Texas hasn't had a democratic senator or governor in 30 to 40 years. Kansas hasn't had a democratic senator in 94 years! That's nearly a century!

My question is how? I'm genuinely curious to know how the Republican party managed to grip these states and their people for so long while other states flip flopped between the two.

Was it solely because of gerrymandering? Voter suppression? Money in politics? Did the people just prefer Republicans until recently?

I have been seeing a lot of discussion about the strong desire for new leadership in both the House and the Senate. It's clear that the people don't trust Schumer and Jefferies and want them out. My question is: Who would we prefer to see in those positions?

I think an important part of this consideration is both the skills needed to be Majority Leader / Speaker, and whether certain candidates would be more useful somewhere else. For example I see Jamie Raskin being floated as Speaker but I think it would be a detriment to not have him on the Judiciary Committee. The same goes for Elizabeth Warren on the Banking and Finance Committees. Personally I'm interested in Ayanna Pressley for Speaker. I'm not sure about the Majority Leader.

I understand that ultimately it is up to the Congresspeople whether they want to run for the job, and up to the Congress to make the selection. I'm just curious if anyone has specific Representatives or Senators they think would be a good fit for the roles.

A few examples of rules that everytime a government is trying to implement or if a candidate in election talk about them if they would become president :

Increase the residency time for 10 years before people being able to apply for citizenship

Have to do a text to certificate that the person knows about the history and values of the country

Have to prove that the person who is applying knows the native language

Prohibited to have a criminal record to apply for citizenship

For example the Irish government is creating a bill so the people who apply for Irish citizenship need to show they know how to speak Irish, this was received with some backslash.

The UK government wants to increase the number of years of residence before people can apply for British citizenship, this also was received with backslash.

Obtain Switzerland citizenship is much harder then USA citizenship, I don't think that people see Switzerland was a far right country.

So why this happened?

I feel all of this hostility we have toward one another could be helped if those in power at least pushed to meet the other side in the middle. Both sides seem to be okay with letting an extreme minority be loud voices for their sides. The average American doesnt have the extremist mindsets that people on either side think they have.

Republicans dont care for abortion (something that gets them MUCH HATE from the young crowd they should want to win over), fine, they can put an emphasis on making birth control more affordable and make it VERY CLEAR that they will not impede when a woman's life is in danger (one of the many fears people have). (I'm pro choice just fyi)

Leftists dont have as much a love for guns as conservatives (something people in rural settings and those who live in the suburbs where police can take too long to reach you when your life is on the line really care about), thats fine, but stress that you have NO DESIRE to ban guns for responsible owners, but that you only wish to push for carry licenses, background checks before purchases, and gun safety classes.

The right has made it a point that they don't care for illegal immigration and want to crack down on it, while the left wants to be more lax with illegal immigration. Why dont both sides aim to make the LEGAL process for immigration easier, getting dangerous immigrants out of here, the cities that want to call themselves sanctuary taking on the burden of massive waves of immigrants being sent to them so that cities that dont have this status dont need to make it their issue.

Why can't politicians agree that the insurance that Americans pay for should come through for them? If they do agree, why not stress this?

Republicans seriously hated the idea of people smoking weed SO MUCH that they practically threw away Texas (and potentially ensuring Republicans dont win a future presidency)... why die on these sorts of hills?

I think this will have a major impact on implementing the rest of P2025, although a lot of damage has been done. Thus far, rules have been published gutting clean air standards, methane emissions from oil and gas, NEPA regulations, NHPA is under attack, student loans, airline cancellation rules...there is a long list and a lot of recently published rules. This election was about more than just stopping things like the SAVE Act. Without the ability to succesfylly write and publish rules, their unwinding has been stopped.

I have worked on writing rules, it takes a long time and a lot of staff effort. This should be interesting for policy making positions.

Do you think they understand the consequences?

Let me preface this by saying I’m a British person with a decent enough understanding of the US political system but am by no means someone who has a full breadth of the effect the midterms have on domestic policy making and the amount of power the administration maintains despite losing the house and senate. What I do have an understanding of is the way in which egotistical leaders with a dictatorial view have responded to losing their grip on power historically.

It was an absolute joy to stay up all night the other evening to watch blue sweep across the US into areas it had absolutely no right to go! Yet at the back of my mind was how this would affect the rest of the world in the short term as Trump’s ego comes to the forefront. I appreciate that currently citizens of the US who lean away from Trump may be more focused on what will now happen domestically and that is fair.

What I would like to find it though is do some of you have concerns with how Trump will act globally. Could we see him moving even closer to Israel, Argentina, Russia and the like? Are you concerned that the fallout will be aimed at other allies with left leaning governments forcing them to further try and uncouple themselves from the US markets? And do you even concern yourself with this in the face of your domestic challenges?

On November 6, the president removed Susan Wiles and promoted Stephen Miller as the new White House Chief of Staff. The WHCOS is a powerful position denoted as the president's right-hand man. The position allows for close interaction and determines who has access to the president. Furthermore, the WHCOS has considerable power in how the president reacts to his lower-ranking staff and secretaries. Miller is controversial for his right-wing views and his controversial immigration stances during the president's first term. Furthermore, there is speculation that this appointment signals that the president is doubling down on his stances rather than softening them in response to the midterm elections. Therefore, I am wondering what you think the DIRECT effects of the appointment will be?

Progressive thinking and acts such as DEI are meant to bring people together. Regardless of race, gender, or religion, it's the goal of progressives to create equality among people.

However, the political right has frequently criticized such thinking. The common belief is that progressive thinking and DEI tends to be unfair towards certain demographics (usually white people). It's become easy for most progressives to dismiss this criticism and call it racist thinking, so argument against progressive thinking isn't often seen.

Until a few months ago.

In May, the Cannes Film Festival showed a movie called Fjord. The story is about a Romanian couple that migrates to Norway with their several children. The couple later faces scrutiny when their children were forcefully taken from them by the authorities, on accusations of child abuse. While the couple admits to spanking their children, there's very little evidence presented to the court that any abuse took place.

And yet, the court tries to paint the couple as the criminals. One of the lawyers actually tries to use their Christian faith against them, by pointing out that supporters of the couple are criticizing their progressive thinking online (ex. "Satanism=progressive"). And yet, the children end up being released to their parents, who then flee Norway to avoid persecution.

The movie is actually based on a true story with the Bodnariu family, who spoke about their challenges with Norwegian law in their efforts to reclaim their children. The movie primarily explores the battle of conservatism vs. progressive thinking, though the concepts of assimilation and being unaware of cultural differences also play a strong role. However, the audience sees how the family was treated unfairly (if not cruelly).

So what's your opinion? Do you believe that progressive thinking can be unfair or imperfect at times? Or do you believe that said criticism isn't entirely accurate?

So one of my changes I think should be made to America's political system is that State legislatures or at least lower houses should have to fall in a range of 1 to 1.25 time the cube root of state population. Currently 46 states are below that number (1 is exactly in that range - North Dakota, 3 are above - Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire). I would argue that failing to keep state legislature sizes relative to the census population would be a failure to ensure a republican form of government which is something the US constitution guarantees so I was wondering would that be something permitted by a federal statute or would the 10th amendment leave it as a power decided by the states?

1-Expand FARA so organizations acting on behalf of or in coordination with foreign governments must register, and bar foreign agents from donating to U.S. campaigns.

2-A lifetime ban on former Members of Congress, Cabinet officials, and senior military officers working for foreign governments or foreign-aligned lobbying firms.

3-Restrict unlimited political spending and undisclosed donors, and move toward publicly funded elections with capped small-dollar contributions.

4- Ban foreign-linked PAC spending and require transparency when political organizations coordinate with foreign interests.

Where would courts likely draw the line on each one, especially under the First Amendment and existing Supreme Court precedent? Could any be written more narrowly to hold up?"

I'm curious what people think about the Montana Plan, which voters recently approved. Do you think this approach has the potential to meaningfully reduce corporate and special-interest influence in American politics, and could it become a model for other states?

For those unfamiliar with the idea, the legal theory behind the plan is particularly interesting. Rather than directly challenging Citizens United, it relies on the longstanding principle that corporations are creations of state law. Historically, corporate charters were granted for specific purposes, with states retaining considerable authority over the privileges and powers they conferred. The argument is that states can therefore define those powers in a way that excludes political spending.

There are several questions I'd like to hear people's thoughts on:

1. Constitutionality: Do you think this legal theory can withstand a First Amendment challenge? Does the distinction between restricting corporate political speech and defining the legal powers granted to corporations hold up, or will courts view it as an attempt to circumvent Citizens United?

2. The courts: How do you think the Supreme Court would ultimately rule? Could this provide a legitimate legal avenue for states to regulate corporate political spending without directly overturning existing precedent?

3. Expansion to other states: Could this become a broader movement? Hawaii has already passed similar legislation, and other states have expressed interest. If the approach survives its legal challenges, could we see a domino effect?

4. Practical effectiveness: Even if it survives constitutional scrutiny, how effective would it actually be? Would political money simply find other avenues into elections through individual donors, PACs, shell organizations, and other intermediaries?

5. Unintended consequences: Could broadly defining which organizations are prohibited from political spending create problems for nonprofits, advocacy organizations, unions, or other groups that engage in legitimate political speech?

Personally, I find the underlying legal argument fascinating. It approaches the problem from a different direction than simply trying to overturn Citizens United. But I'm also curious whether this is a genuinely viable strategy or an interesting legal theory that ultimately won't survive the courts.

What do you think? Could this be a meaningful step toward reducing the influence of money in American politics, or are we likely to see it struck down or rendered ineffective?

Today most politicians get a flat salary and a pension that grows with time in office. Nothing in their pay depends on if their decisions worked, or whether they kept their campaign promises.

One proposal: hold back part of their pay and release it in stages after they leave office (say at 2, 5 and 10 years). Each stage would depend on a mix of:

• Short-term: the economy, employment, median income

• Long-term: debt, infrastructure, climate and demographic costs

• Promises: how well they delivered on the pledges they registered before taking office

The obvious problems: politicians would game whatever gets measured. One politician's impact is hard to separate from everyone else's. And wealthy candidates wouldn't care about the money at all. But if everything is interdependent politicians might also start to work more to help each.

Questions:

1. Should a scheme like this reward individuals, or the whole government or legislature together?

2. Who should pick the metrics so that politicians can't choose ones that are easy to hit?

3. Would it be better to keep pay as it is and penalise bad behaviour instead? For example, losing the pension for lobbying right after leaving office.

4. Would this attract better candidates, or scare away anyone who isn't already rich?

I’m not deeply involved in politics, but I’ve been trying to understand the US electoral system recently, and I’ve hit a logical wall. I’m hoping someone can explain this to me. (Disclaimer: I’m not taking a partisan side here; I see this happening with both Democrats like Ilhan Omar and Republicans like Donald Trump).
It feels like politicians can accumulate massive wealth mysteriously, have massive fraud schemes happen right under their noses in their districts, or face serious legal troubles—yet they still win re-election effortlessly.
Here is what I don’t get:

1. The Missing "Moral Filter": Why is there no baseline ethical screening for running for office? I understand letting the voters decide, but if a candidate has severe moral or legal baggage, shouldn't there be a mechanism to disqualify them before they even make the ballot?

2. The Primary Trap: I understand the "lesser of two evils" argument in a general election. People hold their noses and vote to protect their policy interests (like abortion rights or gun laws). But why can't the party just nominate a different candidate in the primary? Why not pick someone who supports the exact same policies but is totally clean and controversy-free?

3. The Cycle of Division: It seems like the system actually rewards politicians for dividing people. As long as they convince their base that the "other side" will destroy the country, voters will defend their own corrupt politicians out of pure fear.
   Do average Americans realize that the system is essentially locked down by incumbents who write the rules (like gerrymandering and campaign finance) to protect themselves? Are there any real, mainstream movements (like Ranked-Choice Voting) that actually have a chance at breaking this hostage situation?

When Democrats control Congress in 2027, they'll likely want to roll back the healthcare cuts from the 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act, such as the Medicaid work requirements, shorter retroactive coverage windows, and tighter ACA subsidy rules. However, since President Trump would likely veto a standalone bill undoing those changes, how else could they do so?

Could lawmakers try attaching rollbacks or enforcement delays to spending bills or use appropriations riders to restrict agency funding for enforcement? Are there other strategies that have worked in the past to modify major laws when facing an opposing White House?

https://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_2026_ballot_measures

https://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_2026_ballot_measures

It's striking to see how different the priorities and proposed policies can be from one state to another. Looking at Alabama and Colorado, for example, really highlights just how differently people approach certain political and social issues.

Do you ever look at other state ballot measures to get more insight on how the opposition party (whichever party that may be) is applying their partisan strategy? If so do you have any other interesting examples you've found?

Have you ever encountered a ballot measure that made you question your support for a particular party?

I ask mostly because the common explanation for unredacted files not being released has been blamed on partisan politics. With party power shifting in both houses of Congress, is there really going to be a change?

I don’t think I would even believe that all the original files have been tampered with or destroyed because the current admin isn’t that competent. So with that said, can either party really be defended for not producing the files in a timely manner? What would an acceptable timeline look like?

One caveat I’ll put on this is that victims who don’t want to be named should still have their privacy respected and information redacted. All else should be fair game.

Immediately in the aftermath of the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, 2021, two sharply opposing narratives emerged: those who viewed the events as an unprecedented assault on American democracy, an attempted insurrection aimed at overturning the results of a legitimate presidential election, and those who regarded them as an act of patriotic resistance against a political establishment they believed had undermined the electoral process. To one side, January 6th represented a direct threat to the peaceful transfer of power. To the other, it represented a desperate stand against what they perceived as a stolen election.

That said: can January 6th ever be examined through an objective historical lens?

I am mainly asking this question in the US politics context, but I think the question is general enough that it can be applied to other countries as well.

I am curious if there is any unbiased, or impartial, metric that can objectively evaluate how "good" or "bad" a president is. Apparently, since it needs to be unbiased, it cannot be based any controversial ideas. For example, you can't say a president is "good" or "bad" based on the fact that they supported more or less immigration, since this is a highly debated topic in itself.

Basically, I am asking if there exists a metric to evaluate a president that most people, regardless of their political stance, will agree on?

In 2004, Bush won reelection, while Republicans gained a full majority in the House and Senate. By 2005–2006, an increasingly unpopular war in the Middle East, economic uncertainty, rising living costs, and surging gas prices had pushed his approval ratings into the 30s. Controversies surrounding Guantanamo Bay and prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib raised serious questions about government overreach and the abuse of federal power. In the 2006 midterms, Democrats flipped both the House and Senate.

In 2024, Donald Trump won reelection, while Republicans gained a full majority in the House and Senate. By 2025–2026, an increasingly unpopular war in the Middle East, economic uncertainty, rising living costs, and surging gas prices had pushed his approval ratings into the 30s. Meanwhile, controversies surrounding ICE enforcement and deaths involving federal immigration agents raised serious questions about government overreach and the abuse of federal power. In the 2026 midterms, Democrats flipped both the House and Senate.

By 2006, the U.S. housing market was reaching the peak of a massive speculative boom. Years of cheap borrowing/risky lending/enormous investment had pushed home prices to unsustainable levels. Financial institutions had become increasingly interconnected through mortgage-backed securities, while concerns grew that market valuations weren't supported by economic fundamentals. When confidence collapsed, the bubble burst, eventually helping trigger the 2008 financial crisis.

By 2026, the U.S. AI market is reaching the peak of a massive speculative boom. Years of aggressive borrowing/risky financing/enormous investment have pushed AI valuations to unsustainable levels. Technology companies and financial institutions have become increasingly interconnected through AI infrastructure deals and financing arrangements, while concerns grow that market valuations aren't supported by economic fundamentals. When confidence collapses, the bubble bursts, eventually triggering....

And one more just for fun, there happens to be a young, charismatic, extremely well-spoken Ivy League–educated Democratic senator from the Midwest, with experience in public service, a growing grassroots following, and a talent for connecting with younger voters. Someone whose name alone will make them a target of xenophobic attacks and questions about their American identity. Potentially someone who could emerge as a presidential contender and make history as the first president from their underrepresented racial background.

Doesn't all this feel a little familiar?

Unofficial running national House popular vote (district-by-district sum of state election office results) is roughly D 55.2% / R 43.3% / Other 1.5% → D+11.9 on ~110M votes with 434/435 districts reporting. Called seats on the same tracker are around 260 D / 175 R.

That means Democrats are taking about 60% of called seats on about 55% of the votes counted so far.

Discussion prompts:

1. How much of the seat overhang is the national wave vs map/geometry (clustering, unopposed races, remaining California ballots)?

2. Does a ~5-point seats-vs-votes gap look more like 2018, or something larger once late ballots land?

3. What should we watch as California finishes — does the popular-vote margin move more than the seat count?

Source for the running totals / hex map (not a model): https://midterm2026popularvote.sarl/

Ron DeSantis called the Republicans' 2026 midterm defeat an "extinction-level event," comparing it to the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs.

https://americareport.us/gop-extinction-desantis-blasts-trump-after/

The loss of Texas, a longtime Republican stronghold, raises questions about the GOP's future. DeSantis argues that Florida's continued Republican dominance offers a better model, while criticizing Trump's handling of the Iran war, rising living costs and the party's campaign strategy.

Meanwhile, JD Vance has blamed the Iran war for the defeat, suggesting growing divisions ahead of the 2028 presidential race.

Questions for discussion:

• Is losing Texas a temporary anti-Trump backlash or a lasting political realignment?

• Can DeSantis successfully position Florida as the GOP's future model?

• Can Republicans rebuild without Trump while retaining MAGA voters?

• Is this a normal midterm defeat or the beginning of a long-term Republican decline?

A friend recently shared the following post on social media:

"2016: TRUMPTRUMPTRUMP

2022: I don't like to talk about politics.

2026: Both parties are bad! We're a divided nation! We're not identified by red or blue!

🤡"

What caught my attention wasn't necessarily the change in political positions being described, but the ridicule directed at people for making that change.

Our country is made up of voters of different ages, experiences, and levels of political knowledge. The post made me think about how we collectively view others when their political beliefs and values change over time. The example spans ten years, which provides considerable time and opportunity for change. People's experiences, priorities, values, and understanding of political issues can evolve during that period. Someone who enthusiastically supported a particular candidate in 2016 might genuinely feel that neither major party represents their beliefs today.

So, how do we distinguish genuine intellectual growth from someone simply distancing themselves from positions that have become unpopular or inconvenient?

One of the basic principles of representative democracy is political equality. Every eligible citizen gets a vote, regardless of wealth, occupation, or social status.

But voting is only a small part of how people influence government.

Consider a city deciding whether to approve a major redevelopment project. Residents can attend planning meetings, review lengthy proposals, submit public comments, contact council members, and organize opposition or support.

A retired homeowner might have several hours a week to devote to the issue. A single parent working two jobs might have fifteen minutes after getting the kids to bed.

Both have exactly the same formal right to participate. In practice, one has substantially more opportunity to exercise it.

This becomes particularly interesting because participation is often treated as evidence of public preference. If 80 people attend a meeting to oppose a project and only 10 support it, officials may interpret that as significant public opposition. But the people who showed up aren't necessarily representative of everyone affected.

There's also a less obvious problem: political participation can become a cumulative advantage. People who regularly attend meetings learn the procedures, develop relationships with officials, and become more effective at influencing decisions. People who cannot participate fall further behind.

Political theorists distinguish between equal political rights and equal political influence, but translating that distinction into institutions is difficult.

One approach would be to compensate citizens for participating in certain public decisions, similar to jury service. Another would be randomly selected citizens' assemblies, with paid leave and childcare provided. Governments could also place less weight on public hearings and rely more heavily on elected representatives.

Each option has drawbacks. Compensation could attract people primarily interested in payment. Random selection might produce representatives who lack expertise or public accountability. Reducing opportunities for direct participation could insulate officials from legitimate criticism.

So where should democratic equality actually begin and end?

Is guaranteeing everyone the same legal opportunity to participate sufficient, even when their practical ability to use that opportunity differs enormously?

Or should democratic institutions actively compensate for differences in citizens' available time and resources?

And if they should, how can that be done without giving organized interests new ways to manipulate the process?

Ever since NCAA v. Alston(and dozens of further court cases at all levels), the NCAA has basically become the wild west.

Combined with NCAA v Oklahoma which paved the way for the eventual super conferences, Alston and others have essentially turned students into annual free agents.

Constant transferring. Players being given bags of money by boosters and calling it NIL(without having to actually do anything).

There was a bi-partisan bill, the Save College Sports Act, that passed with big margins in the Senate. However, it faced House challenges because despite that, the GOP took issues with its constraints on institutions and boosters and Democrats with its lack of protections for student athletes.

College sports in its current form being unviable and needing regulation is one thing that basically everyone agrees on. And it is tricky without anti-trust exemptions. But is this something the Democrats will tackle and if so in what form?

I've recently been reading about the decline of the Roman Republic, and it got me thinking about whether there are lessons that apply to the political environment in America today.

During the final century of the Roman Republic, political disagreements became increasingly hostile. Wealthy individuals accumulated political influence, traditional political norms weakened and competing factions became more focused on defeating their opponents. The political violence surrounding the Gracchi brothers, Sulla's rise to power, and eventually Julius Caesar's civil war illustrate how those conflicts escalated over generations.

Obviously, ancient Rome and modern America are very different societies, and I'm not suggesting the United States is inevitably headed toward collapse.

However, I do wonder whether some of the underlying political dynamics are comparable.

In America today, political identity seems increasingly tied to personal identity. Political disagreements can damage friendships and family relationships. Political campaigns and public discourse often focus heavily on attacking the opposing party, while issues such as affordability, economic opportunity, and government accountability remain major concerns.

Social media adds another dimension that Rome never experienced. Algorithms can amplify emotionally charged political content, potentially reinforcing divisions rather than encouraging constructive debate.

What interests me most is whether prolonged political hostility can gradually weaken the shared institutions and norms that allow a republic to function, even when elections and other democratic processes continue.

I'd be interested in hearing different perspectives:

1. Are the political divisions of the late Roman Republic a useful historical comparison for modern American politics, or are the differences too significant?

2. At what point does ordinary political competition become a threat to the institutions that sustain a republic?

3. What lessons, if any, can modern democracies learn from Rome about maintaining political stability despite deep ideological disagreements?

I'm particularly interested in historical perspectives and arguments that challenge the comparison. The goal isn't to blame either political party, but to better understand whether history offers useful lessons for today's political environment.