This is interesting, it may effect the midterms much more than the evacuation of Afghanistan which I think will be short term. This may have lasting repercussions, election wise for the midterms, that is.

Deeply Divided, House Democrats Battle Over Priorities and Politics

https://www.yahoo.com/news/deeply-divided-house-democrats-battle-165019605.html

I'm looking at this from the upcoming midterm elections. The in-fighting, every party goes through that from time to time. That doesn't bother me much. What does is that progressives are trying to primary out incumbents, a lot of incumbents that won in swing and republican leaning districts because their rhetoric or ideology were suited more to those districts than a progressive challenger who isn't an incumbent would be.

An open seat is much easier to switch than beating an incumbent. I don't have an accurate rating for the house as to seats won or lost and won't have until redistrcting is completed. But it doesn't take a political rocket scientist to figure out keeping as many incumbents as possible to run next Nov increases your odds of keeping the house. Having no incumbent, makes losing that district much easier especially if the challenger doesn't match the districts ideology or partisan bent.

Of course I'm talking elections, chances of winning and losing elections with little thought to political ideology or agenda. The only realistic numbers we have to go by with the house without redistricting is the generic congressional ballot. The question is who would you vote for in the coming midterms in Nov 2022, the republican candidate or the democratic candidate? This is nationally, nationwide without regards to districts. Since 1 Aug I have seen the generic congressional ballot go from a plus 7 democratic, 48-41 down to a plus 1 today, 47-46 Democratic. Not good news for the Democrats, although I figure Afghanistan has a lot to do with the GOP rise. Especially among independents, swing voters, non-affiliated etc.

Throw in Democratic House retirements meaning open seats, add some Democratic incumbents being primaried out, the closing of the generic ballot, you're probably looking at a 15-20 seat loss in the house. That is as of today. But that isn't set in concrete. The concrete hasn't begun to dry yet, heck, the concrete hasn't been poured yet and won't be until redistricting is completed.

For someone who looks at these things from an election perspective, who studies independents, swing voters intensely. Primaring out incumbents who give you the best chance of retaining the house and winning elections is rather stupid. At least to me.

Of course, all of this may mean nothing a couple of months down the road, the Democrats could have patched up their differences and let a bit of political common sense when it comes to winning election come to the forefront. Then again, maybe not. I've seen both parties choose candidates solely based on ideology that have no chance at winning the district or state in the general election, not much surprised me anymore. We'll see.

It's high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first instead of their political party. For way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.