The rule: When you see the pendulum swinging your way, watch out for the urge to overplay your hand (Rule #29).

Why this rule fits: the election is tomorrow, and both camps are already planning what to do with power they don't have yet. Each side's plan is the other side's scariest headline.

Feel dread about what "they" will do after Tuesday? Set it down. Look at what's actually on the table.

The story

Reuters reports that White House aides have spent months preparing executive actions on immigration, tariffs, housing and spending in case Democrats win Congress. Trump said, "I guess I'll become Mr. Veto… And then at some point, we'll probably make deals." (Reuters via Investing.com, Nov. 1, 2026). In a New York Post interview, he said he would issue preemptive pardons to staff and allies "if I needed to" (NY Post, Nov. 2). Meanwhile, Sen. Elissa Slotkin has spoken about "signature cases" to hold officials accountable if Democrats win (Fox News, Oct. 31).

Left-leaning headline

The Daily Beast (opinion, David Rothkopf): "Why We Have to Defeat Election Terrorist Trump Tomorrow" (Nov. 2, 2026)

• Emotion: Fear, the existential kind.
• Trigger words: "Election Terrorist." In the body: "stochastic terrorism," "thugocrats," "We face a powerful enemy."

Through a calm, logical lens

1. Known: Trump says he'd veto bills and has a backup plan of executive actions. He told the Post he would pardon allies "if I needed to," and noted he pardoned roughly 1,500 Jan. 6 defendants.

2. Claimed: that this amounts to "terrorism."

3. Context: Vetoes are a constitutional power, and Congress can override with two-thirds (Reuters). Pardons cover federal crimes only, not state cases, civil suits or impeachment (NY Post).

4. Missing: Trump pointed to Biden's own preemptive pardons of Fauci, Milley, Jan. 6 committee members and his family: "That's what Biden did."

5. What would have to be true: for "terrorist" to fit, vetoes and pardons would have to be violence. They're hardball… and legal.

Calmer headline: "Trump plans vetoes, executive actions and possible pardons if Democrats win Congress"

Right-leaning headline

Legal Insurrection: "Elissa Slotkin Gives Away the Dems' Post-Midterm Lawfare Plans in Undercover Video" (Oct. 31, 2026)

• Emotion: Fear of persecution, plus anger.
• Trigger words: "Lawfare," "Undercover." In the body: "It's 100% about revenge."

Through a calm, logical lens

1. Known: In the video, Slotkin talks about "a list of, like, the 'signature cases'… where we hold people accountable," including the ballroom and "$200 million… from the Defense Department." In an Oct. 13 speech, she said, "I want that deterrence message sent" (Fox).

2. Claimed: that it's "100% about revenge."

3. Context: Slotkin called the criticism "manufactured outrage" and said she meant officials who break the law. Under Trump v. Mazars (2020), congressional subpoenas need a legislative purpose and can't be used just to punish (Fox).

4. Missing: a single named charge. Slotkin is a senator. Congress investigates, but it can't prosecute.

5. What would have to be true: for "lawfare" to fit, oversight would have to be about punishment, not lawmaking. That's a fair worry… and the courts already test for it.

Calmer headline: "Slotkin, on tape, lists spending probes Democrats would pursue with a majority"

Through the rule

Same standard for both. How EXACTLY does either side win a fight it hasn't started yet?

It doesn't. It just hands the other side its next headline. Trump justifies preemptive pardons by pointing to Biden's. Critics on the right point to Slotkin's "signature cases" as proof of revenge. And Rothkopf writes about the day Trump is "held to account." Each move becomes the next one's excuse. Your exercise becomes their precedent (Rule #14).

The executive-action backup plan has a precedent too. In January 2014, facing a Republican House, President Obama told reporters before a Cabinet meeting that he wouldn't just wait for Congress: "I've got a pen and I've got a phone -- and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward" (Obama White House archives, Jan. 14, 2014). Now Trump's aides are mapping the same workaround in case Democrats win Congress. A pen works for whoever holds it next.

That's Rule #29: the side that thinks it's winning reaches too far, and the next swing comes back harder.

If your neighbor believes the Daily Beast headline: "I get the worry about blanket pardons. But Biden did preemptive pardons first. If it was okay for him, what's the rule we want for everyone?"

If your neighbor believes the Legal Insurrection headline: "Checking how $200 million was spent sounds like Congress's job. Where's the line between oversight and payback? Let's name it before Tuesday, not after."

If your neighbor is cheering for (or dreading) a president who governs by executive order: "Obama said he had 'a pen and a phone.' Trump's team is planning the same thing now. Whatever you'd let your president do with that pen, the next one gets to do too."

What both sides agree on

• Nobody wants their own people prosecuted for politics.
• Nobody wants a president, of either party, who's above the law.
• Control of Congress is close: 218-214 in the House and 53-47 in the Senate (Reuters).

Getting to the root

The underlying issue: Each side treats power as a chance to get even, and every move gets copied.

1. Limit self-serving pardons. H.J.Res.13 would bar pardons for a president, relatives, administration members and paid campaign staff. It would have covered Biden's family pardons AND Trump's staff pardons. Tradeoff: a constitutional amendment needs two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of the states.

2. Tie oversight to legislation. The Mazars test already does this. Tradeoff: courts are reluctant to void subpoenas over motives, so it's "bad atmospherics," not a hard bar (Prof. Michael Morley, via Fox).

3. Let override math work. Two-thirds forces deals (Reuters). Tradeoff: gridlock in the meantime.

Curious questions for your neighbor:

• If your side wins, what's the ONE investigation you'd skip to keep things calm?
• Should preemptive pardons be off-limits for every president?
• What's the difference between accountability and payback to you?
• What would you want the other side to promise first?

Planning revenge before the votes are counted is a bad bet, whoever's placing it. We're FOR winners who govern like they might lose next time… because they might.

TalkToYourNeighbors

Principles at play: #29 (don't overplay your hand), #14 corollary (your exercise becomes their precedent: Biden's pardons, Obama's pen), #42 (same standard for both).