Merged 2026 Mid-Term election outcomes: US Congress

[Andy_Ross]

Reporter: To voters who are confused about the changing maps, the changing dates, and to African Americans concerned that this is going to draw black members of congress off the map, what do you say?

Trump: Well, I think it's been a wonderful process

 

[TragicMonkey]

Well first of all, even if those 'crazy rulings' might occur more frequently, some people might find it acceptable as long as the 'crazy rulings' are going in their favor.

I mean, would it really upset anyone here if the term limits allowed a bunch of pro-choice judges on the supreme court who re-established abortion rights?

And then a year later there's a change in justices and abortion gets outlawed again. Then two years later it's back on. Then off. Then on. Then off. Then on.

 

[Segnosaur]

And then a year later there's a change in justices and abortion gets outlawed again. Then two years later it's back on. Then off. Then on. Then off. Then on.

Is that any worse than "abortion is outlawed now. And it will remain outlawed because of the 3 judges appointed by a racist con artist who got Russian help to get elected will stay on the bench for the next 4 decades"?

 

[Resume]

Reporter: To voters who are confused about the changing maps, the changing dates, and to African Americans concerned that this is going to draw black members of congress off the map, what do you say?

Trump: Well, I think it's been a wonderful process

Well of course he thinks so.

 

[Resume]

Yeah, they're gonna ◊◊◊◊ it.

President Trump does not rule out sending National Guard or ICE to polling locations:

I'd do anything necessary to make sure we have honest elections.

We all know what he and the magats mean by honest.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Set up a permanent pool of justices eligible for the SC. Maybe 200 names? Select replacement SC justices from this pool by public lottery. Every time an SC justices retires, is fired, terms out, or dies, a replacement is chosen by chance. Refill the pool each time.

Fixed terms for SC justices, 10 years sounds good. Some form of strong and binding ethics applied, particularly financial openness, demonstrated non-corruption, and clarity of political connections. The ability for SC justices to be charged, tried and removed for ethics and other infringements should be made easier and clarified. The ability for the SC to invoke law enforcement to enforce their rulings needs to be included.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Set up a permanent pool of justices eligible for the SC. Maybe 200 names? Select replacement SC justices from this pool by public lottery. Every time an SC justices retires, is fired, terms out, or dies, a replacement is chosen by chance. Refill the pool each time.

Fixed terms for SC justices, 10 years sounds good. Some form of strong and binding ethics applied, particularly financial openness, demonstrated non-corruption, and clarity of political connections. The ability for SC justices to be charged, tried and removed for ethics and other infringements should be made easier and clarified. The ability for the SC to invoke law enforcement to enforce their rulings needs to be included.

Sounds pretty sensible, so we can rule that option out.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Nick Sortor
@nicksortor
BREAKING — ANOTHER REDISTRICTING WIN FOR REPUBLICANS: The Missouri Supreme Court has just given the GREEN LIGHT to implement their new map for the 2026 election

Republicans are set to GAIN a seat in Congress, with a 7R-1D map

SO. MUCH. WINNING!

 

[Mongrel]

Set up a permanent pool of justices eligible for the SC. Maybe 200 names?

I think some rules like the UK uses for selecting Justices for our Supreme Court would probably help as well. They require proven service & qualifications and they picks are overseen by the President of an independent body

 

[steenkh]

Set up a permanent pool of justices eligible for the SC. Maybe 200 names? Select replacement SC justices from this pool by public lottery. Every time an SC justices retires, is fired, terms out, or dies, a replacement is chosen by chance. Refill the pool each time.

Good idea.
I have another one: set an age limit of about 90 years. SC justices must be above that age. This'll ensure regular replacements.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Good idea.
I have another one: set an age limit of about 90 years. SC justices must be above that age. This'll ensure regular replacements.

BELOW that age, surely.

Also, review and refresh the pool annually. Pool members may have aged out, died, retired, become too unwell, decided not to serve, become citizens of another country, or "become involuntarily unqualified"...in a jail cell or a mental health facility, etc. Plenty of reasons they are out of the game.

 

[Segnosaur]

Set up a permanent pool of justices eligible for the SC. Maybe 200 names? Select replacement SC justices from this pool by public lottery. Every time an SC justices retires, is fired, terms out, or dies, a replacement is chosen by chance. Refill the pool each time.

Personally I'd go for more of a "hunger games" selection criteria myself...

Open battle royal (with weapons), all televised, with the winner becoming a supreme court justice.

The only real way to see just how truly dedicated they are to the job.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Nick Sortor
@nicksortor
BREAKING — ANOTHER REDISTRICTING WIN FOR REPUBLICANS: The Missouri Supreme Court has just given the GREEN LIGHT to implement their new map for the 2026 election

Republicans are set to GAIN a seat in Congress, with a 7R-1D map

SO. MUCH. WINNING!

It is so much easier to win when you control the referees.

 

[Donal]

So, they gain 1 seat Missouri by giving up 2 seats in Texas?

 

[dudalb]

I would have Ten years terms on the court rather then lifetime terms.

 

[dudalb]

And the Democrats chances of taking over the Senate just got a little better with what happened in Texas.
Comyn would have been a shooin, but now it;s a real fight with the baggage loaded Paxton. And I have a feeling even more crap about Paxton is going to come in light before NOvember.

 

[Donal]

Does it matter? The "reasonable Republicans" who say they will not vote for Paxton because they find him distasteful are still going to vote for him. They hate the other side more than anything. If Texas flips, the Democrats are all but guaranteed control of the Senate.

 

[kookbreaker]

Does it matter? The "reasonable Republicans" who say they will not vote for Paxton because they find him distasteful are still going to vote for him. They hate the other side more than anything. If Texas flips, the Democrats are all but guaranteed control of the Senate.

The genuine hope is not that Republicans will suddenly start voting for Democrats. The hope is that they will be discouraged enough to stay home and not vote.

 

[Donal]

That's what I'm saying, though. They won't stay home. They'll still vote for for corrupt, morally vacuous, intellectually stunted scumbags like Paxton because they hate Democrats that much. I'm not talking about the koolaid drinking MAGA types. I mean the "moderates". The ones the Democrats constantly try to appease but never show up.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

If Texas flips, the Democrats are all but guaranteed control of the Senate.

To control the Senate, the Democrats would have to flip Texas, hold onto Michigan, flip North Carolina and Maine, and also flip at least one other state. Ohio? Iowa? Montana?

Their best chance of flipping that fourth seat, in my opinion, is to flip Alaska (Mary Peltola) or for a moderate independent to win in Nebraska (Dan Osborn) and caucus with the Democrats.