Let's not forget that the house is artificially capped [1]. It should have a much larger membership. The senate already biases towards land over people. And more and more the house does as well.

[1] https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1901-1950/Th...

The Senate represents sovereign states.

yes it does. The house does not.

The senate was always set up to artificially prop up smaller (by population) states. The House was not. But we've artificially capped the House. Now they both favor lower population states.

Those states would never have signed onto the constitution without the senate. It’s not ‘artificial’. It’s a core part of why the USA came to be.

Articles of confederation. This is also why the southern states were called the confederacy.

Why do you seem to believe anything I'm talking about involves the Senate mattering?

I've discussed how the House had its membership artificially capped roughly 150 years into this country's history

Because the senate does matter.

The system is setup to balance out two competing interests - the large cities (with large, concentrated populations) and the states (most of which are not so heavily populated, but have most of the land and resources).

It’s a compromise. And necessary for the Union to be balanced - unless Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Utah, etc. should now just become (defacto) vassals to Los Angeles. Which they definitely didn’t sign up for.

Again: why do you seem to think I don't understand how the senate works.

The senate works the way it does. The house is intended to be the chamber of the populace. Roughly 100 years ago we artificially limited the house of the commons. The senate never changed.

So why do you keep bringing up the senate?

I said why. Because if the house hadn’t of been capped, it would have thrown the entire system out of balance, and all but a handful of mega cities would control everything else.

That was never the deal. In fact, that was clearly not the deal.

And since those cities depend on the resources of those surrounding areas too, it can either be a symbiosis or a war.

The states had governed themselves for 150 years before the revolution (same age as USA in 1930s), they weren't going to give that up. Also overlooked is that the states had different religions and spoke different languages. We assume they were destined to unite only in retrospect and forget how improbable it actually was.

Democrats need a super-majority to swing either the House or Senate.

One can only hope for a blue tsunami for the midterms, though I'm not getting my hopes up.

I can't imagine why 2026 should be any different than 2024. He's doing exactly what he promised. Those who voted for him will still be in favor, at least compared to the alternative. Voters who stayed home will still see no difference between the parties.

Yup. No one can claim ignorance the second time.

As a wise man once said "it's the economy stupid." If their actions tank the economy, which seems a distinct possibility, things could change drastically.

Only if they don’t find a suitable scapegoat in time. I still hear people blaming Biden.

As they should!

Everything you see around you was provided by Biden. Trump is only starting to make changes.

I’m pretty sure Biden had as little to do with gas (or Egg) prices as Trump has.

The President tends to get the praise or blame, no matter who actually did things. The Federal Reserve controls the money supply, and probably has more to do with inflation than anybody else.

Biden was producing lots of gas in the later part of his term!8-))

Cherry-picking!

Only possible if they reinvent themselves and dump as many 20/80 issues as possible.

Sure, but the whole idea of representative democracy (a Republic[1]) is supposed to be that Congress and other elected members of government are supposed to be immune from the trappings of mob rule.

In other words, the excuse you are making is that people voted for the government to start doing borderline illegal and at the very least highly misguided and self-destrctive things that are against the interest of their constituents, and that becaue the people want those dumbass destructive things the government should comply.

That logic only goes so far when we consider the context of th e very samegovernment that also denies the people things that are far more popular.

For example, 62% of Americans are in favor of universal healthcare, but we aren't getting that.

82% of Americans are in favor of paid maternity leave.

And yet, our lawmakers have not delivered to the American people those demands.

But here we all are implying that 51% of the country deciding they want to dismantle the US executive branch is enough public support to just go ahead and do so with impunity.

The 2024 Trump presidency is, believe it or not, already a historically unpopular administration by the objective polling numbers. Why should they get to dismantle the government with such a weak mandate?

Frankly, it's bullshit.

[1] This is coincidentally the excuse that every Republican I've ever met including my Fox News Dad makes for the electoral college and gerrymandered congressional districts amplifying rural MAGA votes so that states with majority Democrat constituents are ruled by Republican statehouses and so that Trump and Bush got to win presidential elections without winning the popular vote.

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” - H.L. Mencken

Elections matter.

Don’t think I’m a Trump Fan. I’ve been warning about this exact thing since before the first election. But people had to go and stick the butter knife in the wall socket anyway, and they clearly need to learn the hard way what happens.

What do you expect? A coup? I’m sure you know as well as anyone how that would go right now. Too few people are willing to believe what is actually happening right in front of them. And frankly, wouldn’t that just be being the enemy?