The Narrow House Majority
And thoughts on "mandates."
CNN reports: Speaker Johnson faces narrowest House majority in nearly 100 years.
Speaker Mike Johnson will face a major challenge in the new Congress – the narrowest House majority in nearly 100 years.
[…]
Republicans won 220 House seats in the November elections, while Democrats won 215, the most narrowly divided House majority since the outset of the Great Depression, almost a century ago.
And the margin is set to quickly shrink even further.
When the House convenes, the partisan breakdown is expected to be 219 to 215 since former GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida has said he’s not returning to Congress.
From there, the majority is on track to drop to 217 to 215 with two GOP lawmakers expected to join the Trump administration.
Here’s a graphical breakdown:
BTW: Trump’s appointment of two House members under these circumstances underscores that he is not an especially strategic thinker.
There are a number of additional graphics of interest in the CNN piece, so I recommend a click-through.
I write this on opening day of the 119th Congress, which includes the need for the House to elect a new Speaker. For most of American history, this would not be an especially dramatic event. And yet, there is a non-zero chance that there will be some chaos today.
One member, Thomas Massie (R-KY) has said he won’t vote for Johnson (see The Hill, Massie says he won’t vote for Johnson: ‘You can pull all my fingernails out’).
I expect that there are a number of House members currently lobbying for various concessions out of Johnson since every single member currently has maximum leverage. On an individual level such negotiations are smart politics, but they also show the weakness of US parties as the tail often wags the dog and therefore not good party-level politics (see, e.g., Machin, Joe). And while I expect Johnson to be elected (as I see no alternative), the fact that there is some drama here is a sign of Republican disunity and the ongoing tensions within the party. Governing is going to be a challenge. All of this, of course, further highlights that there are significant portions of the party that simply don’t want to actually govern.
I would note two really important observations about the nature of the House majority.
First, I think that we continue to see that if we had a more proportional, and hence more representative (in terms of reflecting the political factions of the country) electoral system, the Republicans would break into at least two parties. The ongoing internal tensions over leadership, of all things, demonstrate real divisions within the GOP.
Second, if Trump, and the broader GOP by extension, really had anything approximating an electoral “mandate” (a dubious analytical category) then we would expect that the House, in particular, would not be this closely divided in terms of the party split (i,.e., if the GOP really had an electoral mandate, their majority would be far larger). Moreover, a mandate suggests clarity in terms of political purpose, and yet the House GOP clearly lacks a unified approach to governing. If the House Republicans themselves don’t agree on the basics, it is rather difficult to assert that there’s some broadly understood mandate that the people have given the Republicans to pursue.
Interestingly, there was an article yesterday, saying the R moderates are telling Johnson that they’ll lose their support if he offers McCarthy-like concessions to the right. Trump’s endorsement of Johnson has weakened the crazies.
There once was a cowardly Speaker
Who came to his role by a squeaker
While letting the right
Set the country alight
He meeped in the corner like Beaker
@Sleeping Dog:
Some of the MAGAs are enraged at Trump for backing Johnson. Johnson is 100% swamp, you know.
@CSK: “Johnson is 100% swamp, you know.”
Which is only about ten percent more swamp than the state he hails from…
By my count, it would only take two Republicans to make Jeffries the Speaker. (At that point, they might as well caucus with the Dems).
Two is not that hard a number to find. It makes this scenario a credible threat. I expect a demonstration from the MAGA, and then to see Johnson elected without the McCarthy rule. Johnson might even know who the plausible flipflopper candidates are. Not because they are more liberal, but because they want to govern, with, you know, negotiating and stuff.
You may say I’m a dreamer. Am I the only one?
@Jay L Gischer: I just don’t see it. A Republican who voted for a Speaker Jefferies would be literally putting their own life at risk, and probably their family too.
It’s almost certainly not going to happen (in fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if it is Johnson in one vote), but if it did, it would be because of some kind of disorganization on the Republican part, like starting a vote without all their members present.
You know, I was thinking the whole “President Musk” thing was about tweaking Trump, but over the past few days I’ve become less and less sure. First, there was the fact that Musk easily and single handedly overturned a budget deal that Trump had said he had no objection to, then that fawning and obsequious DM from Trump to Musk that our “stable genius” accidentally posted to his main Truth Social feed. And in the latest example, Johnson is out there attempting to hold on to his Speakership by pledging to work with, no, not Donald Trump, but rather Elon Musk.
Perhaps if we purged the Republican party of the moderates, everyone remaining would finally have The Correct Political Views!
Of course we don’t represent white political correctness – how dare you think such a thing! Elon Musk is pro-worker because he said so!
@MarkedMan:
That could work. Jeffries wins on a narrow majority, and the Dems get saddled with running a “do nothing” government in time for the mid-term elections. You’ve hit on it. The perfect way for a non-governance party to not govern from the majority.
And it potentially has the downrange advantage of tanking his future leadership in a Democrat-majority house.
Uppity black folk taking over teh gubmint problem solved, too.Brilliant!ETA: You missed your calling not going into political consultation. You have a feel for it.
@just nutha: Hey! I’m not saying it’s a good idea! I’m just saying that it could happen. The Dems have instructed everyone to vote Jefferies, are not necessarily going to know about a Republican screwup in time to do anything to call that off.
But if it did happen, Jefferies would be smart to agree to unwind it, but only after significant concessions.
C-span is showing the vote live and is reporting that Johnson does not have enough votes to win in the first round.
@MarkedMan: I didn’t say it was a good idea either. But it may be a good strategy for a party that is not inclined to govern from the standpoint of avoiding negative consequences of its natural inclinations–the best way to keep not governing without letting anyone else do it.
Conservatism is at a crossroads. It’s committed to maintaining a clearly destructive status quo. It will need to continue to have its party not govern while leaving “the socialists and people who hate Murkan freedom” unable to move beyond simply restoring status quo normal. Staying in power longer each power trip may become essential.
@MarkedMan: Oh, I don’t think it’s going to happen either. I think it’s a credible threat, though. And from what I’ve seen of Johnson, he’s a much better negotiator than Kevin McCarthy.
The problem with making Jeffries leader, from a strategic (Republican) point of view is that he gets to appoint all the committee heads (I think?). Which would mean the end of fun for James Comey, etc. It deprives them (them being the MAGA) of a very important platform that they care about a lot.
@Jay L Gischer: I don’t think there is any chance whatsoever the Repubs would do that on purpose. Screwing up is the only way
C-span just stated that “the gavel has not come down on this first vote”.
Rep. Johnson has just left the chamber with the three Representatives who did not vote for him and several others.
I wonder what arm twisting he thinks he can do to get these three votes?
2 Republicans changed their votes to Johnson. Looks like he’s in on the first vote.
@Mister Bluster:
Yes. he’s been re-elected.
@CSK:
$10 bucks says it’s gonna come out that Johnson took them outside and said “think of your families” and those two got the message.
@Beth:
Possibly. But the craziest of the MAGAs seem to loathe Johnson, so their ire might be directed at him.
There is no one else in the R caucus that A) is willing to be Speaker and B) can get the votes to be Speaker. No one. I think it is plausible that Johnson simply explained that he would not put up with these shenannigans, and would withdraw his name from Speaker candidacy if he did not get a first vote election. He probably also explained to them how they would make their party look like fools, and how it would be a betrayal of Trump.
New Majority Leader Thune has pledged he will preserve the filibuster. If so, then it looks like the Republicans’ plan — if I might take the liberty to call it that — is a budget with tax and spending cuts by reconciliation, and everything else by executive order and SCOTUS opinion.
@Michael Cain: Certainly a workable theory on your part and maybe the only “plan” available to a caucus disinterested in governing.
@Michael Cain:
He’s going to preserve it right up to the second it becomes inconvenient for Trump. Then it’s toast.
Does Johnson still have the threat of a one vote call for a speaker election or did that go out with this vote today?
@Mr. Prosser:
I think it’s been changed to 8 Republicans have to bring it. I don’t remember the exact number, but it was less than the total number of GOP freak show clowns. If they banded together for 15 minutes they might get it done.
@Jay L Gischer:
And that’s the key. You need two Republicans willing to become Democrats. That is a tall order, and doubly so in our highly polarized times.