Normally, two years after the presidential election, the makeup of the House and Senate backs away from the party that wins the White House. But this time, in 2018, I’m wondering about the influence of Bernie Sanders and whether he can push it in the opposite direction – in this case, to the left.

Put another way, he’s enough of a veteran of the hardball politics to know you win some and lose some; it’s all about averages. This time, though, if the Democratic Party captures the political center, as it’s poised to do, the opportunity may be to push left in two years for that shift in some districts, rather than right, in reaction to White House positions and some inevitable voter disappointment.

Much would depend on Bernie’s ability to harness the enthusiastic youth from his primary campaign for local and regional races, as well as U.S. House and Senate drives. Achieving his progressive promises requires majorities in both halves of Congress, rather than the obstructionism of the Republicans during the Obama administrations in the aftermath of disastrous low voter turnout.

Call them Green Democrats, if you will, but they could be Bernie’s biggest legacy, with more clout than if he’d won the presidency.

The thought alone is tantalizing, even if the work ahead proves daunting.

A parallel development in other districts might be the emergence of centrist Democrats, which is fine by me. The national party, Republican or Democrat, is ultimately a coalition, state by state. I’m all for increasing a diversity of representation, meaning the people rather than the One Percent Citizens United.

As the Donald J. Trump campaign illuminates the deep fissures in the Republic Party itself, the questions of the party’s future run rife.

Is its “tea party” movement dead, a victim of being bought out by big money? Can the conservatives continue to coexist with libertarians, and the other way around? Where would the vitriolic Trump core go? What about the Establishment wings of Wall Street money or Main Street businessmen, each of them of a pragmatic streak? Can any of the factions emerging from the Republican Party move to the moderate center where the independent voters cluster? Who would be welcomed and who would be scorned? We’re seeing how Trump despises everyone but aging white males – and like it or not, he’s the voice and the face of the party.

I had thought the Libertarian Party would have made more inroads than it has in the current climate, but I’m sensing that for many disenchanted Republicans, the pro-choice stance has to be a deal-breaker. Could be, too, Gary Johnson’s just too hippie for staid traditionalists of the Romney-Bush-Huckabee mold.

Step back, though, and you’ll see another dividing line running through each of the party’s constituencies. Any question of realignment would have to rest on the abortion issue.

It’s enough to make you wonder just what’s been holding them together, isn’t it? Or if there’s enough commonality to continue.

I’ve previously posted about my belief that the Electoral College should be abolished. My primary reason is that the archaic institution makes possible the election of a U.S. president by a mere 25 percent of the voters, at least in theory. All it would take is winning 50 percent of the ballots plus one in states representing a tad over 50 percent of the population – and that’s in a two-way race. This time around, with four nominees to choose from, the popular vote could be far less.

The Electoral College also creates an outsized importance for the 11 biggest states: California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, and New Jersey. Win them all and you’re the next president.  If you’re following the news these days, you see how that strategy is unfolding.

The existence of the Electoral College is casting other shadows across the current election season. Quite simply, it rigs the contest against third-party nominees and, as a consequence, reinforces the existing two-party system.

How is that? Well, unless a third-party candidate can carry a state, his or her popular votes simply disappear in the Electoral College results. And that’s for starters. In the unlikely event a third-party could drain off enough Electoral College votes to force the decision to be rendered by the U.S. House of Representatives, we can assume the outcome would reflect the majority party there. In this case, the party of Speaker Paul Ryan.

Rely instead on the popular vote and you automatically remove the House from consideration. You might also get a fairer representation of those votes over a majority in the biggest states, especially – under the current system, they’re essentially superfluous.

Third-party campaigns might find it easier to appeal to voters who would otherwise back the loser in a two-way race – especially if they might expect their selection to add to victories in other states in the final tally. It’s a long shot, I know, but it might foster some realignment in a situation like the one we’re facing.

For now, I’m seeing the Electoral College as a wall holding the major parties upright.

I keep reflecting on a blog posting by a woman who admitted backing Trump, not because she thought he could do anything to help her but simply because she wanted to say to hell with everyone and everything else. Whatever had caused her to wind up where she is in life, she’s blaming the rest of us and hoping to take us down into the depths with her. If only she could see how much worse the consequences would be for her, too – or the fact we’d have absolutely no sympathy for her in the toxic aftermath.

I’m not so liberal to bail her out, believe me.

Has anyone else concluded Donald J. Trump doesn’t want to be president?

No, not quite the way we’ve been hearing from some quarters.

Rather, he wants to be czar?

Just look at all those Russian connections …

One of my criticisms of third parties in American politics is their targeting the top office in the land, rather than the steps that lead to it, and then running candidates with little or no experience in public office for the job.

A crucial part of that experience, we should note, comes in campaigning itself. Can a candidate deliver a consistent message, face the voters, manage a staff, build an organization, raise funds, face criticism? It’s all stuff that will be needed once in office when addressing the details of legislation and governmental budgeting and management.

Little did I expect the Republican Party to find itself taken hostage by this situation when Donald J. Trump captured the nomination. Put simply, his lack of experience is showing in what may be fatal ways.

Yes, the GOP is fielding a full slate of candidates, but it’s lost control at the top.

Trump is a first-timer with no previous political resume, apart from the bribes he made all along disguised as campaign donations. This morning’s New York Times tells of one consequence of those connections – New Jersey’s attempt to collect $30 million in overdue taxes from Trump’s failed casinos, at least until Chris Christie stepped in and reduced it to a $5 million settlement. Sound familiar? And that’s Trump’s “law and order” ideal? It’s more like picking the pocket of every man, woman, and child in the Garden State for $3 apiece. That, or just an extra tax burden for that amount. You can bet it’s hardly the only example of his mode of operation, as we’ll no doubt be reading in the weeks ahead.

It’s no way to run a government, for certain. Or, for that matter, a long-term business. And as for Trump, if we can believe his bravado, the $25 million would have been pocket change.

Is Trump the Chump a fitting label? You can see who picked up the debt.

~*~

The New Jersey story, mind you, is only No. 2 on the day’s Trump news cycle. The bigger report is on his latest campaign staff shakeup, demoting Paul Manafort and naming conservative website operator Steve Bannon as his drive’s CEO and promoting Kellyanne Conway as its manager. She’s expected to travel with him, whether to fire him up or keep him on a leash remains to be seen. As for experience in running a campaign? Bannon has none, while Conway’s been a Republican pollster. Neither, apparently, has done ground-level organization work.

The moves can be seen as a reaction for Trump to retool in a more focused and restrained manner – or else. As the Washington Post is reporting, Bannon had been urging Trump to ignore those who want him to tone it down. So you can expect the outrageous statements to escalate. Remember when Sarah Palin “went rogue”? Oh, my.

Trump’s response, then, is defiance, reflecting his inflexible nature and inability to adapt to challenges. Yes-men who tell the boss what he wants to hear are always a danger in an enterprise. “Iceberg? What iceberg?” as the mate would have told the captain of the Titanic.

As for the Republicans, the appointment of the controversial Bannon, known for his disgust at both parties, could be final straw. The GOP may have to cut and run after all. As I was saying about third parties? In addition, those party loyalists who have been sticking with Trump while hoping for something to improve may find they’ve waited too long to bail. How long will the stigma stick?

This is really getting messy. Who would have anticipated this plot line?