I think an ongoing thread about the changes to the US House of Representatives may be of interest. Or for the Senate, although that doesn’t seem to be changing much at this time, but it’s always possible there could be a change there at any time. Here’s the situation in the House at the moment:
Republicans: 218
Democrats: 213
Vacancies: 4
The people at electoral-vote.com have a section in today’s edition about it:
There’s more at the article.
The four vacancies:
The election to fill TX-18 (Turner’s seat) will be on the last day of January, so figure the election certified in early Feb. But the continuing resolution expires then, so the government may shut down again. In which case, who knows when Speaker Johnson will let the electee take their oath. It’ll definitely be a Dem elected, since it’s a runoff between two D’s.
Election to fill NJ-11 (Sherill’s seat): primary Feb 5; general Apr 16. I believe the Dems are favored in that district.
CA-01 (LaMalfa’s seat) has not had an election date set. If CAlifornia’s Governor Newsome wants to retaliate against Texas Gov Abbott, who set the date to fill TX-18 almost a year after Turner died, he can delay it until some time in the summer. California has legal dates he has to set the date by, so it can’t be almost a full year.
GA-14 (Greene’s district) will have an election on Mar 10, but expect a runoff at a later date (April likely), since it’s unlikely anyone will get an outright majority.
Baird has been released from the hospital. I couldn’t find any info on when he’ll be voting in the House. If they really need his vote, they could bring him in on a gurney, as was the case for one Congressman last year. However, from the reports, he’s just in a neck brace, so he’ll probably come in on his own power to vote if the Repubilcans need it.
And a joke’s a joke. I read them every day and they get their facts straight. See their take today on the ICE murder in Minneapolis, where they had to view the footage a half dozen times to see what happened.
I’m not going to say any more about electoral-vote .com except to say I’m glad they stopped making those jokes.
So can we stop discussing that website and discuss membership changes to Congress. Not that I expect much discussion on this topic until new news happens. Like a date set for the election in CA-01. I think Newsome has a few weeks to make that announcement, so there may not be any news there for a while.
The election dates for CA-01 have been set. Primary on 2026-Jun-02, general on 2026-Aug-04. These are the furthest out dates allowed by California law. Some Republicans are furious, but they didn’t seem to have any problem with Texas Gov. Abbott setting the date for TX-18 almost a year after that seat was vacated.
BTW, Jim Baird (R-IN, mentioned in the OP) has in fact voted in the House since his car accident.
Since as everybody knows, it’s a sin to vote for a Republican, I’m once again counting on the HoR to be 435 D - 0 R.
The math I’d like to see involves the Senate, where only about a third of the seats are going to be contested. What will be the total when the Democrats sweep the Senate races?
Currently, the Senate is 53 R, 47 D (including 2 Independents who caucus with them). There are 22 R Senate seats up for election this year, including two special elections to fill the rest of two terms (Florida for Marco Rubio’s seat; Ohio for Vance’s seat). If the Ds sweep all those and hold all their seats, they’ll have 69 Senators. Of course, you’re asking a lot for D victories in states like Idaho, Wyoming, and Mississippi.
Realistically, impeachment followed by conviction in the senate will need votes from at least a few Republican senators. A complete sweep would be enough but, that’s not happening unless el donald goes much further off the deep end.
I am going to guess that if Donald is crazy enough to prompt a full Democratic sweep of Senate seats in the election, he’d already be at the point where enough Republicans see that turning on Trump is a form of self-preservation that he could be impeached. I don’t think that there are that many actual MAGA cult members in the Senate that would jump on a political grenade for him.
The only times we see Republican Senators and Congressmen disagree with el donald so far, they are leaving politics for one reason or another. The way to get more may be a split in the party. If the MAGA’s go one way and the sane people go the other, politicians can jump to the sane branch and keep their careers as they disagree with him.
The Republican party will not split due to Trump. If that were going to happen, it’d have been back in 2017 or thereabouts. It didn’t happen because there just aren’t enough non-MAGA Republicans to make up a decent-sized party.
Not true. They defied him en masse in regards to releasing the Epstein Files. They’re only loyal to Trump as long as they think it is in their best interests.
Obviously, they usually think it’s in their best interest to do what he wants.
The mass of Republicans didn’t vote for the release until Trump gave the green light after a tiny group of defectors gave the Democrats a majority on the vote. That group was led by MTG who was quickly shown the door in the aftermath.
There were reportedly “dozens” of them; and all of them are gone now? That doesn’t seem right. They had a veto-proof majority, which required more than a “tiny group”. I don’t think you’re remembering it accurately.
But at least some on the right appear undeterred. On ABC’s This Week on Sunday morning, Massie said he expects “a deluge of Republicans” to vote for the bill, adding, “There could be 100 or more.” (On NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, Khanna offered a more conservative estimate, of at least 40 Republicans he expects to vote in support of the bill.)
There was a tiny majority who defected to force a vote, true, but once the vote was coming enough Republicans were planning to vote in favor of the bill in defiance of Trump that he could not veto it. Rather than look like he had lost control of Republicans (which he had) he suddenly said he was in favor in an attempt to save face. After that, it was nearly unanimous (with a single Republican holdout who still voted against).
So no, it wasn’t a tiny group and they’re not all gone. There was at least one issue that Republicans were willing to defy him on.
If they see their constituents turning against el donald, the political calculations could change. If they find strength in numbers, there could even be a snowball effect. We saw that in the case of the Epstein files.
Let’s give the voters some credit. It could happen. It will need to be before the orange one can consolidate his power enough to cancel elections or shut down congress.
I also acknowledge that the Epstein files act was one unique situation. It doesn’t indicate a trend. I don’t see it as a sign of anything except for the fact that it’s possible for them to defy him. I don’t see it as meaning that they’re likely to do it again.
But as you said, if they see something that endangers their own political careers, they very well may (and most probably will) act in a way that serves themselves, not Trump.
