comment: >
  
  Republicans aren't going to lose their majority short of a bunch of them dying suddenly. The fractures in the Republican party over Trump's place in it between the MAGA crowd and centrists might throw a wrench in their ability to whip votes together, we're seeing that play out right now with the speaker of the house confirmation but since cross party compromise is basically impossible and they don't have a super majority, we probably weren't going to see a lot of legislative action coming from Congress anyway, except for your standard safe military budget increases, government funding bills, occasional reactions to market conditions, etc.
  The Supreme Court is a much more dangerous source of right wing power at the moment, although even they've been much more tame than the worst predictions would have had you believe.
context: Natural Causes: Something that surprised me is how often members of congress aren't able to complete their terms. Historically, ~2 Representatives die in office every year -way more than I realized. Such deaths are unlikely to occur in competitive swing districts, but with a majority of 3-4, temporarily losing just a single member could be devastating. >
  
  That's grim enough that it doesn't bear serious consideration.
  I'd much prefer a Grinch Who Stole Christmas ending where some conservatives are finally like "I'm tired of being a cynical shithead and ruining everything.  I'm getting old and I want to experience love and generosity and actual civic service before I die." >
  
  Unless the GOP has a lot of defections or they all catch a new strain of COVID and die en mass , the GOP will control the House until the end of 2024.   They will get nothing done over those two years but they will have control. >
  
  I mean, doing nothing is kinda the goal. The only thing they'd rather do than nothing is make things substantially worse for the country to give the party better odds in the next election >
  
  Affiliation Switching: Unlikely. Historically, while it's true that during the 25 congresses between 1947 and 1997, there were 20 party affiliation switches, I just don't see that happening in today's polarized political climate. >
  
  If the GOP rabies caucus shuts down the government for shits and giggles, even after juicy concessions from Democrats, then we might see a small number of GOP -> Independent defections. I don't think anyone in today's GOP will join the Democratic party, though. >
  
  Miscellaneous Moral Failings: Given the juggalo circus that is the current Republican Party, I think the most likely source of attrition would be some sort of zany scandal involving an overtly heinous act of despicable venality. More likely than not, there is another congressperson who is already following the Trump/Santos playbook of "rules don't apply to me". The question is, will they find out sometime between now and 2024 that touching the stove was a bad idea? >
  
  Isn't Gaetz already looking at charges for statutory rape and trafficking? Has that been shelved on the "we don't prosecute Republicans because we don't want to look partisan" principal? >
  
  I want to comment on 
  
  if Santos were to be investigated / indicted
  
  It’s not clear that a sitting member of Congress can be indicted while Congress is in session. The Constitution says:
  
  They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same
  
  I suppose if you take “felony” to encompass all felonies and he was indicted for a serious crime in the U.S., he would likely be arrested, but other than that, I don’t think it’s likely that he faces extradition or arrest in general during his term. >
  
  Why is Gaetz not behind bars
  Why is Jim Jordan still in Congress when we know he ignored the crimes a highschool coach who he knew was molesting boys, by saying yeah that's what he does. >
  
  Jan. 6th: Several sitting GOP members are under investigation for their role in the events of January 6th. While it may be partisan to say so, it's also an objective fact that several of these members should be removed for the sake of American democracy. Again, if only a single one is removed from office, this could have major implications. >
  
  This is the most plausible scenario. Though I’m no expert, it’s at least in theory a way in which several Rs could be kicked out of office. It’s a long shot, but less so than the other ones you’ve mentioned. >
  
  If the 14th Amendment were actually enforced.
  I don't know how many of the original 147 decided not to run again in 2022, but the vast majority are still in office, and every one should be barred from holding elected office for the rest of their lives. >
  
  This is an interesting question, but it's clear from OP's choices of words that there's a partisan fantasy element to them. If your concept of control of the chamber hinges around surprise deaths followed by upset special elections for example, those are just as likely to happen to Democrats between now and 2024 as they are to Republicans. >
  
  Yeah, the equal likelihood for Dems element was meant to be accounted for by the "very low chances" caveat. I just like to geek out over Sorkin-esque hypotheticals. Right now we've got Speaker votes being jeopardized by members' mothers dying and wives going into labor. It's all just so precarious! >
  
  Democrats Discussion going over how dems can retain power when in the minority and acting like they're doing everyone a favor is as expected as it is pathetic.