everything from groceries to gasoline; and the fact that Muslims, gays and trans-gender candidates are increasingly being elected as mayors and members of Congress, and that progressive candidates in Democratic primaries are defeating the choices of the party establishment—one would think that voter preference for Democratic candidates would be overwhelming.

And it probably is.

But that preference may not translate into victory for the Democrats. How many voters intend to vote for Democrats will not matter if enough of them are too frightened to risk showing up at the polls, or are turned away from the polls because they do not have a passport or birth certificate, or have been gerrymandered so aggressively that their votes have no impact.

Although there has been push-back, it has not stopped Trump.

Organizations such as the DNC and the Elias Law Group, along with voting-rights advocacy groups (including the ACLU, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and League of Women Voters), have legally challenged virtually all of the dirty tricks listed above. In some cases, where the courts supported their protests, Trump appealed and obtained reversals in higher courts, especially in the Supreme Court.

When Trump failed to win in court, he simply ignored those decisions, without much push-back, since the courts rely for enforcement on the Department of Justice, which only does what Trump asks it to do, or not to do. There seems to be no reason for him to discontinue this kind of behavior.

Of course, even if by some miracle the Democrats do succeed in capturing the House or Senate, or both, in November, their past performance does not hold out much hope of better times or better policies.

On virtually all major issues—from launching illegal wars, abetting genocide and committing extra-judicial murders to suppressing freedom of speech and warping the economy to benefit Wall Street and Silicon Valley—the Democrats have been little better than Trump. The only difference is that Democrats lie about what they are doing; Trump brags about it.

---

CovertAction Magazine is made possible by subscriptions, orders and donations from readers like you.

Blow the Whistle on U.S. Imperialism

Click the whistle and donate

When you donate to CovertAction Magazine, you are supporting investigative journalism. Your contributions go directly to supporting the development, production, editing, and dissemination of the Magazine.

CovertAction Magazine does not receive corporate or government sponsorship. Yet, we hold a steadfast commitment to providing compensation for writers, editorial and technical support. Your support helps facilitate this compensation as well as increase the caliber of this work.

Please make a donation by clicking on the donate logo above and enter the amount and your credit or debit card information.

CovertAction Institute, Inc. (CAI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and your gift is tax-deductible for federal income purposes. CAI’s tax-exempt ID number is 87-2461683.

We sincerely thank you for your support.

---

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the author(s). CovertAction Institute, Inc. (CAI), including its Board of Directors (BD), Editorial Board (EB), Advisory Board (AB), staff, volunteers and its projects (including CovertAction Magazine) are not responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. This article also does not necessarily represent the views the BD, the EB, the AB, staff, volunteers, or any members of its projects.

Differing viewpoints: CAM publishes articles with differing viewpoints in an effort to nurture vibrant debate and thoughtful critical analysis. Feel free to comment on the articles in the comment section and/or send your letters to the Editors, which we will publish in the Letters column.

Copyrighted Material: This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. As a not-for-profit charitable organization incorporated in the State of New York, we are making such material available in an effort to advance the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. You can read more about ‘fair use’ and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School.

Republishing: CovertAction Magazine (CAM) grants permission to cross-post CAM articles on not-for-profit community internet sites as long as the source is acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original CovertAction Magazine article. Also, kindly let us know at info@CovertActionMagazine.com. For publication of CAM articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: info@CovertActionMagazine.com.

By using this site, you agree to these terms above.

---

About the Author