The Applause Line

People-powered, AI-Generated AI-assisted draft, verified, and corrected: Anthropic Claude Sonnet 5 Edited and curated by: Guy Wolf *Disclaimer: AI has been known to malfunction “hallucinate” therefore, a human-in-the-middle approach with a separate draft and verification AI has been used to provide the best quality, most accurate apolitical research on this topic Subscribe now If you feel overwhelmed or in distress, call or text 988 (Suicide & Crisis Lifeline). Voters who need help or want to report a problem can call the nonpartisan Election Protection hotline at 866-OUR-VOTE. A crowd cheered when a president said Iran could “take out” Los Angeles and San Diego. Leaders’ words have always come before their actions, and sometimes instead of them. Here is how to tell which is which, using what happened in just the last week. On Monday, October 5, 2026, at a campaign rally in Nebraska, President Donald Trump was defending the war the United States has been fighting with Iran since February. He was making a point about nuclear weapons: what, he asked the crowd, would happen if Iran were ever allowed to build one?[^1] Then he said the line that would travel around the world within hours: “Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego.”[^2] The crowd cheered. The reaction was fast and loud. California Governor Gavin Newsom called the remarks “deranged and dangerous.”[^1] Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said they could compromise public safety. San Diego’s mayor, Todd Gloria, said his city “is not your applause line.”[^4] And a Republican running for Congress in San Diego County, Jim Desmond, condemned the remarks too.[^1] Two days later, at a rally in San Antonio, Trump returned to it. He said it again: “Let them hit San Diego. Let them hit Los Angeles.”[^3] But this time he added what he said was the point. He said he would not let that happen, and that paying a “little more” for oil was a fair price to stop Iran from getting the bomb.[^4] Then, on Saturday, October 10, the same president told reporters, speaking of the country Russia has been bombing for more than four years: “I think it’s time for Ukraine to get a new president.”[^5] The day before, he had announced a deal to buy Russian diesel, reversing years of U.S. pressure on Moscow.[^5] A top Kremlin economic envoy welcomed the remark, calling it “iconic and historic.”[^6] Put those two moments side by side. One was a line meant to get applause from a friendly crowd. The other was a sentence that a government at war was glad to hear. The first was loud and disputed, and it may turn out to be nothing more than a rally flourish. The second was spoken in a different setting, and it was welcomed by a country that has spent years arguing that Ukraine’s leader is illegitimate. That difference, between talk that is meant to be felt and talk that is meant to be acted on, is the subject of this piece. It matters now, in a week filled with claims about troops at polling places, armed guards at post offices, a secret “plan” for ballots, and a “surprise” coming before the election. This piece will check each claim against the record, because some of what is circulating is solid, some is exaggerated, and some can’t be confirmed. It will also show you the tools that scholars and intelligence analysts use to read a leader’s messaging, so you can do it yourself. The Turn: What This Feeling Is If you have felt overwhelmed this week, you are in good company. Election officials, reporters, and ordinary voters have described the same thing: a stream of alarming statements, some true and some not, arriving faster than anyone can check them. That feeling is not a sign that you are weak or paranoid. It is a normal response to a flood of information. Naming it once is enough. The rest of this piece is about getting clarity, which comes from slowing down and sorting claims by how well they are supported. The sorting method has a long history. Scholars of democracy ask the same question about leaders across centuries and countries: when a powerful person says something dramatic, does the saying come before the doing, or does it replace the doing? Both happen. Treating all dramatic statements as plans is a mistake, and so is treating all of them as jokes. The Week’s Claims, Checked Several specific claims have been made about this moment, including in the request that led to this piece. Here is what the record shows, with the confidence each deserves. Claim: What the record shows Confidence Trump said “let Iran nuke LA and San Diego” He said “let them take out” and “let them hit” those cities at rallies on Oct. 5 and Oct. 7, in a hypothetical about a nuclear-armed Iran, and said he would not let it happen.[^2][^3][^4] High on the words. Not verifiable from text: his facial expression or mood. He chose those cities for a strategic reason No source documents his intent. Both cities are in a Democratic-led state, and he repeated the same two cities two days later. Speculative. See the analysis below. Trump plans to send troops or ICE to polling places and no plan has been announced. Trump has refused to rule it out (”I do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections”) and, asked in a recent Time interview, said “Haven’t thought of it.”[^16][^17] Allies such as Steve Bannon have urged it; the Joint Chiefs chairman, the Pentagon, and a DHS official say there are no plans.[^18][^19][^23] High that he hasn’t ruled it out. High that officials deny plans. Unknown what will happen. Private guards are at post offices “only” in blue areas. About 1,000 armed Prosegur guards are reported at 55+ postal facilities, including Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, Indianapolis, Phoenix, San Diego, and Tampa. USPS says it is unrelated to elections and began last year.[^24][^25] The “blue areas” description comes from one contractor’s impression. Moderate on the deployment. Low on the pattern and motive. Trump met Tina Peters, and her lawyer talked of “civil war” A meeting on Oct. 5 was reported by ABC (unnamed source) and by a former DOJ official. The White House won’t confirm. Her lawyer, who says he was not at the meeting, described a ballot-seizure plan and said “civil war” scenarios on a podcast.[^29][^30][^31] Moderate on the meeting. High on what the lawyer said. Not established: that Trump wants a civil war. Vought will deliver an “October surprise” Trump said “big surprises” are coming and named Russ Vought. Analysts guess at tax changes or payments. I found no source linking this to Peters’s lawyer or to violence.[^34] Low. Content unknown. Trump told Ukraine it needs a new president. Confirmed, Oct. 10, a day after a diesel deal with Putin. The Kremlin welcomed it; European leaders and Ukraine criticized it.[^5][^6][^7] High. His approval is “the lowest in recorded history” It is very low (Pew: 30%, a second-term low; averages around 36–37%), but not the lowest ever: Harry Truman hit 22% in 1952.[^11][^12][^13] Only Nixon polled worse at this point in a second term.[^14] High that it is low. Low claim is false as stated. A few of these deserve more detail, because the details change what they mean. On the troops-and-ICE claim. The most accurate summary is a three-part picture. The president has declined, more than once, to rule out deploying forces to polling places or invoking the Insurrection Act, an old law that lets a president use the military domestically.[^16][^17] People close to him have publicly called for it. Bannon said, “We’re going to have ICE surround the polls come November.”[^23] And in February, Trump said on a podcast that Republicans “ought to nationalize the voting.”[^22] On the other side, General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, wrote to Senator Elissa Slotkin that the military has no plans to send troops or federalized Guard to polling places, and a Pentagon official gave a similar assurance.[^18][^17] Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin has said agents would go to polls only in response to a “specific threat,” and FBI Director Kash Patel wavered when a Senate committee asked him directly.[^15] A senior Homeland Security official told state election officials that “there will be no ICE presence at polling locations for this election.”[^19] Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 592) already bars troops and armed federal officers from polling places.[^59] And lawsuits have been filed to block any such deployment in advance.[^21] So the honest reading is: the signal is mixed, the official position is “no,” and the president’s own refusal to say “no” is why people are preparing. On the post office guards. The strongest part of this story is that a large number of armed contract guards were placed at major postal facilities weeks before an election, and that the postal police union says no postal employee supervises them.[^24] USPS says the deployments predate the election and are part of a security plan, and a summary of the coverage notes there is no indication the guards have been ordered to handle ballots.[^24][^26] The claim that they are only in “blue areas” is weaker: the same list includes Indianapolis and Tampa, and the “predominantly blue and swing states” description comes from a single contractor’s observation. A separate, firmer fact is a proposed USPS rule: at a June 24 Senate hearing, Postmaster General David Steiner confirmed that, under the proposed rule, the Postal Service would not deliver mail ballots for states that refuse to give the federal government their absentee voter lists, while adding that it is only a proposal.[^27][^28] On the Peters meeting. Tina Peters, a former Colorado county clerk, was convicted of tampering with voting equipment and was released June 1 after Colorado’s governor shortened her sentence, following pressure from Trump.[^33] On October 5, a former Trump Justice Department official said on a friendly network that she had been “in the Oval Office meeting with the president on election integrity.”[^29] ABC cited an unnamed source confirming a meeting; the White House said it does not comment on private meetings, and added that the administration will “of course” uphold the Constitution.[^29][^31] Her lawyer, Peter Ticktin, who said he did not attend, told a podcast host that Peters proposed seizing ballots nationwide for hand recounts, that “it’s a good plan,” and, in a “nightmare” scenario in which Senate results could remove the president and vice president, that Trump “is not going to relinquish control again.”[^32] He added that “it’s better if we’re going to have a civil war of any sort that it be martial law with our side in control of the armaments.”[^30] That is a private lawyer’s podcast remarks about a hypothetical, not a statement from Trump, and the host he was speaking to has a record of violent rhetoric.[^32] It is also not nothing: it’s what the president’s meeting partner’s lawyer says is being discussed. On the Vought “surprise.” The “October surprise” talk traces to a speech at a Maryland shipyard where Trump said “We have some big surprises coming up in another few weeks,” and singled out Budget Director Russ Vought.[^34] Analysts read that as a probable economic announcement, such as a tax change or more direct payments, since the administration had already begun sending $500 checks to about 950,000 people in 30 states.[^34] Some opinion writers argue the surprise could be an Insurrection Act declaration; that is speculation.[^35] I could not find the Peters lawyer linking Vought to anything. On approval. A Pew poll released October 8 put Trump’s approval at 30%, the lowest of his second term and one point above his worst Pew number ever.[^11] Polling averages sit around 36–37%.[^12] Compared with presidents at the same point in a second term, only Richard Nixon, who resigned five weeks earlier in that comparison, was lower.[^14] That is a very weak position. But “lowest in recorded history” isn’t accurate: Truman’s Gallup approval hit 22%.[^13] Before We Go Further: What We Know and What We’re Guessing Established fact: The words were said and recorded. The Pentagon, DHS, and the Joint Chiefs have made written or public “no plans” statements. The diesel deal and the “new president” remark happened, and the Kremlin welcomed them. Trump’s approval is at or near the low point of his two terms. Expert consensus, but interpretive: Scholars of democracy broadly agree that a leader’s rhetoric toward opponents, the press, and elections is a useful early-warning signal, though not proof of what comes next. Levitsky and Ziblatt, authors of How Democracies Die, identify four warning signs: weak commitment to democratic rules, denying the legitimacy of opponents, tolerating or encouraging violence, and a willingness to curb the civil liberties of rivals and the press.[^48] Researchers who study Russian propaganda find that its style relies on high volume and repetition, rather than on being consistent or believable.[^49] These are frameworks for reading, not verdicts. Speculative or contested: Whether any of this week’s statements are plans, bluster, or signals to a base is genuinely unknown. So is the claim that authoritarian-leaning leaders reliably lash out when they fear losing power. Research on the idea, known as “diversionary war” or “gambling for resurrection,” finds mixed results.[^41][^43] This piece will lay out the competing readings rather than choose one for you. Words First, Deeds Later: Four Centuries of Examples The 1600s: kings who said it out loud Long before modern media, rulers used speeches, sermons, and ceremonies to tell their people what to think about power. In March 1610 (dated 1609 in England’s old calendar), King James I told Parliament that “Kings are justly called gods,” adding that they exercise a kind of divine power on earth and are “accountable to none but God only.”[^36] That was a claim about who gets to judge a ruler: nobody but heaven. His son Charles I acted on the same idea. In March 1629, after Parliament pressed him with the Petition of Right, which demanded an end to forced loans and jailing without trial, Charles dissolved Parliament and began eleven years of “Personal Rule,” governing without it.[^37] To raise money he used workarounds, including “ship money,” a tax originally meant for coastal defense that he extended to inland towns, which crossed the line of legality in many people’s eyes.[^37] The system ended in 1640 when a war with Scotland forced him to recall Parliament to pay for troops, and the conflict that followed became the English Civil War. Where this parallel holds: Charles’s rule shows a pattern historians often point to: a stated theory of unchecked authority (James’s speech), followed by practical steps that route around the body that could say no. Where it breaks: Charles was a hereditary monarch who claimed divine authority. A U.S. president is elected for four years, can be impeached, and is bound by courts and Congress. Alexander Hamilton made exactly this point in Federalist No. 69, contrasting the president with a king who is a “perpetual and hereditary prince” and describing the president’s military command as “in substance much inferior” to a king’s.[^52] What it suggests, cautiously: the signal worth watching is not the grand claim but the workaround: the practical move that routes around a check. A Textual Fidelity Pass: When a Ruler Quotes Scripture James’s argument leaned on the Bible, which makes it a useful test of how a religious claim can be used to justify political power. His speech points to Scripture, where kings are called “gods.” The likely reference is Psalm 82, which in the King James translation reads, “I have said, Ye are gods.”[^56] That is a documented textual claim: the psalm does contain that line. But the psalm doesn’t stop there. Verse 7 continues, “But ye shall die like men.”[^56] Scholars across traditions generally read the “gods” as human judges and rulers addressed by God and then warned that they are mortal and answerable. That is the scholarly reading, though not a unanimous one. The strongest response from within the Christian tradition came from a Scottish Presbyterian minister, Samuel Rutherford, whose 1644 book Lex, Rex (”The Law Is King”) argued from Scripture that the law stands above the king, not the other way around.[^57] Whether Scripture supports a ruler answerable only to God is a contested theological question, and outside readers can document how the text was used without ruling on whose faith is right. Readers inside each tradition may hold a different authority than the scholars cited here. Russia, 2021–2022: the essay, the speech, the invasion The most closely documented modern case of words preceding action is Vladimir Putin’s. On July 12, 2021, he published a long essay (reported at 5,000 to 7,000 words), “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” arguing that Russians and Ukrainians are one people and blaming outside forces for dividing them.[^38] On February 21, 2022, three days before the invasion, he gave a televised speech arguing that Ukraine “never had stable traditions of real statehood.”[^39] A study in the LSE Public Policy Review notes that in the years leading up to the invasion, Putin wrote and spoke at length to deny Ukraine’s historic nationhood and claim large swaths of its territory.[^39] Analysts have likened the essay to a declaration of war.[^40] Where this parallel holds: the sequence was long, public, and repetitive, and it focused on denying the legitimacy of a neighbor’s state and leaders, which Levitsky and Ziblatt list as a warning sign. A claim that Ukraine’s leader is illegitimate has been a recurring Kremlin talking point. Zelensky has said Russia pushes the elections issue to feed a narrative about the illegitimacy of Ukraine’s president, and Ukrainian law bars elections under martial law, which has been in force since the invasion.[^9][^10] That is why a U.S. president saying Ukraine needs a new president matters beyond the words themselves: it echoes a line the Kremlin has used, and the Kremlin noticed.[^6] Where it breaks: Trump has not threatened to invade anyone, his statement came with a stated rationale (that Zelensky could have made a deal, and that Ukrainian strikes on Russian refineries are raising fuel prices), and the U.S. is a democracy with its own checks.[^7] The comparison is about what the words do, not about what the speaker intends. Argentina, 1982: the gamble If the idea is that leaders in trouble make dramatic moves, the classic example is Argentina’s 1982 junta, which seized the Falkland Islands as its domestic support collapsed. It is often cited as a “diversionary war.” But even that case is disputed. Political scientist Taylor Fravel argued in Security Studies that it provides little evidence for the diversion theory, because the junta’s leader neither feared removal nor expected a rally effect.[^41] Others, including Jack Levy and Lily Vakili, argued the opposite.[^42] A broader review finds that, across many studies, the diversionary-war idea has “mixed” support at best.[^43] Where this parallel holds: it names a fear that is reasonable to hold, that a leader facing defeat may take bigger risks. Where it breaks: this is the weakest of the three parallels, because the theory is contested even for its flagship case. It also doesn’t fit neatly with the present: the war with Iran began in February, months before Trump’s approval fell to its current low, and a rally-round-the-flag boost, the effect the theory predicts, hasn’t appeared; approval has kept falling.[^11] The honest reading is that this week’s events don’t prove a diversion strategy, and the research doesn’t tell us leaders in trouble reliably behave this way. Argentina today: a different kind of case Argentina’s current president, Javier Milei, is a useful comparison precisely because he is so often grouped with Trump. He was elected democratically, and unlike a classic authoritarian, he has faced real limits: six months into his term Congress had passed none of his bills, and unions staged mass protests against his emergency decree.[^47] But there are also documented warning signs on the press: in June 2024 he promoted the slogan “We don’t hate journalists enough,” his government closed the state news agency Télam, and a journalists’ forum recorded a record number of attacks on reporters, up by more than 130% since he took office.[^44][^45] Reporters Without Borders ranks Argentina 98th of 180 countries on press freedom, 69 places lower than in 2022.[^44] A Carnegie Endowment study describes his approach as “libertarian populism” governed through an antagonistic, personal style.[^46] Whether that adds up to “authoritarian” is disputed. Critics point to the press hostility and a protest-policing protocol; defenders note the elected mandate, the checks Congress and unions have imposed, and a genuine economic reform agenda. For this piece the lesson is narrower: rhetoric against the press and rivals is a warning sign worth tracking, but it is not the same as a closed system. The difference between a leader who attacks institutions and one who has defeated them is the whole ballgame. How to Read a Leader’s Words: Seven Questions You don’t need a degree to analyze messaging. These questions, drawn from the scholarship above, work on any speaker, from King James to a rally speaker today. Who is the audience? A line made for a cheering crowd is built for applause. A line made for a foreign government, a regulator, or a court is built for effect. What kind of statement is it? A threat, a boast, a joke, a hypothetical, or an instruction? Hypotheticals (”what if Iran had a bomb?”) are the easiest to misread in both directions. Who is cast as “them”? Language that sorts people into those who matter and those who are expendable, even jokingly, is worth noting, because it changes what an audience will tolerate. Does it deny a rival’s legitimacy? “He isn’t the real president,” “that election was rigged,” and “that country isn’t a real state” are different words doing the same job. Is it paired with a costly action? Talk is cheap. A signed order, a contract, a lifted sanction, or a firing is not. (More on this below.) Is it repeated? Repetition across weeks, from many mouths, is how a message becomes a norm. Researchers who study Kremlin propaganda call this the “firehose” approach, high volume and many channels, because repetition itself builds familiarity.[^49] Who contradicts it, and who confirms it? When an official with something to lose says “no plans” in writing, that is also a signal. So is silence. Reading It Like an Analyst Analysis of Competing Hypotheses: why those two cities? The claim that the choice of Los Angeles and San Diego was strategic can be tested. At least four explanations fit the facts, and none can be ruled out: Improvisation. They are two of the largest West Coast cities and the likeliest examples to name in a hypothetical about long-range missiles. A speaker riffing to a crowd reaches for the biggest names. A rhetorical device. “Let them hit LA” works as a shock line in an argument for the war: look how bad the alternative would be. He then said he wouldn’t allow it.[^4] Partisan signaling. The cities are in a Democratic-led state, and the crowd’s cheering suggests the line landed as an in-group moment. This may be how it felt to a listener even if it wasn’t intended that way. A deliberate message of expendability. The strongest, and least supported, reading is that the choice was meant to signal that people in opposing-party regions are acceptable losses. What the evidence supports: he repeated the same two cities two days later, so it had become a set piece; a Republican from San Diego County objected, which suggests the remark crossed more than a partisan line; and no source documents his intent.[^1][^3] What can be said fairly is that a line like this does something regardless of intent: it invites an audience to cheer for the hypothetical destruction of fellow Americans’ homes. Whether that is the purpose is unknown. Key Assumptions Check. The framing behind this week’s coverage assumes that dramatic words predict actions. That is sometimes true and sometimes false, and the record shows both. Bannon said ICE would “surround the polls,” but the administration’s own officials have said it won’t. Trump called for nationalizing elections in February, but no step has been taken. On the other side, Putin’s essay and speech were followed by invasion. The lesson is that words are more predictive when they are repeated, when they come from the person with the power to act, and when they are paired with preparation, and less predictive when they come from allies, podcasters, or lawyers. Devil’s Advocacy: the strongest case for the other reading. A good-faith defender of the administration would say the following. Trump’s supporters have long said the press takes him literally but not seriously, while his supporters take him seriously but not literally, a distinction journalist Salena Zito made in 2016.[^55] The Iran remark was a hypothetical in an argument for a war the administration says prevented a worse outcome, and he explicitly said he would not let it happen. On the elections, the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs, and DHS have all denied plans, federal law bars armed forces at polling places, and the postal guards are, per USPS, a continuation of a security program that began last year. On Ukraine, the president’s stated view is that the war should end through a deal, and that Ukraine’s leaders have not reached one; the diesel purchase is aimed at lowering U.S. fuel prices before the midterms. On the Peters meeting, the White House has not confirmed what was discussed, and the lawyer’s words are his own. A calm response. Each of these points is fair, and several are supported by evidence. Where the skeptics have a stronger case is in the pattern and the refusals: the president declines to say “no” when asked directly about troops or ICE at polls, he has publicly floated nationalizing elections, and he met with a person convicted of tampering with election equipment, whose lawyer described a ballot-seizure plan. Those are the facts that keep election officials preparing for the worst. A defender can also fairly point out that preparing for the worst is not the same as the worst happening, and that so far the legal and institutional guardrails have held. An Outside-the-Box Lens: Cheap Talk and Costly Signals Economists and biologists have a concept that cuts through a lot of this: the difference between cheap talk and costly signals. Cheap talk is a statement that costs the speaker nothing to make, so it can’t, on its own, prove what the speaker intends. A costly signal is an action that is expensive or risky to fake, so it carries real information. Economist Michael Spence won a Nobel Prize partly for showing how a costly signal, like earning a degree, reveals information that a mere claim can’t.[^54] In international relations, political scientist James Fearon applied a similar idea to “audience costs”: a leader who makes public threats can be held to them, which makes the threats believable.[^54] Apply that to this week. A rally line is cheap talk: it costs the speaker nothing and can be walked back in two days, as this one partly was. A written assurance from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, “no plans” for troops at polls, is a costlier signal, because it can be quoted back at him. And a signed diesel deal that lifts sanctions on Russian exports is the costliest of all: it moves money. Trump said Russia plans to export 300,000 tons of diesel in October, 500,000 in November, and 1 million in December.[^8] The lesson isn’t that the cheap talk doesn’t matter. It’s that the costly signals are where to look first: contracts, orders, rules, firings, transfers. Right now those include the Postal Service’s guard contract and its proposed ballot rule, the Pentagon’s written assurance, and the sanctions change. Where this lens illuminates something others miss: it explains why a flood of dramatic statements can feel overwhelming and still be less informative than one quiet signed document. Where it strains: the cheap talk/costly signal model assumes a speaker who calculates, and it understates the way repeated cheap talk can shift norms, as when an ally like Bannon says what the president hasn’t. A statement costs the speaker nothing, but it may cost its targets a great deal. A Clausewitzian Pass Because this piece involves war and the threat of force, it’s worth applying two ideas from Carl von Clausewitz’s On War, with a caution that he wrote about conflicts between states, not about domestic politics, so the fit is partial. Fog. Clausewitz observed that war is “the realm of uncertainty,” in which much of what a decision-maker relies on is obscured.[^50] Confident public narratives often outrun verifiable fact. That describes this week well: a president’s rally claim that Iran has “no nuclear, no navy, no air force”[^3] and the opposite claims from critics can’t both be checked from a rally stage. The practical rule is to distrust certainty from anyone, in any direction. The trinity. He described war as a balance of three forces: the passion of the people, the chance and skill of the military, and the reasoned judgment of the government.[^50] A rally line that draws cheers is an appeal to the first, popular passion. A healthy system keeps that passion and the third, reasoned judgment, in balance. The risk Clausewitz warned of is a government that governs by the first leg alone. That is an analogy, not a verdict, but it explains why the applause in the opening scene matters as much as the words. The Founders, in Brief Because this piece concerns the structure of American power, it’s worth asking what the founding generation said about leaders and crowds. They didn’t speak with one voice. Alexander Hamilton, a champion of a strong executive, still worried about how leaders earn power. In Federalist No. 1, he warned that those who overturned the liberties of republics had often begun their careers by courting the people, “commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.”[^51] In Federalist No. 69, he sought to answer critics who said the presidency resembled a monarchy, listing differences: the president is elected, can be impeached, can be overridden by Congress, and only has command of the militia when Congress calls it into service.[^52] And on elections, the Constitution gives the job of setting “the Times, Places and Manner” of congressional elections to the states, with Congress able to alter those rules.[^53] It says nothing about the president’s role. That is a text, not an interpretation. What is an interpretation, and mine, not theirs, is the application: if you believe Hamilton’s warning, the signal to watch isn’t how forceful a leader sounds, but whether he is trying to exercise power the text gives to others. The limits are real. These men wrote for a small agrarian republic with no mass media, no federal police force, and no postal system as large as today’s, and applying their words to a rally in Nebraska is interpretation, not a verdict from them. They also disagreed with each other, often sharply, about how much power the executive should hold. Second- and Third-Order Effects Of the rhetoric itself: Even if none of the feared actions occurs, heated statements about elections can have costs. Election officials are spending time and money preparing for scenarios, as in Wisconsin, where officials are being trained to respond to armed federal agents, and Michigan, where the attorney general has prepared legal filings.[^20] Voters who hear talk of troops at polls may feel intimidated, and some may stay home, a plausible but not well-measured effect. And if officials’ warnings are repeatedly followed by nothing, a third-order risk emerges: people may stop paying attention to warnings that turn out to be real. Of the Ukraine remark: The effects are more concrete. European leaders responded by reaffirming support for Ukraine, and Ukraine’s government said it would counter the added revenue Russia gets from the diesel deal.[^6] Russia struck Zaporizhzhia after the sanctions change, Zelensky said.[^5] In the longer run, the plausible risk is that Western unity, a major asset for Ukraine, weakens if allies conclude the U.S. position can change with domestic fuel prices. Of the “let them hit” remark: There is a more subtle effect: normalization. When a national leader jokes about, or even hypothetically welcomes, the destruction of specific American cities, and a crowd cheers, that becomes part of what is sayable. That is why even a Republican in San Diego County objected. What’s Actually Being Done Courts are involved before Election Day. Lawsuits, including one by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and others, ask federal courts to block any deployment of armed federal agents to polling places in advance.[^21] States are preparing. Wisconsin is training election officials on how to respond if armed federal agents show up; Michigan’s attorney general has readied state police and legal filings.[^20] The military has put “no plans” in writing. General Caine’s letter to Senator Slotkin and a similar response from a Pentagon official are public statements that officials can be held to.[^18][^17] Existing law already bars armed forces at polling places, with narrow exceptions, and election officials have tools to respond if agents arrive.[^20][^59] Bipartisan objection exists, including from a Republican congressional candidate in San Diego County and, on the Peters matter, from Colorado’s governor, who called any talk of seizing ballots or civil war “dangerous.”[^1][^33] Nonpartisan voter-protection groups staff the Election Protection hotline (866-OUR-VOTE), which provides live help to voters on Election Day.[^58] What You Can Do None of these steps require you to take a side on anyone’s politics. They protect your vote and the shared record of what happened, whoever you support. This week Check your registration and your plan. Confirm your registration through your state election office or vote.gov. Decide now how you will vote: early, by mail, or in person. If you vote by mail, return your ballot early and track it. Most states offer a ballot tracker. Don’t wait until the last days, and if your state allows hand delivery to an election office or official drop box, that avoids the mail entirely. Know your rights at the polls. Federal law bars troops and armed officers from polling places. If you see armed federal agents or anything that makes you feel unsafe, tell a poll worker or your local election office, and call the nonpartisan Election Protection hotline: 866-OUR-VOTE.[^58][^20] Before November 3 Volunteer. Your local election office needs poll workers and nonpartisan observers. Having more trained, ordinary neighbors in the room is one of the best protections a polling place has. Call Congress. Dial the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121. Ask your senators and representative to publicly support a “no armed forces at polls” assurance, to ask the Postal Service for the guard contract’s terms and supervision rules, and to oversee the Postal Service’s proposed ballot rule. A short, specific, calm message works best. Ask your candidates. At town halls or by email: “Will you commit to accepting the certified results of the election, and to opposing the use of troops or armed agents at polling places?” Their answers, or non-answers, are useful information. For the long term Practice the seven questions. Before you share a dramatic quote, ask who said it, to whom, and whether it was paired with an action. If you can’t answer, wait. Look for costly signals. Read the primary document: the letter, the contract, the rule, the order. They are shorter and more reliable than the commentary. Support local journalism that covers election administration, and read across the spectrum. This piece cites conservative outlets, nonpartisan wire services, and advocacy publications, and notes where each might lean. Talk with neighbors who disagree. Not to win, but to find the facts you share. Most people, of every party, want elections that are safe, accurate, and trusted. Take care of yourself. Limit doomscrolling. Alarm is useful when it leads to a plan, and harmful when it doesn’t. If you are struggling, call or text 988. Did We Get the Read Right? Where the evidence is strong: The statements were made. The practical alarm among election officials is genuine and bipartisan. The Kremlin welcomed the Ukraine remark. Rhetoric denying opponents’ legitimacy and targeting the press is a recognized warning sign across the scholarship. Where the evidence is moderate: The post office deployment is real and unusual in scale, but its purpose, and whether it touches ballots, is unknown. The Peters meeting was reported but not confirmed, and the substance comes from her lawyer. Where the evidence is weak or contested: That Trump selected Los Angeles and San Diego for a strategic reason; that he “wants” a civil war; that authoritarian-leaning leaders reliably escalate when they fear losing power; that any single statement this week is a plan rather than a signal. These may turn out to be true. They aren’t established now. Indicators worth watching: whether any armed federal presence appears at a polling place, and how election officials and courts respond; whether USPS finalizes its ballot rule and how it is applied; the content of the “big surprises” Trump promised; whether the Kremlin and Washington move further on sanctions and Ukraine; whether the president answers “no” when next asked directly about troops at polls; and whether results are accepted by all parties after November 3. Something You Can Do Today Read two primary sources, both short: General Dan Caine’s letter to Senator Slotkin (reported by the Associated Press and Al Jazeera, linked below) and the Federalist No. 69 passage comparing the president to a king. Together they show the same principle from two eras: in a republic, the limits on power are written down, and anyone can read them. The Moral When King James told Parliament that kings are gods, nobody could have known which of his words would matter. The answer came a generation later, when his son acted on them, and the people he governed discovered that a country is not held together by what a ruler says but by whether other people are willing to say no. What stopped Charles I wasn’t a speech. It was a Parliament that had written down its limits, a people who remembered them, and a war he couldn’t pay for without asking. The same is true now. The most reassuring sentence in this week’s news wasn’t spoken by anyone on a stage. It was a written, signed line from a four-star general saying the military has no plans to go to the polls. Words can be a warning, and they can also be a promise. The job of a free people is to take both seriously, to check each against what happens next, and to keep hold of the part they control: their own vote, their own attention, and their willingness to say no. 3-Minute Summary On October 5 and 7, 2026, President Trump said at rallies that Iran could “take out” or “hit” Los Angeles and San Diego, in a hypothetical argument for the Iran war, and said he wouldn’t let it happen; California leaders and a Republican candidate condemned it. On October 10, a day after announcing a diesel deal with Putin, he said Ukraine should “get a new president,” which the Kremlin welcomed. Other claims in circulation vary in strength: Trump hasn’t announced plans for troops or ICE at polls but has refused to rule them out, while the Joint Chiefs, the Pentagon, and DHS say there are no plans; about 1,000 armed contract guards are at 55+ postal facilities, which USPS says is unrelated to elections; a reported Oval Office meeting with Tina Peters is unconfirmed, and her lawyer’s “civil war” remark was a hypothetical on a podcast, not Trump’s words; an “October surprise” tied to Russ Vought has no known content; and Trump’s approval is very low (30% in Pew) but not the lowest ever (Truman hit 22%). Historical cases show words preceding action, from Charles I’s 1629 move to rule without Parliament after James I’s divine-right claims, to Putin’s essay and speech before invading Ukraine, but research on whether leaders in trouble reliably escalate, as with Argentina’s 1982 junta, is mixed. A useful rule: treat cheap talk as a signal to watch, and costly actions (contracts, rules, orders, sanctions) as the evidence. Readers can protect their votes by registering, voting early, knowing their rights, volunteering, calling Congress, and checking primary documents. Something You Can Share “Words are cheap. Signed orders, contracts, and rules are not. When the news floods in, look for the document, not the applause line.” Sources & Further Reading ABC News, “Trump suggests Iran could ‘take out’ Los Angeles and San Diego if it develops nuclear weapons”: https://abcnews.com/Politics/trump-suggests-iran-los-angeles-san-diego/story?id=137024894 NBC News, “Trump says ‘we protect our cities’ after saying Iran could ‘take out’ Los Angeles or San Diego”: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/protect-us-cities-iran-take-out-los-angeles-san-diego-rcna602211 The Hill, “Trump doubles down on California comments”: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/6135448-trump-threatened-la-san-diego/ Forbes, “Trump Clarifies ‘Let Them Hit Los Angeles’ Iran War Comment”: https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2026/10/08/trump-clarifies-let-them-hit-los-angeles-iran-war-comment-says-he-wont-let-that-happen/ ABC News/AP, “Trump says ‘I think it’s time for Ukraine to get a new president’”: https://abcnews.com/US/wireStory/trump-time-ukraine-new-president-blames-zelenskyy-diesel-137162216 Euronews, “Trump says Ukraine needs new president after Zelenskyy condemns Russia fuel deal”: https://www.euronews.com/2026/10/10/trump-says-ukraine-needs-new-president-after-zelenskyy-condemns-russia-fuel-deal CNBC, “Trump says Ukraine should get a new president as he blames Zelenskyy for U.S. diesel prices”: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/10/10/trump-says-ukraine-should-get-a-new-president.html CNN, “Will the Trump administration send federal agents to the polls?”: https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/07/politics/troops-ice-agents-polls-mullin-caine Al Jazeera, “Top US general says no plans to deploy troops for 2026 midterm elections”: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/8/31/top-us-general-says-no-plans-to-send-troops-to-polls-for-november-elections NPR, “ICE won’t be at polling places this year, a Trump DHS official promises”: https://www.npr.org/2026/02/25/nx-s1-5726768/ice-agents-midterm-elections Civic Media, “What to know about ICE, federal agents at polling places in the 2026 midterms”: https://civicmedia.us/news/2026/10/07/what-to-know-about-ice-federal-agents-at-polling-places-in-the-2026-midterms Raw Story, “Fears swirl as armed guards swarm USPS weeks before midterms”: https://www.rawstory.com/raw-investigates/2678013721/ The New Republic, “USPS Hires Shady Armed Security Service Weeks Before Midterms”: https://newrepublic.com/post/216331/usps-hires-shady-armed-security-midterms ABC News, “Postal Service says it will not deliver ballots if states refuse to turn over voter lists under Trump proposal”: https://abcnews.com/Politics/postal-service-deliver-ballots-states-refuse-turn-voter/story?id=134185698 Colorado Newsline, “Tina Peters met with Trump to discuss election plans, former Trump administration attorney says”: https://coloradonewsline.com/2026/10/06/tina-peters-met-with-trump/ Newsweek, “Tina Peters, Seizing Ballots and ‘Civil War’ Claims Assessed”: https://www.newsweek.com/tina-peters-seizing-ballots-and-civil-war-claims-assessed-12546478 Colorado Public Radio, “Without mentioning Tina Peters, Polis calls election interference pitch ‘dangerous’”: https://www.cpr.org/2026/10/08/tina-peters-trump-election-plan/ Newsweek, “Could Trump Drop An October Surprise? 5 Possibilities”: https://www.newsweek.com/could-trump-drop-an-october-surprise-5-possibilities-12541322 Pew Research Center poll via Yahoo News, “Trump’s approval rating sinks to new second-term low”: https://yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/trumps-approval-rating-sinks-second-211242590.html Wikipedia, “United States presidential approval rating”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating King James I, speech to Parliament (1609/10), Hanover College: https://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/eurjam1.html Kremlin.ru, Vladimir Putin, “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181 LSE Public Policy Review, “Revising History and ‘Gathering the Russian Lands’”: https://ppr.lse.ac.uk/articles/10.31389/lseppr.86 Taylor Fravel, “The Limits of Diversion,” Security Studies (2010): https://www.taylorfravel.com/documents/research/fravel.2010.SS.limits.diversion.pdf Courthouse News, “’We don’t hate journalists enough’: Milei escalates attacks on Argentine press”: https://www.courthousenews.com/we-dont-hate-journalists-enough-milei-escalates-attacks-on-argentine-press-with-lawsuits-and-bans/ Carnegie Endowment, “Right-Wing Populism and Strategic Realignment: Argentina’s Milei Experiment”: https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2026/04/right-wing-populism-and-strategic-realignment-argentinas-milei-experiment RAND, “The Russian ‘Firehose of Falsehood’ Propaganda Model”: https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html Federalist No. 1 and No. 69, Library of Congress and The American Founding: https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-1-10 ; https://americanfounding.org/entries/federalist-no-69/ Election Protection hotline: https://866ourvote.org Footnotes [^1]: ABC News, “Trump suggests Iran could ‘take out’ Los Angeles and San Diego if it develops nuclear weapons,” Oct. 2026, https://abcnews.com/Politics/trump-suggests-iran-los-angeles-san-diego/story?id=137024894. [^2]: NBC News, “Trump says ‘we protect our cities’ after saying Iran could ‘take out’ Los Angeles or San Diego,” https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/protect-us-cities-iran-take-out-los-angeles-san-diego-rcna602211. [^3]: The Hill, “Trump doubles down on California comments: ‘Let them hit San Diego, let them hit Los Angeles,’” https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/6135448-trump-threatened-la-san-diego/. [^4]: Forbes, “Trump Clarifies ‘Let Them Hit Los Angeles’ Iran War Comment—Says He Won’t ‘Let That Happen,’” Oct. 8, 2026, https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2026/10/08/trump-clarifies-let-them-hit-los-angeles-iran-war-comment-says-he-wont-let-that-happen/. [^5]: ABC News/AP, “Trump says ‘I think it’s time for Ukraine to get a new president’ as he blames Zelenskyy for diesel prices,” Oct. 10, 2026, https://abcnews.com/US/wireStory/trump-time-ukraine-new-president-blames-zelenskyy-diesel-137162216. [^6]: Euronews, “Trump says Ukraine needs new president after Zelenskyy condemns Russia fuel deal,” Oct. 10, 2026, https://www.euronews.com/2026/10/10/trump-says-ukraine-needs-new-president-after-zelenskyy-condemns-russia-fuel-deal. [^7]: CNBC, “Trump says Ukraine should get a new president as he blames Zelenskyy for U.S. diesel prices,” Oct. 10, 2026, https://www.cnbc.com/2026/10/10/trump-says-ukraine-should-get-a-new-president.html. [^8]: Scripps News, “After making deal with Putin, Trump says it’s time for Ukraine to get a new president,” Oct. 10, 2026 (diesel export volumes), https://www.scrippsnews.com/politics/the-president/after-making-deal-with-putin-trump-says-its-time-for-ukraine-to-get-a-new-president. [^9]: Wikipedia, “Next Ukrainian presidential election,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Ukrainian_presidential_election (martial law bars elections; a 2023 KIIS poll found 81% opposed wartime elections). [^10]: GlobalSecurity.org, “Ukraine 2026 Election?,” https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/ukraine/election-2025.htm (Zelensky’s statements on readiness for elections and on Russia’s use of the issue). [^11]: Pew Research Center poll, reported by Yahoo News, “Trump’s approval rating sinks to new second-term low, Pew poll shows,” Oct. 8, 2026, https://yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/trumps-approval-rating-sinks-second-211242590.html. [^12]: Wikipedia, “Opinion polling on the second Trump presidency,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_on_the_second_Trump_presidency (a secondary compilation of poll averages). [^13]: Wikipedia, “United States presidential approval rating,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_approval_rating (Truman’s 22% Gallup low, February 1952). [^14]: FiftyPlusOne, “Democrats hit new midterm high as Trump’s approval rating reaches a new low,” https://blog.fiftyplusone.news/p/no-president-has-gone-into-a-midterm (an analytic blog; a secondary source). [^15]: CNN, “Will the Trump administration send federal agents to the polls? Here’s what we know,” Sept. 7, 2026, https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/07/politics/troops-ice-agents-polls-mullin-caine. [^16]: Yahoo News, “Trump refuses to rule out troops or ICE at polling stations: ‘I’d do anything necessary,’” https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-again-refuses-rule-troops-195241839.html. [^17]: The Washington Sun, “State Officials Are Trying to Get Ahead of Federal Agents at the Polls,” Oct. 5, 2026, https://washingtonsun.com/campaigns/state-officials-federal-agents-polls-2026-election (reporting the Time interview and the Pentagon’s written response). [^18]: Al Jazeera, “Top US general says no plans to deploy troops for 2026 midterm elections,” Aug. 31, 2026, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/8/31/top-us-general-says-no-plans-to-send-troops-to-polls-for-november-elections. [^19]: NPR, “ICE won’t be at polling places this year, a Trump DHS official promises,” Feb. 25, 2026, https://www.npr.org/2026/02/25/nx-s1-5726768/ice-agents-midterm-elections. [^20]: Civic Media, “What to know about ICE, federal agents at polling places in the 2026 midterms,” Oct. 7, 2026, https://civicmedia.us/news/2026/10/07/what-to-know-about-ice-federal-agents-at-polling-places-in-the-2026-midterms. [^21]: Baptist News Global, “More lawsuits seek to prevent federal agents at polling places,” Oct. 7, 2026, https://baptistnews.com/article/more-lawsuits-seek-to-prevent-federal-agents-at-polling-places. [^22]: The Hill (opinion), “Why Trump might invoke the Insurrection Act before, during, or after the midterms,” https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/6109490-trump-midterm-insurrection-act-risk/ (quoting Trump’s February remarks on a podcast; an opinion source). [^23]: USA Today via Yahoo News, “’Surround the polls’: ICE will patrol elections, ex-Trump aide says,” https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/surround-polls-ice-patrol-elections-212213456.html. [^24]: The New Republic, “USPS Hires Shady Armed Security Service Weeks Before Midterms,” https://newrepublic.com/post/216331/usps-hires-shady-armed-security-midterms (citing a Raw Story investigation, Oct. 6, 2026). [^25]: Raw Story, “Fears swirl as armed guards swarm USPS weeks before midterms,” https://www.rawstory.com/raw-investigates/2678013721/. [^26]: Steve M. Snyder, “Armed Guards at the US Post Office before 2026 Mid-Term Elections: What We Know, What We Don’t,” https://stevemsnyder.substack.com/p/armed-guards-at-the-us-post-office (a newsletter summary; a secondary source). [^27]: ABC News, “Postal Service says it will not deliver ballots if states refuse to turn over voter lists under Trump proposal,” https://abcnews.com/Politics/postal-service-deliver-ballots-states-refuse-turn-voter/story?id=134185698 (testimony of June 24, 2026). [^28]: The Hill, “Postmaster general confirms plan to hold back mail ballots in states that won’t share voter data,” https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5939636-trump-postal-service-voter-data/. [^29]: Colorado Newsline, “Tina Peters met with Trump to discuss election plans, former Trump administration attorney says,” Oct. 6, 2026, https://coloradonewsline.com/2026/10/06/tina-peters-met-with-trump/. [^30]: Newsweek, “Tina Peters, Seizing Ballots and ‘Civil War’ Claims Assessed,” https://www.newsweek.com/tina-peters-seizing-ballots-and-civil-war-claims-assessed-12546478. [^31]: Mediaite, “Election Denier Tina Peters’ Plan for Midterms Includes Seizing Ballots Nationwide,” https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/election-denier-tina-peters-plan-for-midterms-includes-seizing-ballots-nationwide/. [^32]: The New Republic, “Election Denier’s Lawyer Reveals Trump’s Chilling Midterm Plan,” https://newrepublic.com/post/216383/election-denier-lawyer-reveals-trump-secret-plan-ahead-midterms. [^33]: Colorado Public Radio, “Without mentioning Tina Peters, Polis calls election interference pitch ‘dangerous,’” Oct. 8, 2026, https://www.cpr.org/2026/10/08/tina-peters-trump-election-plan/; Media Matters, “Tina Peters allegedly met with Trump to discuss election plans,” https://www.mediamatters.org/election-denial-voter-fraud-and-suppression/tina-peters-allegedly-met-trump-discuss-election-plans (on her June 1 release). [^34]: Newsweek, “Could Trump Drop An October Surprise? 5 Possibilities,” https://www.newsweek.com/could-trump-drop-an-october-surprise-5-possibilities-12541322. [^35]: Yahoo News (opinion), “’October surprise’ may be to upend the midterm election,” https://yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/october-surprise-may-upend-midterm-100252843.html (an opinion piece; speculative). [^36]: King James I, speech to Parliament, March 21, 1609/10, Hanover College, https://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/eurjam1.html. [^37]: Wikipedia, “Stuart period,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_period (a secondary overview of Charles I’s 1629 dissolution, the eleven years of Personal Rule, and ship money). [^38]: Vladimir Putin, “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” July 12, 2021, http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181. [^39]: “Revising History and ‘Gathering the Russian Lands’: Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian Nationhood,” LSE Public Policy Review, https://ppr.lse.ac.uk/articles/10.31389/lseppr.86. [^40]: Atlantic Council, “Putin’s new Ukraine essay reveals imperial ambitions,” July 13, 2021, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putins-new-ukraine-essay-reflects-imperial-ambitions/. [^41]: M. Taylor Fravel, “The Limits of Diversion: Rethinking Internal and External Conflict,” Security Studies 19 (2010): 307–341, https://www.taylorfravel.com/documents/research/fravel.2010.SS.limits.diversion.pdf. [^42]: Wikipedia, “Gambling for resurrection,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling_for_resurrection (citing George Downs and David Rocke, American Journal of Political Science, 1994, and Jack Levy and Lily Vakili on Argentina, 1992). [^43]: Wikipedia, “Diversionary foreign policy,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversionary_foreign_policy (a secondary summary noting that empirical evidence is mixed). [^44]: Courthouse News Service, “’We don’t hate journalists enough’: Milei escalates attacks on Argentine press with lawsuits and bans,” https://www.courthousenews.com/we-dont-hate-journalists-enough-milei-escalates-attacks-on-argentine-press-with-lawsuits-and-bans/. [^45]: New Internationalist, “Milei versus the media,” https://newint.org/democracy/2025/milei-versus-media. [^46]: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “Right-Wing Populism and Strategic Realignment: Argentina’s Milei Experiment,” April 2026, https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2026/04/right-wing-populism-and-strategic-realignment-argentinas-milei-experiment. [^47]: Fox News/AP, “Argentina’s unions take to the streets to protest president’s cutbacks, deregulation,” https://www.foxnews.com/world/argentinas-unions-take-streets-protest-presidents-cutbacks-deregulation-austerity; Latin America Daily Briefing, “Six months of Milei,” https://latinamericadailybriefing.substack.com/p/six-months-of-milei. [^48]: Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, How Democracies Die (New York: Crown, 2018). [^49]: Christopher Paul and Miriam Matthews, “The Russian ‘Firehose of Falsehood’ Propaganda Model,” RAND Corporation, 2016, https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html. [^50]: Carl von Clausewitz, On War, Book I, Chapter 1 (§28, the “trinity”) and Chapter 3 (on uncertainty), trans. Michael Howard and Peter Paret (Princeton University Press, 1976). [^51]: Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1, Oct. 27, 1787, https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-1-10. [^52]: Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 69, March 14, 1788, https://americanfounding.org/entries/federalist-no-69/. [^53]: U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1. [^54]: A. Michael Spence, “Job Market Signaling,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 87 (1973); Vincent Crawford and Joel Sobel, “Strategic Information Transmission,” Econometrica 50 (1982); James D. Fearon, “Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes,” American Political Science Review 88 (1994). [^55]: Salena Zito, “Taking Trump Seriously, Not Literally,” The Atlantic, Sept. 23, 2016, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-makes-his-case-in-pennsylvania/501335/. [^56]: Psalm 82:6–7, King James Version. [^57]: Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince (London, 1644). [^58]: Election Protection hotline (866-OUR-VOTE), https://866ourvote.org. [^59]: 18 U.S.C. § 592 (troops at polls), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/592.