Featured image

Anthony Adragna, “The powerful weapon House Republicans handed Democrats,” Politico:

“Democrats eager to investigate the Trump administration if they seize the House would have the GOP to thank for one of their most potent tools — a sweeping subpoena authority that Democratic lawmakers denounced as an abusive power grab three years ago.”

Nicholas Fandos, Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Catie Edmondson, “Meet the Would-Be House Committee Leaders Who Could Torment Trump,” New York Times:

“But if the Democrats take the House on Nov. 6, they will assume control of two of the most powerful tools in Washington: gavels and subpoenas.The committee chairmen and women in waiting are mostly over 65 and considerably more diverse than the Republicans they would replace. They could become household names.”

Denis Slattery, “New York lawmakers poised for powerful positions if Democrats take control of House of Representatives,” New York Daily News:

“Democrats from the Big Apple are looking to restore a sense of balance in the Beltway — should their party win control of the House next week. Lawmakers from the Empire State are prepared to hold the Trump administration accountable and make a push for progressive legislation in the increasingly likely event that they find themselves in the majority after the midterms.”

Nicholas Fandos, “To the Center or the Right? What 2 More Years of a Republican-Led House Might Look Like,” New York Times:

“Continued Republican control would defy historical odds and the expectations of both parties. But if they maintain their grip, Republicans would claim a conservative mandate to cut taxes, chip away at the Affordable Care Act and shrink federal spending. Further down the list: giving President Trump some bipartisan legislative accomplishments ahead of his 2020 re-election campaign.”

Griffin Connolly, “Beneath the Politics, House GOP Quietly Touts Legitimate Oversight of FBI, DOJ,” Roll Call:

“The high-profile joint House Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform probe into bias at the top echelons of the FBI and Department of Justice during 2016 has been marked by pitched partisanship that has distracted from the substance of lawmakers’ oversight goals — at least publicly.”

Rachel Bade and John Bresnahan, “House Republicans ready quick leadership elections,” Politico:

“Senior House Republicans have tentatively scheduled leadership elections for the week after the midterms, a quick turnaround that favors the current leadership structure. House Republicans are eyeing Nov. 14 for leadership elections, according to three senior Republican sources familiar with the schedule.”

Matthew Green, “What Pelosi’s defenders miss,” Mischiefs of Faction:

“In fact, their grievances are rooted in two central goals of lawmakers: winning election and exercising influence in the legislature. How Pelosi’s leadership intersects with those goals helps explain anti-Pelosi sentiment among certain members of her party, and why many Democratic candidates are noncommittal about supporting her as leader.”

Emma Dumain, “If Jim Clyburn is going to move up in the party, he’ll need these allies to help him,” McClatchy:

“To ascend to one of the top two House Democratic leadership slots next year, Rep. Jim Clyburn needs to attract lawmakers like Rep. Ro Khanna. Khanna — an Indian-American freshman Democrat from California and proudly liberal — didn’t know much about the South Carolina Democrat until mid-October, when the two men toured Historically Black Colleges and Universities around Clyburn’s district.”

Jonathan Miller, “The Last of the Gingrich Revolutionaries,” Roll Call:

“But those 73 new Republicans who came to the House and 11 who came to the Senate on the 1994 wave engineered by Georgia Republican Newt Gingrich and his “Contract with America” have now dwindled down to a handful, and after this election only seven will likely be left in Congress.”

Alex Gangitano, “Back to the Swamp: Some Former Members Are Itching to Return,” Roll Call:

“Despite the turmoil, a handful of former lawmakers are itching to return to the proverbial D.C. swamp.”

Lee Drutman, “To Fix Congress, Make It Bigger. Much Bigger,” Washington Monthly:

“It’s mostly forgotten today, but Congress originally sent twelve of James Madison’s proposed constitutional amendments to the states for ratification; the ten that were ratified are what we now call the Bill of Rights. If all twelve had gotten through, the U.S. House of Representatives today might be at about 6,000 members, instead of 435.”

Mike DeBonis, “Job No. 1 for a Democratic House? A sweeping good-government bill, groups say,” Washington Post:

“Democratic Party leaders are under pressure from a broad coalition of liberal groups to make a sweeping government-overhaul bill their first order of business in January if the party wins a House majority.”

Nicholas Fandos, “First Up if Democrats Win: Campaign and Ethics Changes, Infrastructure and Drug Prices,” New York Times:

“Democrats would use their first month in the House majority to advance sweeping changes to future campaign and ethics laws, requiring the disclosure of shadowy political donors, outlawing the gerrymandering of congressional districts and restoring key enforcement provisions to the Voting Rights Act, top Democratic leaders said on Tuesday.”

Lindsey McPherson, “As House Republicans Brace for Losses, Freedom Caucus Prepares for Growth,” Roll Call:

“The House Freedom Caucus, considered the most conservative bloc of Republicans in Congress, is expecting to increase its roster of 35 members to somewhere in the 37-to-40 range, based on the number of incumbent and recruited candidates they predict could lose Tuesday.”

Rep. Steve Womack, “Joint Select Committee on Budget and Appropriations Process Reform shows bipartisanship can still work in Congress,” The Hill:

“Although comprised of a diversity of political thought, the members of the Joint Select Committee have clearly shared a common goal since being given our charge: producing recommendations that meaningfully improve the congressional budget and appropriations process rather than offering prescriptions for specific budgetary outcomes that benefit one party. We have found value in compromise and collaboration and believe that no matter who holds a majority in either Chamber, our budgetary framework should encourage, if not ensure our success.”

Molly E. Reynolds, “Even the perceived threat of a primary alters behavior in Congress,” Brookings:

“Kamarck and Wallner argue that members of Congress may act as if they will face a primary challenger even if that is not especially likely to happen and, if it does, that the challenger is not particularly likely to win. They outline how existing work in political science explains why legislators might do this, and they draw on interviews with current and former members to explore how exactly they adjust their behavior out of fear of being primaried.”

Jonathan Bernstein, “We Need Younger Senate Candidates,” Bloomberg:

“Take this year. The 14 people most likely to be new senators? Their average age, come January, will be 58. There are as many candidates born in the 1940s (Utah’s Mitt Romney and Tennessee’s Phil Bredesen) as there are born in the 1970s (Missouri’s Josh Hawley and Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema). Half of them are over 60, meaning they’ll be at least 66 when the term they’re running for expires.”

Alexander Hertel-Fernandez, Matto Mildenberger and Leah C. Stokes, “Congress Has No Clue What Americans Want,” New York Times:

“Whether the Democrats or the Republicans seize control of Congress after the midterms, you can be sure of one thing: They will have very little idea what laws the public actually wants them to act on.”

Jessica Mendoza, “In Congress, the representatives who don’t see ‘compromise’ as a dirty word,” CSM:

“The Problem Solvers Caucus is made up of 48 members, 24 from each major party, who’ve vowed to counteract gridlock in the House of Representatives. Their big idea: to reform the system so that members have to both work with colleagues across the aisle and vote on compromise legislation.”

David Blankenhorn, “The Top 14 Causes of Political Polarization,” The American Interest:

“Why do Americans increasingly believe that those in the other party are not only misguided, but are also bad people whose views are so dangerously wrong-headed and crazy as to be all but incomprehensible? What has created what Arthur Brooks in his forthcoming book calls a “culture of contempt” in American politics and public life?”

Filed Under:
Topics: Other
Marian Currinder
Marian Currinder is a senior fellow with the R Street Institute’s Governance Project and editor of LegBranch.org. Marian previously served as senio...