In a year of unprecedented turmoil in Washington, DC, a few games are making their rounds the halls of Congress.
The White House is home to some of the most important political and military decisions in the world, and yet for some reason, its the first thing that seems to get left out of the picture.
That’s right: the US House of Representatives.
That means it’s the only place where the president can actually get to know members of Congress, and even less the only part of the world where that sort of thing can happen.
We’ve covered the Senate, the House, and the president’s executive orders and sanctions before, so this is hardly new territory for the political game.
But this time around, it’s not because the US is more of a party than the House or Senate, but because it’s a different game entirely.
In a recent piece for The Washington Post, writer Dan Balz explored how the game has changed the way presidents can interact with members of their own party, with members who are more likely to be up for reelection next year.
The result is that the White Houses of the House and Senate are now more alike than they used to be, Balz writes.
The problem is that Congressmen and women are now the only two members of the Whitehouse who can see the president as their friend.
The game is not a game at all.
There are real political implications to the new arrangement.
The new rules make it easier for politicians to get away with using power in ways that might be politically unpalatable.
It’s not like a President Trump is going to go to war over an issue.
Congressmen aren’t going to be the ones to call a press conference about an issue like healthcare, or to go into battle over something like climate change.
Instead, they’ll get a briefing from the National Security Council or from the Pentagon.
That, in turn, will be relayed to the WhiteHouse staff, who can then take notes and pass them along to the President.
It means that there’s less pressure on members of congress to make policy, and less pressure to keep their mouths shut.
The only real way for members of your own party to see the President is to talk to him.
“I’ve never met a member of Congress that doesn’t like him,” House Speaker Paul Ryan said.
“And he’s very good at what he does.”
As the political landscape in the US has changed, so have the ways in which political parties interact.
And that’s not a bad thing.
“It’s a good thing that we have the power to make our voices heard and to be heard,” Rep. Chris Smith, a Republican from New Jersey who has served in the House since 1993, told The Washington Times.
“But it’s also a bad idea that we are trying to do that by having a group of people sitting in a room, in the White house, that are not going to talk.”
The changes to the way congressmen can interact will come to a head in 2018, as lawmakers look to reelect their party’s top elected officials.
That includes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democratic lawmaker from California.
In her post-House term, she will face a crowded field of challengers in her bid to become the next Speaker of the house.
The Washington Examiner has already covered a few of the possible candidates, and Politico’s Aaron Blake has a good rundown of the three Democrats who could be in the running for the Speaker post: New York Democrat Rep. Brad Sherman, Massachusetts Democrat Rep, Martha Coakley, and California Republican Rep. Xavier Becerra.
And the first real test for the race will be in 2020, when the new Senate map is up for grabs.
The current map, which includes California, Alaska, and Montana, allows only the top two candidates from each party to run in the general election.
The other two, California’s Kamala Harris and Nevada’s Catherine Cortez Masto, will face off against each other in a head-to-head primary.
So, if the race for the seat is between Harris and Cortez, Harris could easily lose to Cortez.
But the two would still be able to run a campaign, which would give them an opportunity to highlight their differences.
In 2020, however, the Democrats could face an uphill battle.
“We’re going to have to see how long it takes for the field to consolidate and the field coalesce around a candidate,” said Adam Jentleson, a political science professor at the University of California at Berkeley.
“The field coalesces around the candidates they think they can win, and then the candidates coalesce in the primary.”
Theoretically, this would give the Democrats a slight advantage.
Theoretally, this could help.
But in reality, it could make it difficult for Harris to overcome her primary challenges.
“If the race really