A confluence of new events and revelations underscore the high stakes of this fall's elections in a new and much more urgent and dramatic fashion.

Put simply: If Democrats can somehow win both the House and Senate, the Trump presidency as we know it, that is, the Trump presidency in its current incarnation as a rampaging, unchecked kakistocracy ( a form of government in which the worst persons are in power) facing no meaningful oversight or accountability, will be over.

The New York Times reports that Republicans are growing more nervous about losing the Senate to Democrats, for a specific and telling reason: It would mean Democrats will act as a much greater check on Trump's executive branch and judicial nominees. As the Times delicately puts it, a Democratic Senate would be "very deliberate" about bringing Trump's picks for top federal agency jobs to the floor.

While Democrats have not fully exercised the power they currently have against Trump − Mike Pompeo was confirmed as CIA director with Democratic votes − the Times rightly notes that if Democrats take control, they'll face greatly intensified pressure from the base and liberal activist groups to act as a much more substantial check on Trump's nominees. 

This means a Democratic Senate could make a real difference going forward. One can envision, for instance, that future picks to oversee the health bureaucracy will face staunch opposition if they won't pledge to make Obamacare work instead of sabotaging it to assuage Trump's rage and spite; or that a future EPA chief might be a non-starter if he is − just spitballing here − a climate-denier who is fundamentally hostile to his agency's core mission.

Meanwhile, new developments stemming from the Russia investigation are a reminder of how much is at stake in the battle for both the Senate and the House. If Democrats can take them back, that would mean they could try to reinstate the Robert Mueller investigation in some form if Trump does remove the special counsel. Or, if Trump merely keeps Mueller's findings under wraps, a Democratic Congress could try to legislate their public release. Mueller has amassed a great deal of evidence at this point, and could take a range of extraordinary steps to get it out to the public if Trump acts. But such an outcome would be deeply polarizing, and a legislated release, via a less legally controversial process, would be better for the country. This would likely require a Democratic Congress.

Even a Democratic takeover of just the House could make a huge difference. House Republicans closed down their Russia investigation and have been running a shadow probe designed to delegitimize law enforcement on Trump's behalf, harming our institutions and degrading the rule of law in the process. With Democrats in charge that would end, and real investigations might gear up again. A Democratic House would mean much more serious scrutiny of the seemingly endless ethical transgressions of Trump's agency chiefs and of Trump's own nonstop self dealing, and a serious effort to shake loose Trump's tax returns.

Because of all this, a partial or total takeover would likely be a more transformative event than in in past cases. After 1994, Bill Clinton morphed into a triangulating centrist and got re-elected easily. After 2006, George W. Bush was already a lame duck and merely continued limping towards the end. After 2010, Barack Obama had to abandon some grand liberal priorities and enter into years of grueling fiscal trench warfare but emerged unscathed enough to win a second term.

Trump could win re-election if Democrats take back one or both chambers, but it seems less likely. Regardless, by slamming the brakes on Trump's numerous degradations − basically ending the Trump presidency as we know it − this would, relative to the rebukes suffered by his predecessors, constitute a more dramatic, meaningful, and impactful outcome for the country.

Greg Sargent writes The Plum Line blog, a reported opinion blog with a liberal slant.