Maybe the better analogy is whether you want to go back to the restaurant where you were treated like shit, after you found out that the server you hate was fired but that the manager is on thin ice with the owner, but had some kind of job protection where he can't be fired until 2028.

become very, very independently wealthy

I'm going to say that she's already very, very wealthy. And splitting that in two still makes each side very, very wealthy, independently.

My hope is that with an unusually high number of Republican elected officials losing their jobs, that the market will be flooded and most of them will struggle to find jobs typically available to former elected officials. Especially the really dumb ones that made enemies in their own party. Is a lobbying firm, media organization, public relations firm, or anything like that actually going to perceive any value in hiring someone like this?

Here. 218 is a majority of the 435 seats.

2026: Current count is at least 40 seats flipped from R to D, from 214 to 254 called, and plausibly 45 flips for 259. President's party loses the largest number of seats since 1994, loses control of House.

2022: President's party loses 9 seats and house control, 222-213.

2018: President's party loses 41 seats and House control, 235-199.

2014: President's party loses 13 more seats, despite already not having House control, expanding opposition control to 247-188.

2010: President's party loses 63 seats and House control, 242-193.

2006: President's party loses 31 seats and House control, 233-202.

2002: President's party gains 6 seats, expanding House control to 229-204.

1998: President's party gains 5 seats, narrowing the opposing party's control to 223-211.

1994: President's party loses 54 seats and House control, 230-204.

Before that, House elections dynamics were a bit different. National party identity wasn't as strong, and split ticket voting was more common, so Democrats held House control even as Republicans won the White House 5 out of 6 elections.

Plus the incoming Lieutenant Governor is a Democrat. And in the Texas governmental system, the Lieutenant Governor has a ton of power over the Senate, akin to the Senate Majority Leader in most other American systems: ability to set committee memberships, control the calendar, etc.

The electoral college is quite literally based on the apportionment of Congress.

Yes, but the disproportionality between electoral votes per voter comes more from the existence of the Senate than it does with the slightly different population sizes of the House districts. Wyoming has almost 4 times the electoral votes per voter than Ohio, whereas right now the widest ratio in House district populations is Delaware's 980k having 80% higher population compared to Montana's 542k.

And the genuine unfairness of the electoral college is the winner take all nature of it. Even if the electoral college itself were divided exactly proportionally to the population of the states, there would still be divergence between the national popular vote and the electoral college winner when one candidate wins a disproportionate number of very close states. Apportionment is a separate problem from the electoral college, and both independently need to be fixed.

This is mixing up two related but distinct ideas.

The electoral college system leads to a winner-take-all for the electoral votes of any given state, with the exception of Nebraska. Passing a Wyoming rule or something similar to expand the size of the House, and increasing the number of electoral votes from 538 to 900 or whatever won't change that basic dynamic.

Yeah, yeah, Wyoming has a house seat elected by a population of 590,000, a little bit smaller than the national average house district population of 780,000, but that's not nearly as big of a source of voting power discrepancy compared to the existence of the Senate, or the winner-take-all phenomenon that happens in the Electoral College.

So yes, I agree that the Apportionment Act needs to be repealed/modified, but don't agree it should be as high a priority as electoral college reform.

Yeah, the whole story needs to be told because it's just so, so much worse than even what you were saying.

lame duck implies that the sitting president would be restrained in some way.

Mainly restrained by the fact that they're running low on time remaining in office. No matter how you slice it, time keeps marching forward, and people who want to continue to have careers after January 20, 2029 will start making moves to move up after Trump moves out.

For the unique dynamic in the Trump administration of requiring absolute loyalty to a particular man, that means that the expiration date will cause significantly more turmoil and turnover in his inner circle, as they position for the 2028 campaigns, where they maneuver to inherit Trump's power he's never been keen on sharing anyway.

He went to jail and her mother took his side.

No, he was facing criminal charges for raping her from the ages of 9 to 12, so her mother actively helped him flee the state and hide from justice until he died 25 years later. The mother chose to stand by her child's rapist, moving states with him and leaving her children behind, so the state where they were left behind had to take the abandoned children into custody.

Ramaswamy tracked down the mother and said "yeah, let's get her on camera to call Acton a liar."

I'm celebrating this result. It's not about the money, because as everyone else is saying, this is chump change to him.

But what's beautiful is the blow to the ego. The reminder that all the money in the world can't buy popularity or adoration. The suspicion that he might be getting taken advantage of by others taking his money. The confirmation that he's not fully in control, and never will be.

That is worth celebrating.

This is just another flavor of that lazy "both parties are the same" nonsense. We are in the midst of a Trump-driven party realignment, and that means both parties are moving in different directions on different issues, and there are debates within both parties about where to go.

A generation ago, it was an active debate about whether sex acts between two people of the same sex should be a crime punishable by prison. We pushed real reforms through, from decriminalization to allowing them to hold security clearances and serve in the military, legalizing same sex marriage and recognizing their parenthood of children. We made it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or transgender status. In all this time, these positions on LGBT rights shifted from far left fringes to internal divisions within the Democratic Party to mainstream views within the Democratic Party to influencing divisions in the Republican party. And although I'm disappointed in many Democrats not doing more to defend against active hostility towards transgender people, their positions aren't actually less transgender friendly than the norm even 10 years ago (much less 25).

On abortion, we've moved the party towards pro-choice, even as we've lost ground on the battlegrounds in the courts and in state legislatures. It used to be a fairly normal view to be a pro-life Democrat. Not necessarily the party majority, but there were enough elected Democrats who would vote against abortion rights, and compromises with them led to at least federal funding restrictions of abortions. At this point, pretty much any elected Democrat will not only fight for abortion rights, but are ready to bring the fight on putting government resources behind abortion access.

The active debate right now, within the Democratic Party, about Israel and Palestine, is so much further pro-Palestine than would be recognizable 20 years ago. For the first time, we have elected officials who are publicly against military aid for Israel, and in favor of prosecuting war crimes against senior Israeli government officials.

It's not every issue like this, though. Union membership is no longer a reliable indicator of Democratic Party support, and labor rights are a bit more muddled within the party. Lots of economic issues have gone from being partisan coded to mixed coalitions (tariffs and trade, environmental and energy policy, financial markets and banking regulation, health policy). And Democrats have backslid on immigration/border issues, much to my disappointment.

But most of it is just that Democrats have lost on policy issues over the last 10 years, and so the debate between Democrats on lots of these issues feel only theoretical rather than practical. Are there Democrats fighting for reducing carbon emissions, shoring up social security and the safety net, raising taxes, replenishing the middle class? Yes, sure, but they don't have the opportunity to actual discuss the details because they're mostly an opposition minority party fighting to stop the bleeding on destructive Republican policies going the other way.

Let's win some fucking elections so that we can actually have the debate. I'd love to see Democrats control a trifecta so that the coalition can churn out something like what Pelosi/Reid/Obama accomplished between 2009-2011 and listen to the left complain that the sausage making was too corporate/neolib/etc. That's the debate I'd like to have, from the position of having actually won back power.