2026-10-28T04:01:15.656Z / 美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）
每当总统唐纳德·特朗普放出可能不接受选举结果的信号时，他的警告都值得认真对待。
到如今，作为共和党领袖的他已五次参与全国选举，早已形成了一套固定的行事模式。他会花数月时间煽动对选举制度和选举官员公信力的质疑，同时暗示民主党可能存在舞弊行为。
接着，他会将自己制造的不信任情绪作为武器，在计票工作开始前就暗示选举可能存在不公正问题。
距离选举日还有一周，这种状况感觉就像《土拨鼠之日》里的循环一样。
周二，特朗普被问及是否会接受中期选举的结果——无论最终对共和党而言是利好还是惨淡，他“都能接受”。
这原本不会是针对另一位现代总统的问题，但特朗普的回应附带了一个警告，而这个警告因他过往的行为显得愈发不祥：“如果选举是公正的，我就接受，没错。”
除了他这一答复的含糊其辞，还有诸多值得担忧的地方。这是因为特朗普实际上把自己塑造成了唯一能判定选举是否公正的裁判。2020年总统选举落败时，尽管多名共和党官员、法院，甚至他自己的司法部都证实不存在舞弊行为，他仍虚假宣称存在选举舞弊。
特朗普最近对选举的含糊表态，是在充满威胁的语境下做出的。今年以来，他花了大量精力推动得克萨斯州等各州的不公平选区划分，以此助力共和党赢得中期选举，还曾不成功地要求国会通过一项选民登记和身份认证法案，批评者称该法案会剥夺数百万公民的投票权。
他还最近下令司法部起诉阿拉斯加州，要求阻止该州美国参议院选举结果的认证——如果共和党参议员丹·沙利文落败的话，尽管宪法并未赋予总统管理选举的权力。
特朗普坚称，一位名叫丹尼尔·J·沙利文的同名候选人可能会误导选民，且其参选是民主党策划的阴谋。阿拉斯加州最高法院已裁定第二位沙利文可以合法参与选举。
作为另一项先发制人的行动，美国司法部于周五下令加州核对选民名册中的疑似非公民，搁置他们的邮寄选票，并警告称，故意计入非公民选票的官员可能面临刑事责任。
一家联邦上诉法院阻止了司法部的这一举措。
在阿拉斯加州，民主党挑战者玛丽·佩托拉已向法官提出申请，要求在选举日前阻止司法部的这一行动。但政府的操作可能导致选举后的僵局。与2020年时任司法部长比尔·巴尔驳斥特朗普关于大范围选举舞弊的指控不同，此次司法部似乎不太可能与他产生分歧。
2021年1月6日——美国现代史上最黑暗的日子之一——留下的创伤，使得特朗普最新的选举操作格外危险。
就在“让美国再次伟大”运动的支持者闯入美国国会大厦（部分人还对警察施以暴力）的数月前，特朗普就已在用与周二惊人相似的言论，向这些人灌输对2020年选举的不信任。
“我希望选举能做到公正。如果是公正的选举……我百分百支持，”2020年9月，他在与乔·拜登的首场总统辩论中表示，“但如果我看到数万张选票被操纵，我不能接受。”
四年后的2024年，当CNN总统辩论的 Dana Bash 问他是否会接受无论谁胜选的选举结果时，他回应道：“如果是公正、合法且完善的选举——绝对会接受。”
特朗普并未否认2024年的选举结果，原因显而易见：他赢了。而四年前他输了。
在没有任何广泛美国选举舞弊证据的情况下，特朗普一再否定选举结果，这不禁让人想问，为何他作为总统，唯独不能接受“有时会输掉选举”这一民主现实？
一个答案是，特朗普已给出充足证据，比起“选民选择领导人”的原则，他更在乎权力。
另一个原因是，特朗普已将自己塑造成人生中最终赢家的个人形象。这一易碎的面具与“输家”的任何认知都格格不入——这也是他至今仍不愿承认2020年输给拜登的原因之一。
但如果这次选举对共和党不利，他可能会做出什么举动？
司法部在阿拉斯加的介入暗示，如果佩托拉拿到民主党赢得参议院多数所需的四个净席位之一，将引发选举后的法律战。在其他州也不能排除类似行动。
如果他当年迫使共和党官员在佐治亚州“找出”2020年选票的失败尝试可作参考的话，那么关键州的共和党官员和司法部长将面临特朗普的严厉施压。现在已没有类似巴尔的人物来驳斥潜在的舞弊指控。现任司法部长托德·布兰奇在8月做客NBC《会见新闻界》时表示，他无法承诺司法部会始终独立于特朗普行事。
周日，布兰奇在CNN《国情咨文》节目中称，政府在阿拉斯加的行动没有任何“不当之处”，只是想确保合适的人当选，他还说：“特朗普总统绝没有以任何方式、任何形式试图接管某个州的选举。”
但他坚决否认，2020年特朗普推翻选举的行为，使得人们担心他言论抹黑2026年中期选举是合理的：“这不是关于1月6日的讨论。”
2020年，美国的法律和宪法防线坚守了下来。但如今特朗普身边已少有能约束他反民主本能的助手。
不过，民主党和两党负责选举事务的州官员已有数月时间来准备应对白宫官员和当地“让美国再次伟大”运动行动者可能带来的威胁。
如果民主党大获全胜，特朗普干预的空间可能会更小。如果结果接近，漫长的法律争端可能导致参议院的命运陷入数周的僵局。如果民主党赢得多数席位，预计将担任众议院议长的哈基姆·杰弗里斯上周告诉CNN的马努·拉朱，他认为共和党会“想尽一切诡计阻止11月3日的选举自由公正进行”。
律师兼选举专家本·金斯伯格表示，对新当选参议员的资格提出挑战并非史无前例。金斯伯格周日在CNN的特别选举报道中说：“这种情况确实很少见。一旦发生，会撕裂参议院制度的根基。”
特朗普可能有强烈动机对不利的选举结果提出质疑，因为民主党已计划对白宫、内阁以及特朗普家族的财务交易展开持续调查。
但一个支持率仅30%左右、刚输掉一场重大全国选举的跛脚鸭总统，是否有政治实力做到这一点？
而且特朗普以自我为中心的竞选姿态，显示出他对处于弱势的共和党人几乎毫不关心。当自己的名字不在选票上时，他可能根本不会在意。
周二，总统似乎至少在考虑与民主党占多数的国会艰难共处一段时间。他说：“听着，我有否决权。我希望不会出现这种情况，但如果真发生了，很多总统也都经历过。”
但特朗普往往会兑现自己的威胁。而他最新的选举警告表明，他仍然认为输掉的选举必然不公正。
所以，最好是按他说的话来理解他。
Why Trump’s latest election warning is impossible to ignore
2026-10-28T04:01:15.656Z / CNN
When President Donald Trump signals he might not accept the result of an election, he’s worth taking seriously.
By now, in his fifth national election as Republican Party leader, Trump has an established MO. He spends months whipping up doubts about the voting system and the integrity of election officials while suggesting Democrats may cheat.
Then, he weaponizes the vortex of mistrust he created and implies before votes are counted that the election may not be fair.
A week from Election Day, it feels more like Groundhog Day.
Trump was asked Tuesday if he will accept the midterm election results, which could mean a tough night for the GOP, “whatever happens.”
This would hardly be a question for another other modern president. But Trump’s reply came with a caveat made all the more ominous by his past conduct: “I will, if they are honest elections, yeah.”
There’s a lot to be worried about here, beyond the equivocation of his answer. That’s because Trump effectively presents himself as the sole referee of the probity of an election. When he lost the presidential election in 2020, he falsely claimed fraud, despite multiple Republican officials, courts and even his own Justice Department proving there were no such irregularities.
Trump’s latest hedging over an election came in a threatening context. He’s spent much of this year trying to skew the midterms in the GOP’s favor by pushing a midterm gerrymandering effort in Texas and other states and by unsuccessfully demanding Congress pass a voter registration and ID law that critics say would disenfranchise millions of citizens.
And he recently ordered the Justice Department to sue to block certification of Alaska’s US Senate election if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses, even though the Constitution grants a president no power to administer elections.
Trump insists that a separate candidate named Daniel J. Sullivan could confuse voters and that his candidacy is a Democratic conspiracy. Alaska’s Supreme Court has ruled the second Sullivan can legally run in the election.
In another preemptive strike, the DOJ on Friday ordered California to identify suspected noncitizens on voter rolls and set aside their mail-in ballots — warning that officials who knowingly count noncitizens’ ballots could face criminal liability.
A federal appeals court blocked that DOJ gambit.
In Alaska, Democratic challenger Mary Peltola has asked a judge to strike down the DOJ move before Election Day. But the administration’s maneuvering raises the possibility of a post-election showdown. And in contrast with 2020, when then-Attorney General Bill Barr rebuffed Trump’s accusations of expansive electoral fraud, the department seems less likely to contradict him this time.
The scars of one of the darkest days in modern American history — January 6, 2021 — mean that Trump’s latest election maneuvering is particularly loaded.
Months before MAGA supporters smashed their way into the US Capitol, some beating up police officers, Trump had been poisoning their confidence in the 2020 election with remarkably similar language to that he used on Tuesday.
“I hope it’s going to be a fair election. If it’s a fair election … I am 100% on board,” Trump said in his first presidential debate against Joe Biden in September 2020. “But if I see tens of thousands of ballots being manipulated, I can’t go along with that.”
Four years later, when Trump was asked by Dana Bash at a CNN presidential debate whether he would accept the result of the election regardless of who won, he replied: “If it’s a fair and legal and good election — absolutely.”
Trump did not dispute the results in 2024. The reason is obvious: He won. Four years earlier he’d lost.
Trump’s serial election denialism in the absence of any widespread US election fraud raises the question of why he, alone among presidents, can’t accept the democratic reality that sometimes you lose elections.
One answer is that Trump has given plentiful evidence that he cares more about power than the principle that voters get to pick their leaders.
Another is that Trump has built a personal brand as one of life’s ultimate winners. This brittle veneer is incompatible with any perception of being a loser — one reason he still can’t admit he lost to Biden in 2020.
But what might he try to do if the election goes badly for Republicans this time?
The DOJ’s intervention in Alaska implies a post-election legal campaign if Peltola tallies one of the four net gains that Democrats need for a Senate majority. Similar moves elsewhere cannot be ruled out.
Republican elected officials and attorneys general in key states can expect to come under withering pressure from Trump, if his failed bid to force GOP officeholders in Georgia to “find” votes in the 2020 election is any guide. There’s now no Barr equivalent to debunk potential claims of fraud. Current Attorney General Todd Blanche said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in August that he could not pledge the department would always act independently of Trump.
On Sunday, Blanche said on CNN’s “State of the Union” the administration was doing nothing “improper” in Alaska and simply wanted to ensure the rightful person wins, saying, “President Trump is not trying to take over a state election in any way, shape, or form.”
But he vehemently rejected the idea that the president’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election justified any concerns about his remarks smearing the 2026 midterms: “It’s not a conversation about January 6.”
In 2020, America’s legal and constitutional guardrails held firm. But Trump is now less encumbered by aides ready to temper his most antidemocratic instincts.
Still, Democrats and state officials of both parties who oversee elections have had months to prepare for potential threats from White House officials and local MAGA operatives.
If Democrats win big, Trump may have less latitude to interfere. If the result is closer, it is possible that prolonged legal battles could deadlock the fate of the Senate for weeks. Hakeem Jeffries, the likely House speaker if Democrats win a majority, last week told CNN’s Manu Raju he assumed Republicans would “try to come up with any diabolical scheme to prevent November 3rd from being a free and fair election.”
And it’s not unprecedented for the seating of a new senator to be challenged, according to lawyer and elections expert Ben Ginsberg. “It is done really rarely. It rips apart the fabric of the institution of the Senate when it happens,” Ginsberg said on CNN’s special election coverage on Sunday.
Trump could have powerful incentives to challenge unfavorable election results, since Democrats are already planning a relentless campaign of investigations into the White House, the Cabinet and the Trump family’s financial dealings.
But would a lame-duck president with an approval rating in the 30s who’d just lost a major national election have the political juice to pull it off?
And Trump’s self-absorbed campaign posture has indicated little concern for vulnerable Republicans. He may simply care less when his name isn’t on the ballot.
The president seemed Tuesday to be at least contemplating a period of bitter cohabitation with a Democratic Congress. “Look, I have a strong veto. I hope that won’t be the case, but if it is, that has happened before with many presidents,” he said.
But Trump often follows through on his threats. And his latest electoral caveating shows he still thinks an election he loses must be unfair.
So it’s a good idea to take him at his word.
发表回复