The first major legislative effort will be an ethics reform package that is expected to incorporate proposals for campaign finance reform, voting rights and ethics and accountability. The bill is still being drafted, but Democrats are expecting it to introduce it early in the new Congress. Other top priorities include infrastructure and reducing prescription drug prices. All of these topics theoretically have potential for bipartisan cooperation, although it remains to be seen whether that will actually come to fruition.

There are a half dozen House committees that have the power to investigate Trump—Intelligence, Oversight, Ways and Means, and Judiciary, among others. The chair of any committee—always a member of the majority party—has wide latitude to pursue investigations, issue subpoenas, and compel testimony… For many Democrats—and quite a few independents and even a few Republicans—this is a gleeful prospect. After two years of feeling powerless, they will see, for the first time, a sustained, powerful check on Trump’s power and a public investigation with teeth and tools.

Democrats will be tempted to use their new power in the House to take revenge on President Trump… This is a trap. For one thing, because impeachment requires the approval of two thirds of the Senate, which is staying in Republican hands, it’s highly unlikely they can get rid of Trump before the next presidential elections in 2020. And that is precisely what Democrats must focus on—the next race for the White House.

Democrats obviously want to win purple and red Senate seats, but they want to win them the way they just lost in Texas, with charisma and mobilization rather than with ideological compromise. So they’re left waiting, as before, for demography or a recession to deliver them that opportunity. Until it comes, we have two parties that in different ways seem content with their insufficient coalitions, and a country that needs a governing majority but will settle yet again for stalemate.

Currently, there are 111 vacancies in U.S. District Courts and 11 vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals. As of now, Trump has nominations pending on 48 of those district court spots and three of the appellate slots. Look for Trump to aggressively fill those remaining slots and for McConnell to work swiftly to confirm them. Without control of the House, the Senate won’t have the chance to enact much legislation, so McConnell can focus primarily on getting judges across the finish line.

Beyond the steady parade of district and appellate judges, Trump can also rest easy knowing a Republican majority awaits if he has another Supreme Court vacancy to fill. After McConnell succeeded in pushing through Brett Kavanaugh, it seems unlikely there’s anything that Democrats or the public could do to stop Trump from putting another justice on the high court.

Combative by nature, happier in a fight, the president may now have to choose between escalating the pitched conflict that has torn Washington apart in recent years and attempting the sort of reach-across-the-aisle conciliation that has rarely marked his presidency so far. After waging a divisive and racially charged campaign, Mr. Trump signaled in the days leading up to Tuesday’s vote that he may soften his tone going forward, although past nods toward bipartisanship have never lasted long.

Among the major issues where bipartisan agreement is possible, two stand out: an infrastructure package and addressing the rising cost of prescription drugs… Everyone seems to agree that we must find a way to repair and modernize our nation’s crumbling infrastructure. Year after year, Congress and the White House talk about doing something together on infrastructure, but then the idea stalls amid political bickering and concerns about funding. Don’t be surprised if Congress and President Trump revive such talk in 2019, with the possibility of finally finding a way to take that next step — enactment of a major infrastructure package.

The election results, a patchwork of disappointments and victories for both sides, paint a portrait of two parties in the process of realignment. Republicans, remaking themselves largely as the party of Trump, ran up big margins among rural voters and white men. That cost them suburban seats like the one held by GOP Rep. Barbara Comstock in the Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. She became the first Republican incumbent to lose early Tuesday evening; she was defeated by Democrat Jennifer Wexton.

The shoo-ins, who are all women of color, include Rashida Tlaib of Detroit and Ilhan Omar of Minneapolis, who are set to become the first Muslim women members of Congress; leftist rising star Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who shocked the political world with an upset primary win in Queens; and Ayanna Pressley, who won a majority-minority district in Boston from a longtime Democratic incumbent… they could wind up being harbingers of a Democratic Party that is much more divided over Israel policy in coming years, especially as the party moves to the left and elects more minority candidates, who tend to be more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.

The split between Israeli and American Jewish views of Trump is a microcosm of the deeper divisions among Jews as the midterms draw to a close. Which is more concerning: White nationalism or the BDS movement? Is Trump inciting bigotry, including against Jews, or is he the “best friend” Israel has ever had? What should be the community’s policy focus, especially following a tragedy?

…in a polarized era, on these and other issues, Jews appear to be taking sides.

We begin with an Oy, because of all the talk, some valid, some hysterical, about anti-Semitic undertones in these past election… Still, my proposed reverse headline ends with a Wow. Because of a record number of Jewish candidates that was running this time. Democratic and Republican, female and male, highly engaged Jewishly, barely engaged Jewishly, radical and centrist, pleasers and provocateurs, gays and straight, businessman and Navy commanders, Jews and half Jews, and spouses of Jews who raise Jewish children… How can we say Oy when Jews feel secured enough, liked enough, involved enough, to run and win in elections?

Growth challenges are already familiar ones in New York City and metropolitan Washington, D.C., where once-affordable neighborhoods have morphed into upmarket enclaves, and aging and overloaded transit systems create daily headaches for their millions of riders. Just as in San Francisco and Seattle, HQ2’s arrival could make them far worse. This doesn’t have to happen. HQ2 is an opportunity to do things differently. Amazon has an opportunity to forge a new approach, one where big tech is neither savior nor antagonist. Jeff Bezos and his leadership team can apply the strategic thinking that has made Amazon such an extraordinary company to the task of building a tech hub that encourages growth and widens opportunity.

The fear that Amazon would exacerbate gentrification in the New York and DC areas — both of which are suffering from homelessness crises and a lack of affordable housing — is not unfounded. A Zillow analysis found that rents in Seattle, home to Amazon’s main headquarters and more than 45,000 of its employees, increased by 31 percent between 2013 and 2018, and home values increased by nearly 73 percent during that same time frame. Rising housing costs have led to the displacement of low-income families in the Seattle area and has contributed to the city’s ongoing homelessness crisis.

The 50,000 promised jobs will be divided between two places, according to The Wall Street Journal. But it’s unclear if Amazon’s $5 billion investment will be split between the locations, if the two locations will be true equals and what that means for the incentive packages offered by cities… The two-city strategy also means Amazon can cherry pick the best aspects of each region it selects, such as tapping into two different talent pools. The Wall Street Journal reported the rationale behind selecting two cities is to recruit enough technical workers. Selecting two sites could also help Amazon skirt some of the responsibility for higher housing prices or more traffic occurring in those areas.

Critics get it wrong again! Having given the Queen biopic Bohemian Rhapsody a broadly unfavourable review last week, I’m braced for that accusation, now that the movie has been a huge hit… If you had asked me if Bohemian Rhapsody was going to be a hit, I would have said: “Yes, definitely.” One thing many critic-proof hits have in common is brand recognition. You know what you’re getting – triply so with Bohemian Rhapsody: an iconic star (Freddie Mercury), a medley of familiar Queen songs and a straight-ahead rock-biopic format.

In these moments, the mediocre music biopic tends to lean into the skid, often building entire scenes around little more than a famous rock star shaking hands with another historical figure while they each say their full names aloud. And finally, there is the purest pleasure of that word we critics like to throw around as so much faintly damning praise: “watchable.” And is there anything more “watchable” than a biopic of someone we already know? There’s just something so pleasantly soothing about seeing those beats play out, like bingeing an old favorite TV show. Oooh, this is the episode where Biggie meets Tupac! I love the way their arc unfolds!

We can stipulate a few things about “Bohemian Rhapsody.” We can stipulate that it’s not a great movie. We can stipulate that, in many ways, it’s not even a very good movie. As a trite, often laughably cliched biopic of Queen frontman Freddie Mercury, an enterprise that should have been as daring and flamboyantly theatrical as its subject winds up being bowdlerized, Wiki-fied, distortingly compressed and unforgivably conventional.

And yet.

We can also stipulate that, despite the myriad shortcomings of its parts, the sum of “Bohemian Rhapsody” winds up being giddily entertaining, first as an exercise in so-bad-it’s-funny kitsch, and ultimately as something far more meaningful and thrilling.