After all the votes are counted and the new nominees from the House having been departed, it appears that Speaker Mike Johnson holds only a one to two seat majority – at least until special elections take place to bring reinforcements. Even special elections will only up the margin by a bit more comfortable five or six. The end result is likely to be nothing short of a gridlocked greasefire with perhaps some real bartering and battling to get even the most basic stuff passed.
According to Axios, the dynamic is such that most everything remains up in the air.
The five-seat majority that Johnson has struggled to manage in the 118th Congress is set to dwindle next year. Democrats managed to flip slightly more House seats than Republicans, and President-elect Trump has plucked several GOP House members for his Cabinet. Republicans may end up with as small as a temporary one- or two-seat majority until seats can be filled with special elections.
Just enough votes to ensure that Mike Johnson remains Speaker but not enough to really plan ahead. In a setting in which literally every vote counts everyone is going to literally want something. How very fitting that the Trump transition went full bore in poaching House members for the cabinet while digging themselves a hole before they even seat themselves. Yes, special elections will bring the majority back to perhaps five or six, but those elections won’t happen for months and the first 90 days are always the most productive in a new term. Except maybe this term.
The report goes on to say that the GOP is coming to terms with the issue:
Even some Republicans acknowledged that governing may be difficult and chaotic with a tiny House majority and Trump as president. One House Republican forecast a “high” likelihood of a government shutdown because it “really can just take one or two Republican members of Congress to twist the president’s arm off now.”
And who better to twist arms and get in the way than the people who make a living grinding everything to a half – the House Freedom caucus.
But before anyone gets too excited, the article cautions that the dynamic goes both ways. There are Democrats from districts that voted for Trump who may be enticed to cross lines. Moreover, it is not like the Freedom Caucus has shown any qualms about driving things into the ground. Many of them can simply sit back, fine with a standstill until Trump begins to really twist people’s arms.
The lawmaker added that “the tables have kind of been reversed to where the House Freedom Caucus will just do whatever President Trump says and the people in the middle who are in tougher districts won’t.”
Now it gets down to who really wants to work. Both sides will be compelled to absolutely have everyone there for every vote. None of us want anyone to get sick or experience tragedy but such a thing generally happens and thus things will almost always be up in the air as to who will actually be available to vote. Even without members getting sick or having family issues, they have to deal with those Reps who are fine with breaking everything, which includes all too many in said Freedom Caucus.
But we do have to worry about those blue dog Dems from Trump districts. (Though the reverse is true, too). Democrats in the House need to constantly be reminded as to why they have a “D” next to their name in the first place and never let extremes get in the way of “good enough” – not in this situation. No one forced anyone run with a blue ribbon, so they best act together.
But there is one other consideration bodes well for Democrats – 2026. Every administration faces possible wave elections rebounding from a new presidential term. This would be especially true with an extremist like Trump – who wants to be known as an extremist – who also is ready to push policy that he knows will not be popular. Given this reality, the Democrats could be looking to pick up 20-40 seats (As has been done before) in the 2026 election. Blue dogs better well be aware of the fact that they’re susceptible to primaries in such a position if they have voted too closely with the GOP.
Yes, yes – I continue to write that Trump’s victory was clear and a statement. He did win a popular majority with 50% of the vote – something that a Republican has only once done since 1992. So it was a surprisingly clear victory. And the Senate is notoriously weighed in favor of the little red states. But the House is just plain weird – it’s blessing and curse. The House more reflects a 50-50 country even when replacements arrive to give Johnson a five to six vote margin.
Until there is a much clearer margin for error, look for bitter in-fighting and relative inaction. As great as that is to block some of Trump’s positions, it doesn’t bode well for critical stuff like getting over a debt ceiling. Still, no one wearing blue would ever trade the close dynamic for a clear red margin. Expect fireworks in any event.
God Bless:Â I can be reached at [email protected] and @JasonMiciak and now on Blue Sky, highly recommended as a cleaner platform.Â
I hope Dems vote no on every thing and reorganize the party and no there wasn’t a Trump ‘mandate’
The link in the article to the popular vote totals confirms that out of 154,409,708 votes cast, Trump got 76,993,271 votes, or 49.86% of the vote, or less than 50%.
Which, yes, rounds up to 50%, but on the figures given does not mean he got half the vote. 50.14% of the voters did not vote for him, a better argument is that more than half the voters didn’t give him their support.
I know I’m splitting hairs here, but there are hairs to split, after all he didn’t win by a head.
Do we want to perpetuate a lie that republicans promulgate that Mr Trump has a ‘huge mandate’ when facts show he doesn’t? If the situation was reversed, would our side be claiming one? Of course not, the Rs would be demanding recounts in every electorate they could and refusing to concede.
Actually, this is typical of Republicans. They win by the skin of their teeth and it’s a “mandate.” A Democrat who wins by the skin of their teeth and it “means nothing.”
I have written for professional Democratic sites for 10 years and was an Asst. Editor at Occupy Dems. I’m hardly a Republican.
The victory was shockingly clear to me – and highly disturbing. Yes, we should be electing presidents with equal weight per voter. Urban areas are underrepresented and it’s not even close.
But it’s also true that there is a psychological effect to driving through so much of the country that is united in red.
I avoided getting way to partisan in the run up to the election in order to evaluate it neutrally and was one of the only ones around to say that it was either 50-50 or Trump’s to lose, when way too many were saying that Harris had it in the bag.
I am trying to stay objective – which is very very different than neutral – in order to predict trends and bring you what I see coming down the road. That is what I do. I don’t write much policy stuff, though I could. I try to predict the political weather and staying objective – not neutral – is critical. When he won all 7 states, and the GOP took the Senate by 3 (Most predictions had it at one-two) it seemed like a statement win to me. I continually challenge people to characterize the election if Harris had won all 7 swing states (Without any recounts or even all that close) and a 3 million popular vote vitory – how would it be characterized? Be honest.
So all of this is a long way of saying please don’t take my objective overview and put an “R” next to it. Talk to my daughter if you want to know my values bc those things we teach our kids are the best indices.
jason
3 or 4 Repubs with a brain and a backbone out of 220 could save democracy. Crossing my fingers.
They don’t even need much of a brain. Just even a small dose of common sense. It’s the backbone part that matters!