Perspective: This is an opinion piece written from a center-right, conservative point of view. It is argument, not straight news. The facts it relies on are sourced below, and the case for the other candidate is set out in full.
On Tuesday, 10 November, House Republicans will meet behind closed doors and choose, by secret ballot, the leader who will take them into the minority. The winner needs a majority of the conference. Speaker Mike Johnson has stepped aside. That leaves two familiar names. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the current majority leader, and Jim Jordan of Ohio, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, both ran for speaker in 2023 and both fell short. They are running against each other again.
The vote matters because of what came before it. Axios described the result as the biggest midterm wave in 50 years. As of Thursday evening, Yahoo News's results count gave Democrats 253 House seats to 155 for Republicans, with more than two dozen races still uncalled. In the Senate, Democrats lead 54 to 44, with Alaska and Mississippi still too close to call. Republicans lost seats long considered safe, and NPR said the scale of the defeat went beyond what many in Washington had expected.
Johnson's exit was quick and undramatic. In a letter to colleagues obtained by Axios, he cited the cost of leadership to his family: "After three years in this role, I believe the time has come for me to give them more of the attention and presence they so richly deserve." He listed the conference's achievements, including the One Big Beautiful Bill, and noted that they had been won "while navigating some of the narrowest legislative margins in our nation's history." He did not mention the election. On election night in Shreveport he had already explained the result in terms of history, saying that holding the House would have meant defying "more than a century of midterm history."
That history is real, and Johnson deserves credit for keeping a fractious majority together at margins where a single defection could sink a bill. But history does not explain the size of this defeat. Republicans and their allies are already saying so openly. Vice President JD Vance wrote on X that "the reason we lost is the war," and President Trump himself acknowledged that the Iran war "drove the gasoline up." Senators Ted Cruz and John Cornyn of Texas, as reported by Fox News, blamed a failure to deal with the cost of living. Anonymous House Republicans were more direct. One told Axios: "Iran, Iran, Iran … we should have never done the war before the midterms." Another listed "Iran, ICE, inflation, fuel prices, lack of focus on pocketbook issues."
The next leader has to answer that diagnosis. A conservative party that lost because voters felt poorer and more anxious cannot recover by talking mainly about its opponents.
Jordan's argument is clear and deserves to be stated at its strongest. In a letter to colleagues reported by Roll Call, he presented himself as "battle-tested on the oversight front" and warned: "For too long, we have operated without a clear plan to survive the hour or the day in front of us. That will not cut it against an emboldened and energetic Democrat majority."
On this point he is right. Democrats are not hiding their plans. Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, expected to chair the Judiciary Committee, said in an interview before the House adjourned in September, Roll Call reported, that there is "a long list of potentially impeachable offenses" to examine involving the President, his family and his inner circle. Representative Robert Garcia, expected to chair the Oversight Committee, responded to the results with two words, "Lawyer up," according to CNBC. One Republican insider quoted by Roll Call argued that the President "should want a warrior like Jordan with impeachment experience in charge," and predicted Democrats would pursue impeachment by the August recess despite their careful public statements.
Jordan led the defense against both first-term impeachments. He knows the committee rules, the media environment and the White House. Conservatives who believe the next two years will be one long subpoena fight have a good reason to want him in charge. He was once seen as too much of a firebrand to lead the whole conference; his former chief of staff argued to Roll Call in 2023 that, once given the chance, he showed a skill set suited to leadership.
Scalise's camp presents a different job description. A person familiar with his thinking told Roll Call that "his No. 1 goal will be to lead the conference back into the majority," calling him a "proven and tested leader who is ready on day one." NPR reported that he argues he can keep the conference united and deliver conservative wins.
This is the stronger argument. In the minority, the leader's job is not mainly to win hearings, because the majority controls the hearings. The job is to recruit candidates, raise money, protect members in swing districts and build a policy platform that can win back seats Republicans held a week ago. It also means deciding where to work with the White House and where to push back, especially on the issues that cost the party its majority.
The record of the past two years shows that oversight fights do not decide midterms. Prices, energy and the sense of whether a government is focused on ordinary people's lives do. A conference led mainly as a defense team for the administration risks repeating the strategy voters have just rejected. Several members have already said so. Representative Greg Steube of Florida wrote on X that leadership should "step aside so new leadership can take a truly conservative direction," and another lawmaker told Axios: "When you have the worst defeat in modern history, you need a new playbook."
Neither man is the fresh start that Steube wants. Both are senior figures and both are close to the President. A Republican source quoted by Roll Call doubted that a Jordan-led team would be "much of a change at the top." Scalise has been in the top leadership through the period that ended in this defeat, and he will have to explain what he would do differently. Jordan still faces questions he has repeatedly denied, about what he knew of abuse by a team doctor at Ohio State University when he was an assistant wrestling coach there. Roll Call reported that Republicans said in 2023 this had not affected their support. Scalise survived being shot at a congressional baseball practice in 2017 and later treatment for multiple myeloma, which he said in 2024 was in remission. Nobody doubts his resilience.
The rest of the leadership ballot will also matter. Axios reports that Majority Whip Tom Emmer faces a challenge from Representative August Pfluger of Texas, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, who wrote to colleagues that the conference needs "fresh ideas" and had "missed many opportunities." The race to chair the National Republican Congressional Committee is between Representatives Rudy Yakym and Brian Jack, since the current chairman, Richard Hudson, is on track to lose his own seat. A conference that wants real change could get it in these lower posts, whoever wins the top job.
The President has said he will stay out of the race. That is wise, and members should take the opportunity to decide for themselves. Before they vote, they should ask each candidate four questions.
First: what is your plan to lower costs for families, and which part of it can pass a Democratic House or be used to force a hard vote there? Second: where will you publicly disagree with the administration if its policies, on the war, on fuel prices or anything else, are hurting Republican members at home? Third: how will you handle oversight from a minority position, defending against partisan overreach without letting the conference become nothing more than an impeachment defense team? Fourth: which seats can you realistically win back in 2028, and with what candidates?
Jordan would probably give the most convincing answer on the third question. On the other three, the evidence so far favors Scalise, or at least a leadership team built around winning the majority back rather than simply fighting the one in charge. Republicans should not choose a leader based only on who fights the hardest on television. They should choose the one most likely to rebuild a majority, and on that test Scalise's pitch is the stronger one.
As former Senate Republican aide G. William Hoagland told Roll Call, the party may be heading into an internal "civil war" over its future. Tuesday's secret ballot is the first real test of whether House Republicans have understood why they lost.