As I contemplate (for this Friday's year-end awards column) making predictions for the next year in politics, I have to wonder what will happen to Mike Johnson in 2026. Will he still be speaker of the House at this point next year? Or will the House Republicans have ousted him in favor of someone else?

Normally, this wouldn't even be a valid question, since leadership jobs in Congress are usually only up for reconsideration at the start of each new Congress -- which means the January following a congressional election. If these were normal times (and if the Republican Party were a normal political party), then Johnson's job would be considered safe until at least January of 2027. But of course these are not normal times.

The Republican Party has gone through a succession of House speakers over the past decade or so, and each speaker has either resigned in frustration with his own party or been kicked out by a "no confidence" vote. So it's not exactly idle speculation to consider whether one of these two possibilities might happen to Johnson in the upcoming year.

The inherent problem with the House Republican caucus is that leading it is about as easy as herding cats. There are multiple factions who disagree with each other and ideological rifts that continually simmer just beneath the surface, occasionally breaking out into the open on key votes. Navigating these obstacles is a challenging job for any Republican, as evidenced by how the past three GOP speakerships have ended. John Boehner and Paul Ryan both got so exasperated with their caucus that they stepped down, and Kevin McCarthy was given an ignominious heave-ho by his fellow Republicans. Is Mike Johnson headed for a similar fate?

One indicator is the prevalence this year of "discharge petitions," which are essentially a revolt by the rank-and-file House members against their leadership. If 218 signatures can be obtained, then it forces the speaker to hold a vote on a particular piece of legislation -- even if he doesn't want to. These used to be incredibly rare, but they are becoming more and more common under Johnson's leadership. A new one just succeeded today, as four Republicans signed on to an effort by Democrats to force a vote on extending the Obamacare subsidies. The vote won't be held until Congress returns in January (after the subsidies have already expired), but the fact that another discharge petition has succeeded is indeed notable. And every time a discharge petition succeeds, Johnson looks weaker as a leader, just to state the obvious.

The political dynamics have shifted for Johnson, it bears mentioning. Boehner and Ryan and McCarthy all faced pushback from the most extreme factions within the Republican caucus (the Tea Party and the Freedom Caucus), but Johnson has courted his own hardliners to the point of excluding GOP moderates. So this time around it is the moderates who are pushing back. This changes the dynamic, since moderates are known for being, well... more moderate than the bomb-throwers in the party. And such moderation would not normally include ousting your own party's leader. But again, these aren't exactly normal times.

The moderate Republicans mostly hail from swing districts, where they are obliged to court independent and Democratic voters in order to get re-elected. And many of them see big danger signs flashing ahead of the 2026 midterms. Democrats are going to paint Republicans as being beholden to all of Trump's agenda, which most definitely includes the parts that are wildly unpopular with the voters. So the GOP moderates would sincerely like to counter that by working with Democrats to form some sort of bipartisan solution to problems (like the expiring Obamacare subsidies). These moderates know that doing so would put them in a stronger place while seeking re-election.

The rest of the House Republicans -- which includes the hardliners -- mostly don't have to worry about re-election, since they come from very safe red districts that are not likely to swing Democratic no matter what.

But this puts Johnson in what can only be called a counterproductive position. By continually giving the hardliners everything they want, Johnson is making it more and more likely that Democrats will win back control of the House next November. This could eventually be seen as so untenable a position that the moderates revolt and force their own "no confidence" vote, which (if successful) would chuck Johnson out of the speaker's chair. If they see this as the only possible way to salvage their re-election chances, then it could actually happen.

This would be an incredibly risky thing to do, for multiple reasons. The first is that it would showcase how fractured the Republican Party is, heading into a midterm election season. It would show weakness -- at precisely the wrong time, politically-speaking. It would also lead to the inevitable question: "If not Mike Johnson, then who?" Who would be better at herding the House Republican cats? Is there anyone who could do so more successfully than Johnson?

So far, nobody springs to mind in answer to that question, but to be fair, "Mike Johnson" never sprang to anyone's mind before he finally won the speakership vote when Kevin McCarthy was deposed. He was seen as a compromise candidate (he was the fourth person nominated, after others had failed to secure enough votes), and his Caspar Milquetoast persona was acceptable enough to the Republican majority at the time. So someone most people have never heard of before could indeed rise to the speakership if Johnson is likewise forced out.

Again, to be fair, Johnson has done a better job than many people (myself included) ever expected him to do. He has drawn the hotheaded hardliners as close as possible, to preclude them from getting so angry at him that they move to depose him (as they did for the previous three Republican speakers). Moderates usually don't get as angry as the hardliners, so this was perhaps the most practical move Johnson could have made. And Johnson has played hardball himself with the powers of the speaker's chair, ignoring precedent and tradition whenever he felt like it. Johnson has also been very careful to give Donald Trump everything he asks for, which has made him much less powerful as speaker (he is now seen as nothing more than an extension of Trump's White House, which is not normal for any House speaker). This has insulated Johnson from any possible revolt from the MAGA base, who would turn against him in a heartbeat if Trump demanded it. All told, Johnson has navigated his speakership a lot better than expected, even if the course he has charted has been a rather unusual one, historically-speaking.

Johnson has already served longer than his predecessor, since Kevin McCarthy didn't even last a full year in the job. Johnson has now served for over two full years. He has faced (and beaten) one attempt at ousting him, with Democrats providing enough votes for him to continue (Democrats did so to avoid having a Republican who was a total hardliner replace him). That failed effort came from Marjorie Taylor Greene, who will be departing the House in early January.

It's tough to figure the odds on Johnson continuing another complete year as speaker. Ousting him would be a major intraparty fracas, which would normally be seen as something to be avoided at all costs during an election year. Perhaps the moderates will be kept in check by occasionally forcing votes (through more discharge petitions) that Johnson refuses to support. But if Trump and Johnson stake out some position that is seen by the moderates as completely destroying their chances of winning re-election, then the moderates might be pushed into the radical step of trying to oust Johnson. It doesn't seem likely, but then again stranger things have happened within the House Republican caucus, so the chances of it happening have to be seen as more than "zero," at the very least.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant