Speaker Johnson: House Democrats Will "Rue" Mamdani's Victory

House Speaker Mike Johnson told RealClearPolitics on Wednesday that Democrats will "rue" Zohran Mamdani's victory in New York City's mayoral election.

"I think it portends very dark times ahead for that city and for their party," Johnson said. "The House Democrats own the consequences of that election because, remember, Hakeem Jeffries came out and endorsed Mamdani in the end. And so they’re all entwined together, and I think they’re going to rue that."

You can listen to RealClearPolitics live each day at 11:00 a.m. on SiriusXM's Megyn Kelly Channel 111.

FULL TRANSCRIPT:

Joining us now is House Speaker Mike Johnson. Mr. Speaker, you're our very first guest since RealClearPolitics moved to our new home on the brand new Megyn Kelly channel at Sirius XM. So thank you for being here and welcome to the program.

I'm honored to do it. Congratulations, guys. You're going to have a lot of content for five days a week.

So I'll try to help this morning. Let's start with last night's election. How do you interpret the results and what do they mean for the Republican Party going forward, especially when you look at the midterms? Well, we're very bullish about the midterms.

I wouldn't read too much into last night's special elections and off years or are always sort of anomalies. They don't portend what happens in the future. No big surprises last night.

I mean, obviously, we predicted all of this. You could say there was a slight surprise, I think, in the A.G.'s race in Virginia, because Mr. Jones had such incredible things that he said and and fantasized about his political opponents. But look, in the end, blue states voted blue.

We don't read too much into that. I think the big headline is the one that everyone's focused on, and that is the rise of the Democratic Socialists in New York City. And Mondani is a Marxist.

I think it portends very dark times ahead for that city and for their party. And I'm just going to tell you, as it relates to our midterm elections next year, the House Democrats own the consequences of that election, because remember, Hakeem Jeffries came out and endorsed Mondani in the end. And so they're all entwined together.

And I think they're going to rue that. Mr. Speaker, people were unhappy about the economy a year ago when Trump won, and they seemed to blame Democrats. Then people are unhappy about the economy still.

And they just blamed Republicans across the board. If you look at the map, it's it's all blue. So did the GOP fall into a mission accomplished trap and overhype progress on the economy? No, remember that we're trying to dig out from four years of terribly backwards policy.

You don't flip a switch and do that overnight. And we did try to temper expectations on that. But I am the reason I'm so bullish about the midterm election next year is that by the time we get to November and I think early in the year after really the first quarter, you will begin to see the economic lift from the policies that we have enacted.

We fulfilled our promises. The one big, beautiful bill, the working families tax cut. It was like jet fuel for the U.S. economy, filled with pro-growth policies, filled with lower taxes.

People will begin to see all that. And I think more jobs, higher wages and lower inflation will be the result of that. But again, it's just going to take a little while to build in.

Remember, many of the provisions of our legislation have not yet been put into place. We're still operating under Biden policies and spending levels on the CR, for example, assuming we can do that and reopen the government. So I'm very comfortable with where we are in our in our philosophy, our positions, our policy and what we've actually enacted.

And I think people are going to see that. It's restoration of common sense. And we're going to run on that all day long.

You're bullish as Republicans look to the midterms. But last night, the president seemed to blame the blue wave on the fact that he wasn't on the ballot and that there was a government shutdown. So does this change your calculus for negotiations with Democrats on the shutdown? And is now the time for Republicans to throw caution to the wind and eliminate the filibuster like the president wanted and go big? Well, I've spoken to the president a lot about this issue.

Most recently, did you speak with him before this morning? OK. Yeah. And and he's going to have a discussion with all the Senate Republicans this morning.

Actually, they'll have breakfast at the White House to talk about this issue and others. But, you know, I've told him that traditionally we have always seen the filibuster as a bulwark against the Democrats worst inclinations. You know, they've already said what they would do if they had unified government without a filibuster, with no no speed bumps.

They would pack the Supreme Court. They would make D.C. and Puerto Rico states. They would infringe upon Second Amendment rights in a dramatic way.

They would nationalize elections. I mean, it would be a disaster for the country. And so I think there's a lot of Senate Republicans who still believe that and have that caution.

And they'll have some thoughtful discussion. I'm delighted to tell you, gentlemen, I have nothing to do with it. It's not a House issue.

It's one thing I don't have to carry the burden of. And I'm trying to stay out of it. But the president is resolute.

What you're seeing there is a reflection of his anger with this situation. He can't believe, nor can I, that they now have pushed us into the longest shutdown in U.S. history over nothing. The Democrats are motivated out of fear.

You saw it on display. That's one thing that stood out from last night. This Mamdani movement scares the heck out of Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, who are both from New York.

And they're afraid they're going to get a challenge from a Mamdani disciple or AOC in the Senate race. And that is 100% what made them make 180 degree turn from their previous positions as recently as March of this year in Chuck Schumer's case and to hold up the CR and shut down the government. They're trying to cover their own political backsides.

And I think everybody's going to see that. Has your calculus on the shutdown changed at all because of last night's election results? No, I mean, here's the thing. We were never playing a game here.

This is not a political game. And we demonstrated that back in mid-September. The CR that we filed is only 24 pages long.

It's a totally nonpartisan clean CR. And I keep making the point to the press and the daily press conferences and all of that. And they say, can you do more to negotiate? I never had anything to negotiate.

I mean, there's no there's no Republican policy priority that I can pull off of the CR to make it somehow more palatable for Democrats. Remember, what I'm asking them to approve is Biden level spending and policies. That's exactly what they voted for 13 times during the Biden administration alone.

And we're just asking them to do the right thing. Let's get the government open. Let's get services flowing to the people again.

Air traffic moving, you know, services to veterans and the lower class folks who rely upon nutrition assistance, et cetera. And then let's negotiate all the rest of these issues that remain on the calendar for the end of the year. They were always going to be negotiated in October, November, December.

Mr. Speaker, Prop 50 passed easily in California. And I'm just I'm interested in your thoughts on this. Does this change your calculus in terms of are you going to encourage Republicans across the country to pursue a maximalist strategy in terms of gerrymandering and redistricting to to try and insulate or get some sort of advantage in 2026? Well, I was very bullish about the midterm elections before the current redistricting battles began.

I'm equally bullish now. I mean, I think most of the analysis says Republicans probably net a handful of seats when all this is said and done between the states. But it is very important to point out that what California did is much different than the red states.

I mean, what Texas did was in full compliance with the federal and state constitution. What California did defied their own state law, their own election commission and all the things that Californians had already voted to put in place. And so it's a game out there.

I mean, they it shows their desperation. They had to rig California as if it wasn't gerrymandered enough already. We all had nine seats out of what, 53 seats or something in California.

They're going to try to limit it to a small, tiny number. We're going to fight like warrior poets in California. I mean, we're going to be out there.

I'm going to spend half my year in California next year because our majority runs through New York and California. But I'm absolutely convinced we have many paths across the nation to make sure that we keep and grow the majority. We absolutely have to do that because President Trump has to have four years and not two.

And if this group of Democrats were able to take control of the House, there's no doubt we all know what exactly what would happen. They would impeach the president on the first week of that Congress. They wouldn't be able to help themselves.

And it'd be absolute chaos for the country. And we just can't afford to do that. You know, people should know that you were the chair of the House subcommittee on the Constitution and limited government.

So, you know, a few things about the Constitution and about the Supreme Court. Got to ask, what do you make of the arguments today in front of the Supreme Court? Well, it's a very serious case for us. I mean, I got up early this morning to pray for that outcome because so much rides on it.

I do think it's a it's an important outcome in that you have to show that the president, as commander in chief, as the leader of the country, has the ability to look at an emergency kind of situation, which is what the economy was, the huge trade disparity that we had before he came in, the fact that he ran on that as basically one of his number one policy propositions to the people and that he was popularly elected to do that. I mean, he won the popular vote and swept the swing states in the Electoral College. That that is how our system is designed to work.

And to the victor goes the spoils. And the president is using the authority that the people gave him, I would argue, a mandate they gave him to fix the trade imbalance. And he's done that and he's demonstrated it.

And so so much is riding on that. The secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bassett, said so well. This is tied in inextricably with national security.

I mean, the ability for the president to go sit down with Xi in China and negotiate more free, more fair, free, fair trade agreement with him has a lot to do with the tariff power that he has. And so I don't think it's asking a lot of the Supreme Court to acknowledge those things I just said. Remember how much deference they gave to Barack Obama with Obamacare.

You know, I mean, there is a tradition and a precedent here that they need to stay in their lane. The Article three courts, you know, Article three of the Constitution. They have certain jurisdiction, but they cannot impede, I think, upon the the will of the executive who's popular, popularly elected on that issue and is executing what he told the American people he would do.

The system of the system rests tariff authority with Congress. If if if the Supreme Court rules against the president in this case, will you lead Republicans and trying to give him more authority? Will this be a legislative question moving forward if the court rules against him? Well, Congress does have authority over tariffs to a certain extent. There's always this balance between the executive and legislative branches.

I'm a jealous guardian of Article one of the Constitution. That's the you know, we're listed first in the Constitution for a reason. That the people, the founders wanted the people to have the say, and they do that by way of their elected representatives here in the House every two years will will execute that authority as needed.

And I would have stepped in already if I felt like the executive had overstepped their authority. I don't think that's happened yet. So we'll have to see how that comes out.

I mean, my task here, my challenge here every day is to build consensus around the legislative agenda and with small margins. And we'll be back to a one vote margin for for November until December. You know, I've got a delicate balance here.

So I'm just really hopeful that the executive branch can continue to use their authority. Look at what's happened. We're bringing in trillions of dollars of new investment into the country.

You've had all these major countries step forward and negotiate better trade agreements, which was long overdue. The American consumers are going to benefit from that in the short and long run. And we have not seen this massive rise in inflation that everybody ran around with their hair on fire.

And that was going to happen immediately. It's just it's just not happening as they projected. So I say we got to give the executive branch the authority to do that.

And I surely hope the Supreme Court will see it that way. When you look to the twenty twenty six midterms, what's the one thing that keeps you up at night about retaining the majority? I mean, is is there one issue or one person maybe that makes you worry? I don't worry. No, I look, I'll tell you.

I mean, look, here's honestly, we have to defy history. I mean, that's the one, you know, the outlier. The fact from history is that it's only twice, I think, in the last 90 years that a sitting president has picked up seats for his party in that first midterm.

A lot of reasons for that. The last one was George W. Bush after 9-11. And that one's kind of an anomaly.

Doesn't really, you know, doesn't really count. And before that, the last example I can give you is FDR in the 30s. However, we are the group that defies expectations and makes history here every day.

I think we'll do it again. A lot of reasons for that. I have a 90 minute slide show, but let me give you the 90 seconds.

We had a demographic shift in twenty twenty four. Truly a record number of Hispanic and Latino voters, black and African-American voters, Jewish voters, union workers, young people, all these demographics. I think we hold a big chunk of those voters and that makes a big difference.

I think we got a favorable map situation. Even as I mentioned, even before redistricting battle started, the current ones, we already had a lopsided map way in our favor. There's 13 House Democrats sitting in districts that Trump won this morning.

There's only three House Republicans sitting in Kamala Harris districts. The third reason I'm so optimistic is that the Democrat Party is flailing. OK, they're about to have a civil war in their party for the future of it.

I think the future was determined last night in New York City. They're going full Marxist, full woke left progressive. They're not turning the corner.

They're going further left. I think they're going to leave people behind. I think they're going to make a mess of New York City.

And the fourth fourth reason is I would call the Charlie Kirk effect. You see a rise of young people, young conservatives who are getting engaged. They're motivated.

They want an outlet for that energy. We're going to give them that outlet in the midterm election. I'm very, very bullish.

I mean, this is not a talking point. I believe it to my core. I'm going to travel the country nonstop.

In the last election cycle last year, I did over 350 campaign events, 250 cities in 40 states. I logged enough miles to serve the globe five and a half times. We will do what is necessary to win.

And I'm convinced we will. But Mr. Speaker, what you said that Republicans have to defy history. What from last night gives you optimism that they can? It looks like the map turned blue, not just in New York, not just in Virginia, but even in some of these down ballot races that we weren't even tracking.

For instance, the races for public service commissioner in Georgia. Where is this optimism coming from? Well, there's down ballot effects, of course, especially in especially in a special election. I am not turd in any way by the effects last night.

I wouldn't say anything turned blue. I'd say it stayed blue. These were blue districts, blue states, blue areas.

None of this was a surprise. What I would say is, you know, so much is being made of this rise, you know, of Mondami and oh, he's taking New York City and all of that. But look at the vote totals.

I mean, I think 12 percent of New Yorkers voted for Mondami. That is not an overwhelming majority. You only got a little over a million votes, a million thirty six thousand votes.

And there's eight and a half million residents in New York City. So what's going to happen is the reason I'm optimistic is they've handed the keys to the kingdom, to the Marxist, and he will destroy it. Socialism never leads to lower prices and better living.

It leads to human misery every single time in history that it's been attempted. And it won't take long for that to happen in New York City. So we will have yet another example of the failed philosophy that draws everybody back to what we stand for.

And that's the founding principles of the country. Individual freedom, limited government, the rule of law, peace through strength, fiscal responsibility, free markets, human dignity. The way to have human flourishing is to have a democratic form of capitalism.

Capitalism is the thing that makes all boats rise, not government control. And we're going to have a great example to point to in New York City as the months ahead of us unfold. Tom, close us out here.

I was going to take one more stab at this, Mr. Speaker, because, you know, you mentioned seven seven point swing blue in New Jersey, I think nine point swing in Virginia last night versus 2024. Trump said he tweeted last night it's because he wasn't on the ballot. Well, he's not going to be on the ballot in 2026.

And so do you do you expect him to campaign vigorously for Republican House candidates around the country? And do you think that that's going to help, given that, again, it doesn't seem like the MAGA base turns out for Republicans in the same same numbers when Trump is not at the top of the ticket? Well, a couple of thoughts. Number one, we have a great record to run on. I mean, the working families tax cut, the big beautiful bill was a signature piece of legislation.

About 90 percent of the America First agenda was encompassed in that bill. And you will begin to see the effects of that early next year and leading into the election. But secondly, I would say the president is on the ballot in the midterm.

President Trump will say that himself. He's going to do rallies. He's going to do the telephone town halls with our with our candidates.

He is going to be deeply engaged. He has raised almost two billion dollars of campaign funds himself since his election over the last nine months. He's going to invest heavily to ensure that we keep the House majority because the president knows and he and I talk about this almost daily.

He knows if he does, if we don't win this midterm, everything is on the line. If we don't win the midterm, he won't have four years of a presidency. It will end at two.

And he is he is dialed in on that. He is 100 percent motivated. He's actually excited about this.

And we are as well. And I think that's going to have a big difference next year. All right.

Well, Speaker Johnson, thanks so much for being here. We really appreciate the time. You're listening to RealClearPolitics on the Megyn Kelly channel.

I'm Andrew Wallworth. I'm here with Phil and Tom, or we've been talking to Speaker Johnson. We'll be back with more right after these words.

(Transcribed by TurboScribe.ai. Go Unlimited to remove this message.)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.