For high-intensity news consumers—would that describe the reader?—the past few days have offered a fresh supply of teasing hits. The case against human oil slick Paul Manafort, erstwhile campaign manager for Donald Trump, rested, and the jury continues to weigh the evidence, most recently interrupting its deliberations to ask for a clarification of the term “reasonable doubt.” The New York Times reported that White House counsel __Don McGahn has spent some 30 hours answering countless questions from special counsel Robert Mueller. And the investigation into emotional White House exile Michael Cohen, occasional conduit of hush-money payments and all-around odd jobs specialist, seems likely to yield charges of bank and tax fraud. As attention increasingly turns to November and midterm elections, Democrats hope to see a major development that weakens Trump’s standing and hurts Republican chances. Is this the sort of news that does it?

The safe answer, of course, is “it depends,” because each of these stories represents an inconclusive fraction of a larger narrative. (We’ll know what Manafort’s jury decides when it decides it; we’ll know what McGahn said when Mueller’s done with him; and we’ll see what Cohen’s charged with when he’s charged with it.) But safe answers are boring, and we’re not for that around here. So let’s go with something bolder that we can live to regret: No. These stories will do no damage to Trump and will have no effect per se on the midterms. I regret having to anger so many readers, because the Resistance dislikes resistance, but sometimes that’s where the argument runs. Here’s why.

First, if we review the trend in the stories about Trump scandals, particularly those related to Russia, it’s for “wow” to be followed by “eh.” The allegations against onetime foreign-policy adviser George Papadopoulos now seem trivial, the Trump Tower meeting of Don Trump Jr. and a Russian lawyer negligible, and the Manafort indictment peripheral. The McGahn story has unsettled Trump, who, according to The New York Times, seems to have no idea what McGahn said, but what to make of it depends heavily on the question of who leaked it and why. (A White House faction seems the likeliest source, because the Times seems to accept the spin of Trump as a naïf in a world of legal sharks, but there are so many possible motives for leakers that zeroing in on one is impossible.) In any case, what’s still missing is any satisfying evidence that Mueller has closed in on something criminal. As for Mueller’s indictments, Trumpworld hasn’t been hit with much related to Russian collusion, and the Russians the special counsel has indicted haven’t been hit with much related to Trump.

Second, if breaking news affects a midterm election, it is because it changes the choices or behavior of those most likely to make it to the voting booth. But these latest developments don’t have that power. Midterms are lower-turnout affairs that depend even more than presidential elections on the forces of enthusiasm and demoralization. High-intensity news followers will make up the bulk of the voters, and most will be partisans who are deeply invested in their own narratives, be they pro-Trump or anti-Trump. Democrats can hardly become more enthusiastic than they already are, no matter what happens in the news, so they will show up in force. Republicans haven’t yet seen anything in these new developments to demoralize them, either, so they’re unlikely to stay home in the way they did in 2006, when George W. Bush was bogged down in Iraq and more. (If anything, the conviction that Mueller is politically motivated and that Democrats are aiming for impeachment will boost Republican turnout.) As for independent voters, they tend to be less plugged in to daily news developments and more inclined to respond only to banner headlines and big-picture changes.

Still, there’s consolation for Trump haters in all of this: Democrats are still mighty, mighty likely to retake the House. To be sure, the political landscape recalls W.W. I-style trench warfare, with heavy volleys of political shells and nothing that shifts the lines. But even under such conditions, odds are three in four, according to FiveThirtyEight and its remarkable number crunchers, that Democrats will triumph in November. It would take a major breach between Trump and his supporters—a tape of him using a racial slur, say, or calling his own voters idiots who will swallow anything he says about immigration—to cause his support to collapse. Failing that, Trump’s bad behavior is priced in, the latest news is just more noise, and the trajectory remains unchanged. Odds of Democrats taking the house remain high. And Trump supporters, who’ve seen their man defy the odds before, will keep hoping for the opposite.