Power is a lot like real estate.It’s all about location, location, location. The closer you are to the source,the higher your property value. — House of Cards

Against the grand stage of political influence, a complex narrative unfolds, its characters vividly drawn. What appears static is in fact a maelstrom of movement, a high-stakes art form encompassing social media, public discourse, backroom deals, and policymaking. In this abridged version of our real-world House of Cards guide, we map the influence of current US Senators and Representatives alongside prominent international leaders and even iconic fictional politicians from popular drama shows:

The lower left corner of the diagram displays a convergence of influential figures within the current US political system. Leaders of legislative parties like Mitch McConnell and Nancy Pelosi, as well as the rising figure Mike Johnson, according to nearly a hundred parameters we have analyzed, demonstrate their influence not only through partisan voting or the passage of significant legislation, but also through dense intra-party alliances, lobbying relationships and robust fundraising capabilities. The former two remain significantly ahead in these areas, yet the later, while weaker in the areas of political discourse completeness, district significance and bipartisan cooperation, has shown to surpass his peers in party caucus meetings, social media presence and impact on certain key issues. The most symbolically significant figure in this corner is Frank Underwood from "House of Cards," emblematic of the narrative on how influence can be quietly woven into every aspect of Capitol Hill, culminating in ascension to the presidency.

In close proximity is Antoni Blinken, who occupies a pivotal executive role. His influence is less pronounced in bipartisan politics and legislation but is significantly greater in policy execution, diplomatic relations, and international alliances. Additionally, Von Der Leyen, the elected President of the European Commission, who is situated near Blinken, displays a level of personal charisma and public support comparable to that of Blinken, who does not require election. She also depends on the intricacies within diplomacy and international alliances to maintain her influence, resulting in a close parallel between her and Blinken’s spheres of influence.

In the nether regions of the bottom left corner, the crème de la crème of today’s global political scene congregate. The leaders of China and Russia wield formidable political influence, not merely confined to their domestic spheres but also shaping the contours of the global landscape. They are joined by the controversial former President of the United States, Donald Trump, who reigns supreme in terms of social media visibility and grassroots support.

The stark white divide in the diagram conspicuously demarcates the Republican and Democratic affiliations. Though our parameters studiously avoid any explicit partisan or ideological information, it is evident that partisan gravitational pull naturally exerts its invisible boundaries, rendering unto Rome what belongs to Rome and unto God what belongs to God. This, in turn, underscores the stark polarization of US party politics, whereby the two sides occupy distinct galaxies in terms of political influence, with their sway over each other’s politicians, policies, and constituencies severely circumscribed.

At the extreme right, we find a small cluster comprising Ted Cruz, Chip Roy, and Ted Budd, their influence matrix overlapping with that of Julia Louis-Dreyfus’ Selina Meyer in Veep – acerbic, confrontational, and laced with comedic undertones (though the gentlemen in question would likely bristle at the comparison to a female VP).

Just beneath this cluster, Liz Truss occupies her own space. Her premiership, even briefer than the shelf life of a lettuce, is a pale consequence of her dismal approval ratings across the public, party, and parliament. Her perceived deficits in personal charisma, crisis management, and policy acumen further align her with Jim Hacker from Yes, Minister – a case of art imitating life, albeit in ways its subjects might find rather unflattering. South Korea’s Yoon Suk-yeol also finds himself in this vicinity, though his placement may be somewhat understated given the outsized role of the judiciary in the idiosyncratic South Korean political system. Further afield, French President Macron, along with British Prime Minister Sunak, Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau, and Japanese Prime Minister Kishida, all suffer from varying degrees of party divisions and/or low public approval.

The fringes of the influence map are populated by independents and outliers – mavericks who march to their own beat, their influence fluctuating and unpredictable, occasionally basking in the limelight but rarely occupying center stage in the grand theater of power.

Let us not forget, however, the great unwashed – and I do not refer to the dozens of US Senators and Representatives in the middle of the map (though I must pause to extol the virtues of AI data processing, sparing us the Sisyphean task of wading through parliamentary records, forum speeches, and tweets, much of which, let’s be honest, is mind-numbing drivel – though admittedly, extracting the nuggets of substance requires a discerning eye and rigorous cross-checking). They are indeed the supporting cast in our diagram, through whom the currents of policy, legislation, and funding flow; yet the true protagonists of political life, the countless ordinary citizens — the silent majority, whose understanding of the machinations of power is often hazy and grasp of vested interests is tenuous, much like the murky backdrop against which this map is set.

Ultimately, this is but a snapshot in time, its data frozen at the timestamp of ‘February 2024.’ Influence, like the tides, is ever-shifting, and the house of cards could come tumbling down at any moment. For when the lights go up, the glow surrounding these characters starts to fade.