I’m not even going to TRY to list out all 435 House Races, but let’s keep the discussion on that here.

Google election results is showing:

214 R / 205 D with 218 needed for majority. We likely won’t know the full result for several days.

16 races left to call.

CA 9 - Leaning Democratic
CA 21 - Leaning Democratic
CA 27 - Leaning Democratic
CA 39 - Called for the Democrat.
CA 47 - Leaning Democratic
CA 49 - Leaning Democratic
LA 6 - Called for the Democrat.
ME 2 - Leaning Democratic
OH 9 - Leaning Democratic
OR 5 - Leaning Democratic - Called by local media.

AK 1 - Leaning Republican
AZ 6 - Leaning Republican
CA 13 - Leaning Republican
CA 22 - Leaning Republican
CA 41 - Leaning Republican
CA 45 - Leaning Republican
IA 1 - Leaning Republican
WA 5 - Leaning Republican

Looks like it’s going to end up 213 D to 222 R

Particularly notable will be any flips from D to R or R to D.

Currently, the makeup of the House is:

https://pressgallery.house.gov/member-data/party-breakdown

220 Republicans
212 Democrats
3 Vacancies

Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) resigned effective 04/25/2024.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) died 07/19/2024.

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) died 08/21/2024.

If the Republicans lose just 5 seats, control will flip from them, back to the Democrats with a majority of 217 to 215. Not even counting the three vacancies.

    • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      19·
      9 days ago

      With Republican obstructionism, the only way for Democrats to get anything done is to control the House, the Senate, and presidency. Without all three, Democrats will have an ineffective government that is incapable of passing laws to solve problems.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ8psP4S6BQ

      There are limits to executive orders but they have their uses and a cool song too!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUDSeb2zHQ0&t=7s

      • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
        7·
        8 days ago

        With Republican obstructionism, the only way for Democrats to get anything done is to control the House, the Senate, and presidency.

        Actually, the Democrats would need more than just to control the Senate. They need 60 seats or they need to throw out the filibuster rule. Without one or the other, a single Republican senator can pretty much tank any legislation.

        • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          8·
          8 days ago

          That is correct. The Democrats need to get rid of the filibuster, since it’s unlikely for them to get 60 seats. It is another mechanism in our government that perpetuates minority rule. Another reason why we need to vote Blue in record numbers.

            • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
              4·
              8 days ago

              https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/01/fact-check-gop-ended-senate-filibuster-supreme-court-nominees/3573369001/

              Democrats lowered the voting threshold from 60 to 51 for most presidential nominees, but not Supreme Court nominees, when Republicans tried to debilitate the Obama administration by obstructing his cabinet picks.

              Republicans lowered the voting threshold from 60 to 51 for confirming Supreme Court nominees when the filibuster got in their way. Republicans are bad faith actors who only care about power. No amount of a safe guards will tie the hands of bad faith actors when they are in power. If Republicans take power, they will get rid of the filibuster as soon as it is convenient for them to pass legislation.

              All the filibuster does is entrench minority rule even further. It makes Democrats need a supermajority when they were already representing over 41 million more voters in the Senate in 2021.

              https://www.vox.com/2021/1/6/22215728/senate-anti-democratic-one-number-raphael-warnock-jon-ossoff-georgia-runoffs

              41,549,808.

              • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
                22·
                8 days ago

                My point is that removing the filibuster means that the minority party, which will inevitably include the democrats, have a much harder time doing anything to stop the majority. That may seem great when you’re imagining Obama, Biden, or Harris. But when it’s Trump and whoever follows him, your desire to give the party in power even more power might seem less ideal. That’s a lesson the democrats learned the hard way when they opened the door to removing the filibuster. They got some cabinet positions. Republicans took the supreme court. Play stupid games…

                You can dither about the structure of the senate and it’s equality-of-states construction, but that is what was intended when it was created. What you seem to actually want is to abolish the concept of senate itself.

                • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
                  4·
                  8 days ago

                  Republicans are bad faith actors. They will remove the filibuster whether Democrats do it or not. The Republican’s intention is to form a christo-fascist dictatorship.

                  Our society is in need of systemic change and wealth redistribution. The time to act is now to prevent the worst outcomes of climate change.

                  All you need to change the filibuster is a majority of votes. There is no “they did it first clause” in the Constitution. That’s a post hoc justification for sound bites.

                  • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
                    22·
                    8 days ago

                    And removing the filibuster will serve the christo-fascist agenda just as well as anything else. You can try to hand-wave it away and act like I’m pointing this out for the “sound bites” (?), but it’s simply a fact. Perhaps you should look around. Half the country fully supports those christo-fascists, and they seem a lot more armed, a lot more organized, a lot more politically entrenched, and a lot more strategic. You’re right, they will probably remove the filibuster when they get in power, and you’ll get your wish.