Last week, I wrote a column itemizing all the various fears people are having that the upcoming midterm elections won't be conducted in a free and fair way, or that after the election is over Donald Trump and his legion of MAGA minions would somehow try to overturn the results if the Republicans lose. As I wrote then, it was a rather frightening article to put together because the concept itself is so frightening -- but these fears are not wholly unjustified. After what Trump and his minions did on January 6th, America can no longer count on a peaceful transfer of power happening without interference, from the Oval Office on down (which even includes "violent interference," as we all saw). And I am certainly not the only one having such fears.

New polling data was released today showing that an astounding 70 percent of Americans "lack confidence that President Donald Trump will accept the results if Republicans lose." That includes over one-third -- 36 percent -- of Republicans. The numbers are even higher among independents (77 percent) and Democrats (94 percent). The one reassuring bit of data from the poll was that 70 percent of Democrats and 67 percent of Republicans agree that the midterm elections will be both fair and accurate.

So most Americans will still trust the results, but roughly the same number will be expecting Trump to throw a temper tantrum and refuse to admit that his party lost. With good reason -- Trump has shown himself not only to be the biggest sore loser in all of American history, he's even a sore winner (he still insists he won states like California, but that the vote count is "rigged" with millions of illegal ballots).

There was a different article today that expanded on the itemized list I featured in the article I wrote last week. It lays out several ways that the results of the election could be either challenged or totally derailled, if enough Republicans knuckle under when Trump throws his (predictable) tantrum. It lays out the various ways Republicans could challenge the results and refuse to seat the incoming winners of House and Senate elections.

The article starts out with a quote meant to be reassuring, from an expert:

President Trump's unfounded claims of large-scale voter fraud have Democrats bracing for what they worry could be substantial interference by the federal government in the midterm elections.

But with polls showing that Democrats are likely to win control of the House, some lawmakers and commentators have turned their attention to a different scenario that could unfold after the voting: Republicans in Congress, egged on by Mr. Trump, could try to block them from assuming the majority by refusing to seat elected Democrats.

The possibility sounds far-fetched and is regarded by many legal scholars as a vanishingly remote one.

"It requires a lot of ducks to be in a row that I don't think would be in a row," said Brian C. Kalt, a law professor at Michigan State University.

Thankfully, the article then immediately points out how these fears are actually pretty reasonable ones to have, with Trump:

But the same might have been said in 2020 of the possibility that Republican lawmakers, under pressure from Mr. Trump, would challenge the Electoral College results that confirmed Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s victory. That is precisely what a majority of Republicans voted to do on Jan. 6, 2021, an effort in which Representative Mike Johnson, who has since become speaker, played a major role.

Then they itemize several different scenarios as to how this might all play out. The problem is, all of these rely on either judges and the courts to block or force Republicans (such as state-level elections officials) to do their sworn duty (in terms of certifying election results), or they rely on enough Republicans in Congress to refuse to go along with any election-reversal schemes. Speaker Mike Johnson could fire the House clerk and put in a Trump loyalist, who might refuse to accept certified election results. There's a clause in the Constitution that states that the House itself is the judge of who was properly elected (although the Supreme Court has previously limited this power and overruled the House). Objections to newly-elected members could be voted on by the full House (minus all the newly-elected members). And if any election is truly so close it required recounts, the House could just stubbornly refuse to seat the new member.

The situation in the Senate is even worse, because it might come down to JD Vance either doing the right thing or doing what Trump demands. And Vance is no Mike Pence -- he'd almost surely do whatever Trump told him to. And even if Vance does actually seat clear-cut winners, if there's any dispute he could refuse to seat the members until the court cases were over and done. Remember Al Franken? He didn't get seated for seven months while he fought a court battle over his razor-thin victory. There is precedent for such things, in other words.

In both the House and Senate, if enough Republicans realize that causing a constitutional crisis is not a very smart thing for their party to do, then any crises might be avoided or defused. But counting on enough Republicans to stand up to Trump has often been a foolish thing to rely (to put it mildly).

The article didn't mention it, but there's a further worry to have about all of this. If the House and/or the Senate defies the results of an election in any way, people are quite likely to take to the streets and demand that the Republicans do the right thing for American democracy. Trump's reaction to such protests (especially if they are large and widespread) may very well be to invoke the Insurrection Act and start sending either National Guard or active-duty military soldiers out to institute martial law.

As I said, all of these things are horrifying and saddening to even contemplate. Americans should not have to worry about such nightmarish scenarios actually taking place.

But we do. And for good reason. Because right now nobody has any clue how big the tantrum Trump is going to throw if he loses.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant