Much of what you’re hearing on the campaign trail is flatly untrue, if not a tad preposterous. President Donald Trump is hardly the lone prevaricator.

Democratic candidates are making promises completely divorced from the realities of divided government. And with Trump’s White House stay reserved through early 2029, divided it shall remain, even if Republicans are swept from power in Congress in the upcoming midterm elections. It’s not entirely fair to single out Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed, whose “Medicare for All” slogan reflects the fantasies of grassroots liberals; many candidates are making similar promises.

But there’s simply no viable path to enactment, never mind passage, of federal legislation fulfilling his healthcare commitment — or this one: to “get money out of politics.”Even if a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives musters the floor votes and Democrats control the Senate, Republicans would filibuster to death any bills directly challenging their party’s key tenets, possibly with bipartisan assistance. And guess what else won’t change?

The 60-vote, supermajority threshold required to quash a filibuster — and clear most legislation — in the Senate. It’s a parliamentary tactic that enforces compromise.

Then there are the “abolish ICE” Democrats, especially but not limited to left-wingers and socialists. They’re vowing to dismantle the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. The desire to rein in overzealous tactics that have resulted in killings — even of US citizens — is understandable. But dismantling ICE is the stuff of fairy tales. Forget Republicans; Democrats are divided. James Talarico, Texas Democrats’ Senate nominee, opposes abolishing ICE. He favors reform instead.

And tax hikes on corporations and the so-called wealthy? Good luck with that. Trump and congressional Republicans are no more likely to cave and essentially repeal tax reductions signed into law during the president’s first and second terms than were President Barack Obama and the Democrats when pressured to undo the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) after 2010’s midterm blowout. That unrealistic (and still unrealized) campaign promise is a hall-of-famer. But Trump, melodramatic as ever, refuses to be outdone.

With public and private polls showing Democrats poised to flip the House, and possibly the once-out-of-reach Senate, the president has hit a new level of shrill in his warnings that the country would face calamity if Republicans are thrown out.

Let’s set aside his absurd declaration that he would be the last Republican president — ever — should his party get swept on Nov. 3. That’s typical Trumpian hyperbole. Let’s instead address these comments, from a campaign rally this month in Tennessee: “If the Democrats win, you will have a 1929-style, economic depression.”And this, from a similar October event in Ohio, during which Trump argued that Democratic majorities would “loot your wealth, raise your taxes by $5 trillion” and “annihilate your borders” and “give 25 million illegal aliens amnesty.”The fallacies underlying these claims deserve attention.

Democrats would no doubt love to wake up the day after the election with the sort of power Trump wants Republican voters to fear their opponents will have. But the president’s argument has a particular fatal flaw: him.

The powers of the executive branch are vast — over foreign relations and the military; tariffs and international trade; and sometimes, the application of congressionally appropriated spending. The latter has been magnified under Trump, who has asserted authority the Constitution reserves for the legislative branch. He’s slapped tariffs on imports, reprogrammed congressional spending and attempted to dictate voting regulation — all without obtaining Capitol Hill’s approval. And don’t forget Trump’s veto pen. None of that changes on Jan. 3, when the 120th Congress, elected in roughly two weeks, is sworn in. There is, of course, the veto override.

But members of Congress — both Democrats and Republicans — are allergic to challenging presidents of their own party, including in instances where doing so is necessary to preserve their constitutional prerogatives. So, should Democrats command both chambers of Congress, and with the (unlikely) help of some Republicans, manage to drop their socialist manifesto on Trump’s desk, all he’d have to do is veto it. In the event the president vetoes something useful, like legislation preventing him from ignoring or usurping congressional authority, there’s virtually zero chance Republicans provide Democrats with anywhere near enough support to sustain a two-thirds vote of Congress to override.

Indeed, that’s what happened after Democrats captured the House in the 2018 midterms. Over the following two years, Congress failed to override all but one of Trump’s 10 vetoes, with the single successful override coming in late 2020, after the president had lost reelection to Joe Biden. The outcomes of midterm House and Senate contests are still consequential.

A Democratic takeover would deprive Trump of the Republican rubber-stamp he’s enjoyed so far in Congress during his second presidency. The White House would have to negotiate with Democrats on some key matters, begrudging as the exercise might be. Government spending levels come to mind, so do health care and the social safety net; agriculture priorities and some aspects of defense policy. The subpoena power and investigatory muscle that comes from wielding gavels on influential congressional committees isn’t anything to downplay, either, and could both discourage and uncover Trump administration malfeasance.

That may not be as sexy as gutting the campaign finance regime in America or completely overhauling the health insurance system — or sticking people wealthier than you with a bigger tax bill. And it may not be as scary as the prospect of “radical lunatic Dumocrats” transforming the US into a collectivist gulag that would forever subjugate Republicans and make North Korea’s Kim Jong Un jealous. But my version of why this midterm election is important has the benefit of being true. Maybe if the two political parties campaigned on visions rooted in accuracy and the art of the possible, voters wouldn’t be so disappointed when they inevitably failed to deliver.

And then maybe, just maybe, voters would think better of the Democratic and Republican parties they now hold in equally low esteem.