That's not what the article said. Read the next paragraph. They vote to let it go to the floor where they plan to vote against it there

Voting to print the bill means we have the chance to debate it, challenge it, and vote against it on the record with our colleagues

States laws will matter a hell of a lot. When roe was overturned things immediately fell to the states. That's the most likely way the court would overturn gay marriage should they go for it

In terms of trans rights that is unfortunately more true lately, yes, though historically any transphobic dems have lost their primaries. We can and should challenge there again

Nope, they are already talking about finding a dem to fill the seat

https://xcancel.com/wvdemocrats/status/1877091928430219490

Story's main headline doesn't really capture the gist very well, and this post gave a much better summary

I added the direct link of the story to the body

They are already pointing out how it's a distraction. The media just gives all the preference towards hearing Trump, so you didn't hear them calling him out

Everyday Americans are fed up with the high cost of living.

Stop the foolishness about Greenland, Panama or the Gulf of Mexico.

Let’s solve the problems that matter.

https://bsky.app/profile/hakeem-jeffries.bsky.social/post/3lfasm4akss2c

What does renaming the Gulf of Mexico have to do with lowering the cost of living in America?

Absolutely nothing.

https://bsky.app/profile/hakeem-jeffries.bsky.social/post/3lf66dkh2uc24

No, people didn't vote for policy here. They voted for a person

I mean Project 2025 only had a 4% approval (and a 57% disapproval rating) but obviously that wasn't reflected in how people voted

People really did believe his lies that he wouldn't do that kind of stuff

Don't assume it's universally true on all issues. Horrible people can randomly turn out to care on random issues you'd never think they would even if they're horrible 95% of the time. Or maybe can be convinced because of selfish reasons

Maybe you are, but the media tends to only hold on to a few things at a time. He wants to make it his stupid things like "Gulf of America" instead of "Gulf of Mexico" take up that spot. Not his insane pick for departments, not his plans for cutting social security, etc.

Authoritarian leaders do this all the time. They'll even use it to hide their actual expansionist plans. They'll threaten all kinds of people that they have no real intention of doing anything to so that actual military movments are drowned out as just noise

We have to be much more strategic about when we raise hell otherwise you'll appear to be the boy who cried wolf and won't be taken seriously. We can't be at defcon 1 at all times or it loses all meaning

If you focus on every single one as gospel you'll be tripped up both ways. He is a walking contradiction of statements

In his first term he told North Korea there'd be "fire and fury like the world has never seen" and then the next minute was cosying up to him in a summit

He says anything and everything. He is certainly expansionist don't get me wrong, but focusing on individual statements will lose you the picture of where he is serious and where he isn't

Focus on who he appointments, what actions they take, what executive orders he signs, what he does with the military, etc.

None of this is new. Trump repeatedly brought up buying greenland during the first term when it was a suitable distraction from some other issue

Focus more on his actions, less on his words. If you focus only on his words you'll miss the bigger picture and miss what he really intends to do

The title of the article is clickbait/ragebait. The actual article content is a little different. The gist of it is more so this:

In place of capping the out-of-pocket cost of just insulin, lawmakers should cap the out-of-pocket cost of all diabetes medications.

https://archive.is/tvVHP

Headline writters are often/usually different people than the person who wrote the article leading to infuriating things like this

Calling your senators is one simple place to start

Indivisible has some listed if you want something more focused

https://indivisible.org/take-action-now

Elections are not run federally, they are run by each state which makes it harder for Republicans to be as aggressive as they'd like to be

Mind you they lost a US house seat this cycle even with Trump winning. They have just a 3 seat majority. They would need a gain of +70 seats in the house in a midterm environment to get to 2/3

On the senate side, Republicans would need to pick up 12(!) seats to get 2/3. In the 2026 map, that's extraordinarily difficult and would require winning extremely deep blue seats. 66 senators is a lot. They would have to win literally every single senate seat up for election in 2026

Assuming they win all the solid red + lean red seats, they would need to defend both senators in North Carolina and Maine to keep 53. Then they'd have to flip the tossups of Michigan and Georgia to get to 55. Then the lean blue Minnesota senate seat to get to 56.

Then the very likely blue seats of New Mexico, Virginia, Colorado, and New Hampshire to get to 60. Then to get to 66, they would need to win the safe blue states of Oregon, Illinois, New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, and Rhode Island to get 66

Midterms are usually very unfavorable to the party in power. Even with more stringent voter laws, that would be a tall ask. Flipping safe blue senate senates where dems have state and local control would be insane

And you'd have to flip a large number of state legislature in deep blue states too