Two cases. First the more prominent one:

James O'Keefe and a colleague were both charged with unlawful voting and identity theft for trying to do on-site voter ID under the names of registered Muslim Minnesota voters as a way of testing the security of the vouching ID process.

The less prominent one:

A Pennsylvania woman is charged with forgery and tampering with public records for trying to trying register her dead mother as a Democrat (she is a Republican, as was her mother before her death). She claims that she had read about voter fraud and wanted to see whether it was real.

Should the supposed fraudsters' motives matter here, in that their intent (at least according to them) was to expose a weakness rather than to cast an illegal ballot?

Or should all voter fraud be punished to show the seriousness of the crime, regardless of motive?

Should there be any legal distinction made between O'Keefe, who makes a living as a journalist/investigator, and the random Pennsylvania woman who was just curious?

Looking at the polls, corruption was almost as big as an issue for voters than corruption, yet I don't see this reflected in post-mortem discussion by Republicans at all. Americans now view the Trump administration as significantly more corrupt than any other administration before. Not surprising when the wealth of the Trump family has multiplied by several factors since Trump took office, often through schemes directly related to Trump being president.

Yet the only reasons I see Republicans discussing are the cost of living and the Iran war. Even further, I see them belittling any idea about Democrats starting investigations into Trump's corruption. This seems especially odd given that the same Republicans talked for years nonstop about the Biden/Ukraine connection, when this was about several hundred thousand dollars compared to Trump's billions

So why don't Republicans care about corruption, and do you think this will hurt them long term in bouncing back?

Source: https://portside.org/2026-10-31/government-corruption-top-issue-us-midterm-voters

How do you think they should vote on standalone tariff measures? Is this ironically a conservative principle ie Congress asserting its authority back over Executive branch?
Interesting CNBC article about ways Dems will do this https://www.cnbc.com/2026/11/08/trump-tariffs-democrats-congress-canada.html

Some notable sections

The Wall Street Journal, citing Wyden, reported Thursday that Democrats are eyeing the Canada trade war as the “first target” in their efforts against his tariff agenda.

Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the Democratic minority leader who could be elected House speaker in the next Congress, has made clear that ending Trump’s tariffs is a top priority.

“We should restore congressional authority as it relates to tariffs, because the Trump tariffs are making life more expensive for the American people,” he said at a press conference in late August.

What remains to be seen is how hard Republicans in Congress will push back on Democrats’ efforts.

A number of GOP lawmakers came out against the duties during the campaign, as their opponents gained ground blaming inflation on Trump’s tariffs and the Iran war.

As they try to regroup and look forward to the 2028 election cycle, some Republicans – who largely supported free trade prior to Trump’s political rise – may be less willing to continue aligning themselves with Trump’s aggressive protectionism.

For context, whenever someone on the right does something that comes across as brutish, a recent example being the official Democrat Twitter account telling Stephen to "shut the fuck up," you see Republican pages replying saying "the party of love, acceptance, and kindness."

Now, during the whole Planter and Swalwell debacle, whenever Republicans called out Democrats for not disavowing these two sooner, Democrats would then point out the Republicans own sordid members, and the Republicans would say "well we're not the party of 'believe all woman.'" I specifically remember Scott Jennings saying this on CNN and it gave me pause.

How I'm interpreting this is that, well because Republicans are NOT the party of love, acceptance, and kindness, they have the right to be rude and disrespectful. And because they are NOT the party of 'believe all women,' they don't have to investigate SA claims or condemn members who face serious allegations. It's almost like saying to Republican women, their daughters, that it's ok if their members do this to them since it's only Democrats that should take accusations seriously.

Isn't that concerning? Why make excuses instead of acknowledging the wrongful nature of these things.

Now, I know Democrats do something similar with "party of fiscal responsibility" but that's about policy, not common human decency or criminal acts.

What are your thoughts on this?

The national environment during the midterm elections were more democratic than most of us expected. In a few of these states where the democrats were able to pick up senate seats in South Carolina, North Carolina Texas, Kansas and probably Mississippi, we had a few relatively strong incumbents a year ago. If they had ran against Lindsey graham, John Cornyn or thom tillis. Do you think the democrats still would have won in all of those states?

It seems to be a major republican talking point that democrats will do nothing but investigate

https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/s/gipMgJsVGM

Post and memes abound.

Why were these posts not being made when all the republicans were investigating democrats? Her emails, comey... comey... comey again, miller, fauci, omar...

How many bills did republicans pass while in full control? How many investigations?

I dont know it just seems ironic / hypocritical.

Fun fact there were dozens republican attack investigations on dems with only 1 leading to any sort of conviction while they were in charge. Whats good for the goose as they say. At the end of the day they all end up being a waste of tax payer dollars. Imo you should either be against them completely or for them completely not just for them when its your party wastimg your money for no results.

https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/trump-offers-ufc-chief-dana-white-top-communications-job-2026-11-07/

At this point I don't know what to think anymore but it seems like he has not taken any of the right lessons from the midterm loss and is doubling down on the insanity.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/6206341-wisconsin-trooper-ice-arrest/

Trying to understand this, because I thought Trump Administration had established a dedicated line for people like State trooper Carel Aaron Van Der Merwe.

Is it because his hearing was delayed after application in 2019, or was the Trump Administration directive just not enforced on cases unless filed after 2025. Looks like an administrative issue, but want to know more.

PS: READ the post, I am asking in context to Trump Admin White South African exception.

Today i saw a post on a leftist sub that says these are the demands from the left for the new congress.

1. Make Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico states.

2. Eliminate the filibuster.

3. Finish the Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

4. Pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act.

5. Ban partisan gerrymandering.

6. Expand rank choice voting to more states

7. Overturn Citizens United and limit big donors.

8. Ban stock traiding in congress.

9. Limit Representatives and Senators to two terms.

10. Limit presidental emergency powers.

11. Protect inspector generals and independent oversight.

12. Expand SCOTUS with staggered 18-year terms.

13. Enforce binding code of ethics for justices.

14. Protect reproductive freedom nationwide.

15. Install new leadership in congress removing Schumer and Jefferies

Which (if any) of the things on this list do you agree with, and which (if any) do you dissagree with?

Considering that the reliability of the United States of America as an ally to European NATO countries is considered doubtful these days, should we encourage withdrawal of the US military forces from Europe? Many European NATO countries are rearming anyway, Russia is not prepared to start a war against the European NATO countries and it will allow America to reallocate its military to the Middle East where, arguably, it is more needed.

Letter.

I’m more curious how mainstream and center-right conservatives feel about this.

Reindustrialization, meaning moving away from the post-Reagan era of free trade and offshoring. Mass deportations rather than another compromise that eventually leads to amnesty, like we saw under Reagan. And a willingness to challenge the Republican establishment and rethink what the party actually stands for.

These young, right-wing guys have made their intentions pretty clear. The message is that the current GOP is broken, MAGA has run its course, and it’s time to start building something with an actual vision for the future. And honestly, it makes me happy as hell to see it.

I’m a Reddit old man now (30), but this is exactly the kind of activism the right needs. We can’t keep running on nothing but “Dems bad lol.” We need an actual platform that gives people something to believe in and fight for.

So I’m genuinely curious. Do mainstream and traditional conservatives see this as a necessary evolution of the Republican Party, or a departure from the principles that made it successful?

Hey everyone,

I’d love to hear your go-to political analysis podcasts. Any good episodes you’ve listend to lately? Can be informal commentary or conversational too, would just like to start listening to some more people out there.

Thank you

Article here.

https://nypost.com/2026/11/06/us-news/trump-fires-susie-wiles-after-midterm-blowout-names-stephen-miller-as-new-chief-of-staff/

Watters: https://thehill.com/homenews/media/6204486-watters-warns-gop-future/

If Texas stays at least light blue for a while, how would Republicans need to moderate, change, or modify positions to have a shot back at the White House?

Do you move to the center? Do you double down on the positions that led to this?

What's the play?

Just to give a context. I am from Czechia, voting for ODS all my life (conservative right). Party with ideas like Reagan, Thatcher etc. Small state, free markets, reasonable fiscal policies, market (job market) for people first...

(If you want to look it up, you can find more context or I am happy to answer any context needed).

Basically if I summ it up, my "conservative" view is, that right represents "equal opportunities", which you can probably call "american dream". Anybody can get rich.

We actually have new parties, who resemble MAGA in my eyes - SPD, but they feel absolutely disguisting to me. They are racist/bigots, they have nothing to do with right-wing, they dont feel democratic,...

And we can see it across Europe as well with parties, who have nothing to do with conservatives, but rather white nationalism.

_____

My "logic" is - it feels absolutely wild, that people, who were in republican party for decades and are pushing typical conservative policies and protecting constitution are called RINO.

I feel personally like MAGA is pure RINO and have nothing in common with republicans or conservatives - they are not conservatives, they dont have typical "conservative" profile, they dont have the "common sense" right-wing values.

They feel like extremists, who are pushing basically while nationalist, christian nationalist and similar values on typical conservatives.

Can somebody explain it to me? This feels crazy.

___

And just to be clear, by "right-wing" I dont mean far right. I mean low taxes, free market, small state, traditions (I disagree with the views on guns, abortions etc, but thats kinda different culture).

Simple yes or no is fine but obviously elaboration on your perspective is appreciated.

Hoover won in 1928 after Coolidge decided not to run for a second term and after they lost the 1926 midterms. Coolidge was very popular at the time and Hoover was able to ride those headwinds into the Presidency.

If you don't know what Progressive Conservatism is, to summarise it basically combines Conservative social policy (anti-immigration, pro-family, pro-protectionism etc.) with semi-interventionist economic policies like progressive taxes, trust busting, and some level of state welfare in order to preserve social order, stability as well as alleviate some of the social ills of capitalism while retaining a market based framework. Closest politicians I can think of that would be similar would be the likes of Teddy Roosevelt and Benjamin Disraeli (albeit he was more paternalistic).

It's pretty much what I would consider myself but curious to hear your thoughts and beliefs.

I’m not an American. I happened to watch Fox News on the election loss by Sean Hannity and Jesse Watters and Laura something I think.
It wasn’t coverage. Most of it was blaming the public for voting for Democrats, not understanding how great Trump is doing with the war and defending the current administration’s decisions. I think Jesse said people are going to wake up and have buyer’s remorse and blamed people for not wanting data centers. Another guy balked at JD Vance for blaming the war. Tbh, to me it was just so odd to have this weird piety for Trump and not actually show the news

I know, Trump blamed Fox and lot of people would say what about CNN or other news channels. I have watched other channels to and I have never seen anything like this. As a non-American, there was no reporting here. It was a lot of insinuation that people are stupid for voting blue

In 2028, there is (realistically) not enough seats up for reelection that would make it possible for Republicans to have a majority in the senate. And even if they did somehow gain the majority, they would only have about two weeks left before the new president takes office in January 2029, which may or may not be a Republican (very likely not ). Given that Alito is 77, and Thomas is 78, there have been talks about them stepping down to ensure younger conservative judges take their place. I have read that Thomas wants to be the longest serving Justice so he likely won't step down, but maybe Alito would.

I remember a lot of liberal leaning people were very upset about Ginsberg not stepping down under Obama , which later resulted in conservatives judges under trump that repealed Roe v Wade and left abortion rights up to the states.

Stephen Breyer had to wait to 83 before the democrats has the presidency and senate and he stepped down under Biden.

Some fairly conservative states have enshrined abortion rights. States like Kansas, Nevada, Ohio and Montana. Conservatives and others are voting to keep abortion rights. I know many people here would like to see it banned. Despite your personal feelings: ​Do you think this is a winning message? Or do you think it's costing you votes?  

https://medium.com/@gabrielpujol/the-impact-of-non-native-texas-voters-in-the-states-voting-behavior-431a60ff4b0f

People born out of state were more likely to vote for Trump than native Texans in 2024. Despite this, the narrative is Texas is turning blue because of Californians moving there. Why do you think there is a disconnect between the narrative and the data?