{"id":343674,"date":"2026-10-07T03:48:19","date_gmt":"2026-10-07T07:48:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/oncubanews.com\/en\/?p=343674"},"modified":"2026-10-07T03:56:58","modified_gmt":"2026-10-07T07:56:58","slug":"cuba-and-the-midterms-rolling-the-dice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/oncubanews.com\/en\/cuba-usa\/cuba-and-the-midterms-rolling-the-dice\/","title":{"rendered":"Cuba and the midterms: Rolling the dice?"},"content":{"rendered":"

What will happen on Tuesday, November 3, 2026? Will the Democrats win both chambers of Congress, or just the House, or neither\u2014leaving the Republicans to retain absolute control for the epiphany of a convicted felon? How would Washington\u2019s policy toward Cuba be affected, regardless of who wins?<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Michael Bustamante (New Jersey, 1984)\u2014an “Orwellian year,” a literary detail he notes pointedly\u2014does not engage in cliodynamics. Nor does a crystal ball appear in his inventory of possessions. He leaves mathematical predictive modeling to the speculators, yet his experience as a historian and his academic standing are far from negligible in this exercise of gauging a reality that is so changing and surly to easy categorization.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

His book jackets identify him as the author of <\/span>Cuban Memory Wars: Retrospective Politics in Revolution and Exile<\/span><\/i> (2021) and co-editor, with Jennifer Lambe, of <\/span>The Revolution from Within: Cuba, 1959-1980<\/span><\/i> (2019); he holds a Ph.D., M.A., and M.Phil. in Latin American and Caribbean History from Yale University. He also holds a B.A. in History and International Studies\u2014awarded summa cum laude\u2014from that same institution.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Bustamante\u2019s writings have appeared in the <\/span>Journal of American Ethnic History<\/span><\/i>, <\/span>Latino Studies<\/span><\/i>, <\/span>Cuban Studies<\/span><\/i>, the <\/span>Journal of Latin American Cultural Studies<\/span><\/i>, <\/span>Anthurium: A Caribbean Studies Journal<\/span><\/i>, and the <\/span>Oxford Encyclopedia of American History<\/span><\/i>.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Currently, Bustamante is an associate professor of History at the University of Miami and holds the Emilio Bacard\u00ed Moreau Chair in Cuban and Cuban-American Studies. He also directs the Cuban Studies program and the academic programs of the Cuban Heritage Collection.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Contacted via WhatsApp, Dr. Bustamante graciously agreed to answer a series of questions ranging from the midterm elections to White House policy toward the island and its historical reverberations within the context of a revived Monroe Doctrine. Dubbed \u201cDonroe\u201d\u2014a play on the name of its sponsor, Donald Trump\u2014Washington\u2019s ambition aims to oust competitors from a post-colonial hemisphere (with the exceptions of Puerto Rico and the Falklands) that is politically mixed and bifocal, where some look toward Washington while casting a sidelong glance at Beijing, and vice versa.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"Ph.D.
Ph.D. Michael Bustamante (born in New Jersey, 1984). Associate Professor of History at the University of Miami. Photo: Courtesy of the interviewee.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The midterm elections\u2014a mechanism for redistributing legislative and political power in the United States\u2014are just thirty days away. Engaging in a bit of speculation: in a catastrophic scenario what might lead to these elections being postponed or suspended?<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

I don\u2019t think a formal suspension of the elections is the most plausible scenario. I mean, the president lacks the unilateral authority to cancel federal legislative elections, and\u2014at least for now\u2014there are significant constitutional and institutional limits that remain in effect, right?<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

I am more concerned about a different kind of scenario, and I don\u2019t think I\u2019m the only one who feels this way. I am concerned about elections taking place amidst an extraordinary subsequent dispute over who was able to vote, which votes are valid, and how the results are certified\u2014much like what we saw with the 2020 presidential election.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This is where, for instance, the White House\u2019s recent effort comes into play: using federal databases to cross-reference state voter rolls and identifying potential cases of non-citizenship. The aim is partly to challenge the legitimacy of state-level elections\u2014since elections are controlled by the states of the Union\u2014and potentially to file lawsuits and complicate the legal landscape in that regard.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The problem with that technique is that an administrative discrepancy regarding who is a citizen and who isn’t does not necessarily amount to proof of the matter. At the federal level, there is a database of all citizens and residents in the country maintained by the Social Security Administration; however, when an immigrant naturalizes as a U.S. citizen, that database must be updated, and the process is not automatic. Consequently, discrepancies can arise between state-level and federal-level citizenship records. Apparently, the White House intends to leverage these discrepancies\u2014perhaps as a way to challenge the legitimacy of state-level elections.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Thus, the most serious risk I see is not necessarily that someone might shut down the election process, but rather that confidence in its legitimacy could be eroded through erroneous exclusions or disputes\u2014once again\u2014over vote counting and certification.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Trump, the cheater<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/h3>\n

Do you think that, at this stage, Trump\u2019s ploys to undermine his opponents\u2019 ability to mobilize support\u2014ranging from gerrymandering and pressuring against mail-in voting to promising direct financial incentives to voters (the famous $5,000)\u2014have failed, leaving the president with no choice but to either upend the entire system or accept the risks and costs of a midterm election defeat?<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Regarding Trump\u2019s tactics, I wouldn’t say all his maneuvers have failed, but neither has the White House managed to impose the rules of the game it wanted. I think the overall result is quite mixed.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

We have seen various attempts to alter election procedures blocked by the courts, while others\u2014such as certain redistricting efforts or the expanded use of federal databases to verify citizenship, as I mentioned earlier\u2014remain in effect or are at least still being litigated. That is why I don\u2019t believe we are yet facing a choice between upending the system and resigning ourselves to defeat. Rather, we are witnessing an ongoing institutional dispute regarding the conditions under which elections are held.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

And that obviously matters because, even without canceling an election, attempts can be made to influence who votes, the rules involved, and the level of legal uncertainty. For instance, there may be attempts to intimidate certain voters by deploying ICE agents in immigrant neighborhoods. The Department of Justice has hired over 1,000 new election observers\u2014supposedly to ensure compliance with federal election law, though they could also become a source of baseless litigation later on.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

At the same time, it is important to emphasize that checks and balances are still working. Judges, state legislatures, and voters themselves have blocked various White House initiatives; the result, for now, is not a complete takeover of the electoral process, but rather a landscape that is far more contentious than usual.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Can the numbers be misleading? A protest vote<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/h3>\n

National polls consistently show Democrats holding a clear lead in the midterm elections: 53% of registered voters say they would support a Democratic candidate, compared to 41% who would opt for a Republican. Furthermore, 45% state that their vote will be primarily a protest against Trump. How reliable are these polls and their predictive power? Should we expect surprises\u2014perhaps akin to gas prices topping $5 a gallon?<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

As for the polls, I would take them seriously, but not literally. In other words, a national lead of this magnitude across many polls indicates a political climate that is clearly unfavorable to the president\u2019s party\u2014as is typical during midterms\u2014and reflects a significant protest-vote component against Trump.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

It is a significant signal, but it does not mean we can automatically translate that national margin into a specific number of seats. One must also approach polls with a degree of doubt and caution, as in recent years we have seen the polling industry encounter significant shortcomings when calculating or attempting to predict the final results of many electoral contests.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Midterm elections consist of hundreds of distinct contests. There are different maps, different candidates, and turnout levels that remain highly uncertain\u2014though high participation is expected among Democratic Party supporters. However, there are still several weeks left during which events could occur that might alter voting behavior.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

That is why I believe polls are quite useful for gauging the direction of the political climate, yet they are insufficient to predict exactly how seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate will ultimately be distributed.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n