Mike Johnson has about a month left to solve his speakership math problem.

He may have earned unanimous GOP support to lead the House a year ago, after the divisive and chaotic ouster of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, but he can’t count on those numbers again. Fierce critics turned against Johnson within weeks of backing his bid for the gavel, taking issue with the GOP leader’s dealmaking with Democrats to prevent government shutdowns.

If House Republicans keep the majority, Johnson will face public and private criticism from multiple factions of the conference. The easiest way to defang his detractors would be growing his House majority significantly. But if he doesn’t manage to do that on Election Day, he’ll have to work to appease those pockets of opposition. If the GOP keeps the House majority by only a narrow margin, he can only afford to lose a handful of Republicans in a Jan. 3 speakership vote on the House floor.

His most outspoken and well-known critics are the nearly dozen GOP lawmakers who voted to advance an ouster effort against him earlier this year, but they’re not alone. While the majority of Republicans support Johnson, saying he has the right temperament for the difficult job, others are publicly venting about his spending strategies and privately questioning his future — or even floating alternatives.

Right now, Johnson says he’s not sweating it, adding he’s done his best to maintain good relationships throughout his conference.

“There’s a passage of scripture that I think of all time that says: ‘So much as it is possible, be at peace with all men.’ So, that’s my responsibility. It’s my role. I can’t control what other people do or say,” Johnson told POLITICO.

Just shy of his first anniversary as speaker, here’s a breakdown of the factions to watch as Johnson tries to hold onto power:

Anti-Johnson 11

Eleven conservatives advanced an ouster effort against Johnson in May that failed after Democrats sided with most Republicans to block it. Unsurprisingly, this group is Johnson’s biggest potential headache.

Republicans view their three colleagues who spearheaded that effort — Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) — as the most likely to vote against Johnson in a future speakership vote, regardless of what he does in the coming months.

While eight more Republicans opted to vote to advance the ouster resolution, it’s not certain that all of them would’ve actually approved removing Johnson. Trump had made public statements supporting the speaker at the time, and Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) told POLITICO previously that Trump’s opinion was significant and protected the speaker.

While Crane was one of the 11, he told POLITICO in mid-April that Trump’s backing of Johnson prompted the Arizona Republican to back off from further pursuing an ejection effort. He added that he’ll be paying attention to the former president’s position in the coming months.

Another Republican who voted to advance the effort, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said their decision was partially motivated by not wanting to side with Democrats who came to Johnson’s aid — not necessarily their issues with the speaker himself.

Two more, Reps. Chip Roy (R-Texas) and Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), have vented about Johnson’s recent decisions on spending bills but have declined to say how they would vote for speaker. Biggs and Crane also backed McCarthy’s ouster last year.

Other members in that group of 11 have largely declined to indicate how they would vote on a future Johnson speakership bid.

Disgruntled Republicans

Outside of those 11, there is a broader group of conservative members who are frustrated with Johnson but less vocal.

That includes Republicans who opposed the effort to boot Johnson in May, arguing that doing so risked too much chaos in an election year and could even result in a Democratic speaker. But more than a dozen have indicated they might be ready for new leadership come January.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) is one member of that group. She previously told POLITICO in late April that while she didn’t support the so-called motion to vacate against Johnson, she wouldn’t back him for a leadership role again after he green-lighted a vote to send more aid to Ukraine.

“I can tell you this: I will never support Speaker Mike Johnson as speaker again. That’s for certain,” Boebert said at the time.

Other Republicans say they like Johnson, but they’re frustrated that he hasn’t played hardball against Democrats like they hoped he would when they elected him in October.

Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) declined to say if he would vote for Johnson, telling POLITICO that it depends on how the rest of the year plays out — a sentiment widely shared among this group. He added that while Johnson “has a general likeability because he’s honest,” he argued Republicans need the “hardball tactics that a Nancy Pelosi has” in their fiscal battles.

Rivals’ allies

There’s another, difficult-to-navigate wrinkle: Other members are quietly considering making their own bid for top spots. Even if they defer to Johnson, the speaker still has to worry about their allies.

A major player here is Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). The current Judiciary Committee chair has dozens of staunch conservatives who privately say they want to see him in the top spot. And while Jordan has stated he would not challenge Johnson for speaker, some members are already floating a Jordan leadership trial balloon. That could mean they oppose Johnson in favor of Jordan.

Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), who was elected Freedom Caucus chair last month, name-checked Jordan as someone he wants to see in leadership. Harris opposed booting Johnson earlier this year.

“I like Jim Jordan. I think he should have a shot at being speaker. I think he will have a shot at being speaker after the election,” Harris said back in March.

He’s not the only one pointing at the Ohio Republican, who tried to become speaker last fall but was blocked by a coalition of centrists and allies of Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.).

During the September funding fight, Rep. Troy Nehls (R-Texas) predicted to reporters that Johnson will need Democratic help to keep the gavel in January and floated Jordan as someone who he thought would have been a “great” speaker. And Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) is dodging questions about the next leadership fight after he advanced the Johnson ouster effort earlier this year.

First-term members

The incoming class of House Republicans will be another wild card in the speakership election. And many of them have not yet indicated where they stand.

Trump’s influence could sway some in the group. One incoming member, granted anonymity to speak frankly, said that they would take direction from the former president. Others are waiting to see the outcome of the November election before going public on their decisions.

POLITICO reached out to about two dozen GOP candidates expected to serve in the House next term, after they won their primary races in safe red seats. About half of those expected incoming members did not respond to questions about where they stand on the leadership race. A handful of them indicated they plan to back Johnson.

Many of the new lawmakers will replace Republicans who were already in Johnson’s camp, though there are a few in the incoming class who will replace some hardliners — like John McGuire, who defeated Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) in a nasty primary. Rep. Alex Mooney (R-W.Va.), who advanced the effort against Johnson, is retiring, as is perennial leadership thorn Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.).

And at least one candidate who is expected to join the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus indicated that they would back Johnson for speaker, if they keep the majority: Mark Harris of North Carolina, who is running in the seat currently held by retiring Rep. Dan Bishop.

“I think Mike’s doing a phenomenal job. I thought he is in an incredibly difficult place with the vote margins that he’s working with. And … he has been working his tail off all over the country, raising money, trying to help the candidates, trying to increase the majority,” Harris said in an interview last month. “And I think that if he increases the majority, I think there’s no question that he’s going to have that next time as speaker.”

Another conservative candidate and likely Freedom Caucus recruit, Abe Hamadeh of Arizona, praised Johnson, but didn’t say directly how he’d cast his vote.

It’s worth noting that first-term members change their minds on leadership votes more readily than veteran lawmakers. About one-quarter of the twenty Republicans who voted to block McCarthy from the speakership last January were new members. They later agreed to back McCarthy after he made various concessions.

Silent Republicans

There are a number of Republicans who privately kvetch that they will oppose Johnson in January, but publicly they give themselves room to reverse their position — looking to avoid blowback or potentially crossing Trump.

“I feel completely justified going back home and saying: ‘Why would I sign up for this again?’ No chance,” said one House Republican, who was granted anonymity to speak frankly, referring to how Johnson has led the conference.

It’s harder to quantify how many members belong to this group, or how many are serious about opposing Johnson. Their decisions could highly depend on both Trump and the November election results, and the looming December funding fight could also play a role.

They also may want to avoid the lobbying that could ensue if they publicly opposed Johnson now. A handful have privately floated that they hope Johnson will bow out if it becomes clear he can’t win the gavel again. But other frustrated members concede there isn’t a viable candidate to replace him if they win the majority in November.

Johnson will have a better idea how large his opposition is — though not exactly who is in it — when the conference holds a secret-ballot, simple-majority vote to name their speaker nominee in November. The tougher, full House vote follows in January.

Senate Republicans are preparing to significantly escalate their plans to exploit a campaign-finance loophole that will allow them to save millions of dollars on TV advertising, irking Democrats who hoped federal regulators would block the GOP plan.

Republicans in late July began quietly piloting their new strategy: running campaign ads for a candidate, framed as a fundraising plea, to get cheaper ad rates and avoid awkward content restrictions. Democrats, furious at what they saw as the crossing of ethical and legal lines, asked the Federal Election Commission to weigh in.

At a contentious meeting Thursday, the agency deadlocked 3-3 on whether these joint fundraising ads should be permitted — effectively allowing the practice to continue.

With no restrictions imposed, Republicans, who have been facing a deep cash disparity with Democrats, are now preparing to turn what was a smaller-scale effort into a key component of their closing TV ad strategy.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee and its candidates already set up these fundraising vehicles in several states — and they added Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Nevada in recent weeks. Those committees have already been collecting money for a flood of the new, cheaper “fundraising” ads.

The financial reality is that Republicans, facing a significant money gap, need this kind of spending workaround the most. But Democrats, who, “unlike Republicans …asked for clear guidance from the FEC” and did not receive it, now say they will be forced into using the tactic, too.

“Moving forward the DSCC is committed to ensuring our campaigns do not operate at a disadvantage in the closing weeks of the campaign and will utilize the same tactics that are being employed by Republicans regarding joint committee advertising,” Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesperson David Bergstein said in a statement.

And Republicans took a victory lap: “Senate Democrats’ attempt to limit party speech backfired spectacularly. This is a rough day for the DSCC,” said Ryan Dollar, the NRSC’s general counsel.

Democratic candidates have raised far more than Republicans and can purchase ads at the cheaper rate offered to candidates. Republicans rely more heavily on independent expenditures from their campaign arm and allied super PACs, which have to pay much more per ad.

The NRSC has tried to overcome the deficit by using so-called “hybrid ads” in which the party and candidates split the cost — and receive the candidate rate. But half of those ads must be devoted to a national party or issue, often leading to clunky messaging. And the candidate’s campaign must foot half the bill.

The NRSC was searching for ways to more effectively narrow Democrats’ massive money advantage within the constraints of campaign finance law. Dollar had been advocating for deploying a new strategy. The plan: air political ads through what’s known as a “joint fundraising committee” — a group that raises money for several groups, such as party committees and individual campaigns, at the same time.

That would allow the NRSC and other party committees to cover nearly the full cost of the ads, while keeping the focus on the specific race. All the committee has to do is insert a donation line at the end of the ad, turning a campaign ad into a fundraising one.

As financial disparities mounted, the NRSC decided to try Dollar’s idea.

They started testing the idea in Montana at the end of July, with ads run by a joint fundraising committee helping GOP Senate candidate Tim Sheehy. One ad from the group, which has spent $2.8 million so far, is narrated entirely by Sheehy. He begins by discussing his military service and ends with the phrase “join my team, give now.” A QR code that leads to a fundraising page briefly appears in the closing seconds of the spot.

In mid-September, the NRSC and its candidates began running similar fundraising campaign ads in Maryland and Arizona, with joint fundraising committees spending nearly $3 million so far on TV in the former and $500,000 in the latter.

“This is just a really blatant attempt to bypass contribution limits, and it’s just the latest attempt by Republicans to further dismantle our campaign finance system,” Tiffany Muller, president of End Citizens United, a liberal campaign finance reform group, said in an interview Thursday. “This big outside money is directly undercutting the power of small-dollar donors that are investing in candidates.”

The GOP only needs to flip two seats to guarantee control of the Senate, and they are favored to do so. But party leaders have been openly warning for weeks that their cash deficit with Democrats could lead to them losing winnable seats. And in some states, the disparities between the two parties have only grown more stark as Senate Democrats raise tens of millions of dollars from small-dollar donors in the final months.

The party committees can direct donors toward these joint fundraising committees, which can accept much larger checks. They benefit candidates who raise more from large donors and make attracting small donors less necessary.

In the FEC’s Thursday meeting, Democratic commissioners expressed concern that allowing joint fundraising committees to run advertisements with short advertising solicitations would encourage them to push the boundaries with ads that have no plausible fundraising benefit.

“There’s no end limit here, right? Like, somebody could put up a QR code for a quarter of a second and have it be completely transparent, and then I don’t know how my colleagues would vote in an enforcement matter,” said Commissioner Dara Lindenbaum, a Democrat.

The continued practice could have implications far beyond this election cycle as campaigns and their joint fundraising committees get more creative.

Those were among the concerns of campaign finance advocates ahead of the FEC’s decision. Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform at the Campaign Legal Center, was one of those who had submitted comments urging regulators to say that the tactic should be impermissible.

“As much as this appears to be kind of a technical issue and kind of in the weeds of campaign finance, I think the ramifications could actually be quite huge,” Ghosh said.

Hurricane Milton’s rampage is not swaying House Republican leaders who oppose returning to Washington to approve billions of dollars for disaster assistance.

President Joe Biden on Thursday said lawmakers should return to Capitol Hill “immediately” from their preelection recess, echoing pleas from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers from the afflicted states.

But despite questions about the solvency of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s disaster fund, House Speaker Mike Johnson and top appropriators insist the agency can manage just fine — for now — with the $20.3 billion that Congress freed up for it late last month. That money is for the fiscal year that ends next Sept. 30.

“To be clear: Congress will act again upon its return in November to address funding needs and ensure those impacted receive the necessary resources,” Athina Lawson, a spokesperson for Johnson, said in a statement to POLITICO’s E&E News on Thursday.

“In the meantime, the Administration needs to focus on getting the existing and sufficient disaster relief out to the millions of Americans in dire need and work to assess the extent and nature of the damage,” Lawson said. “Until the Administration does the work to provide an assessment, any action by Congress will be premature.”

The administration itself has been sending mixed messages. Asked Wednesday on CNN if Congress needs to reconvene early to address disaster aid, Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for president, said that “FEMA has what they need right now.”

Biden has largely backed statements from FEMA officials saying the agency has the resources needed to support recovery efforts after Helene and Milton.

Even in a letter he wrote to congressional leaders on Friday, sounding the alarm about the looming disaster aid cliff and urging lawmakers to step in, Biden’s request was for action “after the Congress comes back into session on November 12th.”

Biden sounded a different theme Thursday, saying that “I think the Congress should be coming back and moving on emergency needs immediately, and they’re gonna have to come back after the election as well.” He said lawmakers should at least provide more money now for the Small Business Administration’s disaster loans program, which is also close to exhaustion after multiple calamities.

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate have stayed relatively quiet on whether Congress should reconvene before the post-election lame-duck session.

Two Senate Democratic leadership aides have said they do not expect Congress to reconvene unless there are urgent disaster needs before the election.

FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell told reporters Wednesday that the agency is able to “support all of the needs of everyone that was impacted by Helene and Milton.”

‘Burning the remaining dollars’

Milton made landfall in Florida late Wednesday night as a Category 3 storm. With Floridians still reeling from Helene’s hit last month, forecasts of Milton’s destruction drew bipartisan concern that the storm would wallop federal disaster relief accounts.

Even before Congress allowed FEMA to tap $20.3 billion with last month’s funding stopgap, the agency had a backlog of $9 billion that it had to withhold from older rebuilding projects.

Criswell said Wednesday that FEMA has “gone through about $9 billion already” and noted that “there’s just over $11 billion in the Disaster Relief Fund.”

“I’m going to have to evaluate how quickly we’re burning the remaining dollars,” she said.

Biden spoke with Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis on Thursday morning and said the administration would provide any support the state needs for a quick response and recovery.

DeSantis told Biden that state officials are assessing damage and thanked him for the federal support before and after landfall, according to a White House pool report.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.), DeSantis’ former emergency management director, indicated on Fox Business on Thursday that he was concerned about FEMA’s disaster balance despite assurances from congressional leaders and the Biden administration.

“They have the funds to respond,” he said. “If there’s another hurricane, they probably won’t have the funds to respond, and they probably also don’t have the funds to deal with all of the reimbursement that cities and counties put out to respond and clean up during these disasters.”

Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart (R-Fla.), chair of the House State-Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, said he feels Congress can address disaster funding in a fiscal 2025 funding package or another funding extension later this year.

“The president of the United States says we have enough money. … If that changes, we’ll have to go back, but right now, from what I’ve seen, if the money’s there, we don’t have to come back before we have to finish the appropriations bills,” Díaz-Balart said.

He added, “Obviously if the money won’t be there all of a sudden, I’ll be the first to demand that we come back.”

‘We can pass this immediately’

Still, the calls for more urgent action are piling up.

Moskowitz has introduced two bills to provide a total of $20 billion in supplemental disaster funding for FEMA, the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s disaster block grant program, and the Small Business Administration’s disaster loans program.

SBA Administrator Isabel Casillas Guzman said in a statement over the weekend that her agency was likely to run out of disaster assistance loan funding “before the end of October.”

The agency said Wednesday that it had just $100 million remaining for new loans as applications for that money continue to pile up. Hours later, a group of 63 House Democrats sent a letter to Johnson calling on him to reconvene Congress this month to approve new aid, including for SBA loans.

Thursday morning, as Floridians were awakening to catastrophic damage, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), the only Republican to co-sponsor Moskowitz’s supplemental funding bill for FEMA, said she spoke with Biden about the funding request.

“Just spoke with @POTUS Biden — he’s personally ensuring FEMA doesn’t cause delays with debris removal and supports the $15B in FEMA funds specifically for hurricane victims,” she posted Thursday on the social media platform X.

“If Congress holds a special session, we can pass this immediately,” she added. “@SpeakerJohnson, let’s make it happen!”

Emma Dumain and Thomas Frank contributed to this report.

President Joe Biden on Thursday suggested that Congress should return to Washington early to pass more disaster aid in the wake of two major hurricanes, warning that federal emergency funds for small businesses are nearly exhausted.

“I think the Congress should be coming back and moving on emergency needs immediately,” he told reporters at the White House the day after Hurricane Milton made landfall in Florida, adding that lawmakers must “move as rapidly as they can, particularly on the most immediate need, which is small business.”

The federal government is still tallying the cost of recovery from Milton and Hurricane Helene, which devastated parts of several southern states late last month. FEMA currently has the resources it needs for its lengthy response effort, Biden said, but a Small Business Administration fund that provides disaster loans to homeowners and businesses is running low.

“It’s pretty right at the edge right now,” he said of the available SBA funding. “They’re going to need a lot more.”

Lawmakers from both parties have called for Congress to cut short its recess and reconvene before Election Day, citing the need to allocate more disaster aid. But congressional leaders have shown no willingness to call members back before their planned return on November 12, insisting that the federal government has enough to sustain itself until then.

Biden, during a brief back-and-forth with reporters, also renewed his criticism of former President Donald Trump and other Republicans for spreading misinformation about the federal hurricane response, calling it “bizarre” behavior.

“They’re being so damn un-American with the way they’re talking about this stuff,” Biden said.

The president also laughed off a question about whether he’d spoken with Trump directly.

“Are you kidding me?” he said, before looking into the camera and addressing Trump directly. “Former President Trump: Get a life, man. Help these people.”

Hurricane Milton, a monstrous storm set to hit western Florida Wednesday night, is poised to deplete the finances of the government’s chronically indebted flood insurance program. Congress is already bracing for a fight over what to do about it.

Key lawmakers and aides are beginning to game out the likely impact on the National Flood Insurance Program, which is the primary option for millions of American homeowners to protect their finances from catastrophic flooding.

The emerging view from several lawmakers and staffers is that NFIP claims spurred by Milton and last month’s Hurricane Helene will likely exhaust the program’s nearly $5 billion in funds and force it to tap $9.9 billion in Treasury borrowing authority. While the NFIP collects premiums and pays out claims similar to a typical insurer, it’s been upside down financially because of weaknesses in how it assessed flood risks for decades and giant losses brought by devastating storms including Hurricane Katrina.

Some on Capitol Hill expect Milton could push the NFIP to the edge of what it can borrow from Treasury, potentially forcing Congress to raise its borrowing cap or to pursue some kind of alternative funding to ensure that claims are paid.

Nearly 2 million NFIP policies are in areas hit by last month’s Helene or threatened by Milton, which has shifted between a Category 4 and 5 storm this week. Milton is expected to cause much bigger losses than Helene, which hit hardest in areas with relatively low levels of flood insurance coverage. Florida has more than 1.7 million NFIP policies.

“The fundamental question here is, will $15 billion be enough to cover Helene and a Category 5 that hits Tampa?” said one House Financial Services Committee GOP staffer granted anonymity because the person wasn’t authorized to speak publicly. “No, $15 billion probably would not ultimately be enough money.”

The looming disaster is set to rekindle long-running political conflicts about how to shore up the program. Congress has struggled for years with how to revamp the NFIP, amid clashes over whether changes would drive up the cost of coverage and housing. The prospects for an emergency intervention to ensure claims are paid if such a move is necessary post-Milton are likewise looking fraught as opposing ideas emerge over how to bridge the gap. Among them: Whether to simply raise the NFIP’s borrowing authority, appropriate money to pay policyholders or cancel more of the NFIP’s debt, as Congress did with $16 billion in debt forgiveness to pay claims after 2017’s string of hurricanes.

“It’s been nearly impossible to try to get any type of consensus on this,” said Rep. Garret Graves, a Louisiana Republican. “The way that we prepare for disasters and the way we recover from them just needs to be fundamentally changed because at the end of the day, disaster victims are re-victimized by the stupidity and inefficiency of our federal government.”

Graves said in an interview that he raised the issue with House Financial Services Chair Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) on Monday. House Financial Services and Senate Banking have jurisdiction over the NFIP and its borrowing authority.

“My takeaway was that [McHenry’s] frustrated by all the landmines out there in the flood insurance space,” Graves said.

According to House aides granted anonymity, McHenry and the lead Democratic member of his committee, Rep. Maxine Waters of California, have clashing views on how to free up cash for claims if such a move is warranted, despite coming together in the past on long-term reform plans. McHenry would favor raising the NFIP’s borrowing cap or appropriating funds, while Waters has long advocated for debt forgiveness. Congress has imposed a $30.4 billion limit on the NFIP’s ability to borrow from Treasury.

McHenry and Waters spokespeople declined to comment.

Lisa Peto, who worked on NFIP issues as a former Financial Services Committee chief counsel to Waters, said she expects the borrowing authority to be raised as it has in the past but that it’s less clear whether there is political will to forgive the debt.

“There may be some backlash from lawmakers representing less ‘risky’ areas that have raised concerns in the past about cross-subsidization,” said Peto, who is now a partner at the government affairs firm Mindset.

Lawmakers are beginning to stress that Congress will ensure NFIP policyholders receive the funds they’re owed. FEMA, which operates the NFIP, is facing mounting pressure across its operations thanks to Helene and now Milton.

“We’re going to do everything we can to make sure that there is not a delay in the ability of FEMA to respond to their needs,” said Sen. Mike Rounds, a South Dakota Republican who sits on Senate Banking. “It should always be a concern that you’re going deeper in debt with a program that has to be reformed, but it is not inconsistent with the way the program has been run in the past.”

The NFIP did not respond to a request for comment.

Congress, which won’t return to Washington until after the November elections, likely has ample runway to address any kind of NFIP claims crunch that arises.

“It is definitely a possibility that you could have, with combined Helene plus Milton, claims that would be more than the NFIP borrowing authority,” said former NFIP chief actuary Andy Neal, who is now a managing director at Aon. “The good news is, with a $9.9 billion cushion provided by the borrowing authority, there would be time for action to be taken.”

TOLEDO, Ohio — Republicans excitedly declared in July that Donald Trump’s decision to pick Sen. JD Vance as his running mate would help them win battleground congressional districts in Ohio.

Three months later, that doesn’t seem to be playing out in one of the state’s toughest elections — where the GOP is looking for any boost it can get as it tries to oust the longest-serving woman in the House.

Republicans had seen Rep. Marcy Kaptur’s seat as one of their top pickup opportunities. And several factors went their way this cycle: The party drew a redder district in recent redistricting and they avoided the perils of a candidate with significant personal issues — a critical problem in 2022 that led to Kaptur winning by 13 points.

The GOP hoped Vance could give the party the final leg up it needed. At the Republican convention, two days after Trump selected his running mate, House GOP campaign arm Chair Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) said Vance “sets Ohio on fire” and would provide a “real lift” in key House races.

But a recent poll had Kaptur with a 10-point lead over Republican Derek Merrin, and the Ohio senator turned vice presidential candidate has barely factored into the matchup.

Vance is conspicuously absent from local billboards that prominently feature Trump, Merrin and GOP Senate candidate Bernie Moreno. He’s not been a part of Republican advertising on broadcast, either, according to a POLITICO review of AdImpact data, despite a plethora of outside spending. And in more than a dozen interviews in the Rust Belt district the day after Vance’s effective debate performance, local voters, politicians and union representatives were either apathetic or outright negative about him.

“I don’t think [Trump and Vance] have very good character. The things they say, like just last night on the debate. … A lot of the things [Vance] was saying, just like Trump, were outrageous and inflammatory,” said Stephanie Garcia, a 55-year-old insurance worker who paused to talk on the streets of downtown Toledo and indicated she supports Kaptur. “Business wise, it might be best for the country, but character is a big deal for me.”

“I literally have members who told me: ‘I’m voting for Trump, but I’m splitting the ticket. I’m going to vote for Marcy, and I’m going to vote for Sen. [Sherrod] Brown.’ Because they see them in action,” said UAW Local 14 President Tony Totty.

Even for voters who support Merrin and Trump, Vance hadn’t factored into their decision. He was largely unknown to some before the debate.

“I didn’t really know anything about [Vance], even though we’re both from Ohio, but I thought he really did good [in the debate],” said Darlene Fisher, standing outside of a Kroger grocery store. She was supporting Merrin because “Marcy’s been in there too long. I know her personally. She needs to retire.”

While GOP leaders had crowed about Vance after Trump picked him in July, rank-and-file Republicans more quietly expressed fears that he didn’t bring much to the ticket as a senator from a solid-red state with a political worldview similar to Trump’s. And if Republicans aren’t using Vance as an asset here in Toledo, it begs the question: Where does he help the party this cycle?

Kaptur has embraced a now-viral clip that concerns Vance from last year’s UAW strike — when she quipped at him at the picket line: “First time here?” Besides that, Kaptur is steering clear of the vice presidential candidate and trying to keep the highly partisan national atmosphere out of her campaign.

Recalling that moment in an interview after finishing an event at the Lucas County Commission offices, Kaptur grew animated: “What does he know about the auto industry and the trucking industry?”

Kaptur has defied political gravity in a district that favored Trump by 3 points in 2020 by keeping close ties at the local level. She’s represented the area for over forty years, and signs of her influence are everywhere. She spoke with POLITICO next to a display in a local county office dedicated to “Lucas County’s Wall of Friends” — where Kaptur was prominently featured.

Just a day after the vice presidential debate and Vance’s strong performance, Kaptur shrugged off any effect he’d have down-ballot: “I think he has high ambitions, and so he’s been successful in getting elected in Ohio, but he hasn’t had time, really to have any results.” Vance was first elected to the Senate two years ago and built a career largely outside of politics before that.

Another point working against Republicans: Democrats’ switch at the top of the presidential ticket over the summer negated a lot of their extreme top-of-the-ticket liability. A late-July survey after President Joe Biden dropped out of the race showed Trump and Harris basically tied in the district, while Biden had a favorable rating of just 36 percent and a 60 percent unfavorable rating. Vance, who narrowly lost the district in his 2022 Senate race, had a 48 percent unfavorable rating.

Still, Republicans project confidence about the district moving in their direction. Ticket splitting between presidential and House candidates is always a tough swing, and at least some of Kaptur’s 2022 victory is attributable to flawed GOP candidate J.R. Majewski.

“After 41 years in Congress with almost nothing to show for it, Marcy Kaptur has left Ohioans behind and Derek Merrin is strategically positioned to capitalize on the Trump/Vance momentum — flipping this seat red and ending Kaptur’s tenure of inaction,” said Mike Marinella, a spokesperson for House Republicans’ campaign arm.

Merrin declined an interview request for this story. He instead sent a statement, saying he was running “to bring the fresh leadership Northwest Ohio needs to fight for those in our community who are truly hurting due to the skyrocketing inflation of the Biden/Kaptur economy. I’m proud to support the Trump/Vance ticket because their economic policies are going to put the American people first and bring back the American dream.”

A Vance spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

And it’s not just in this district that Vance is a non-issue. He hasn’t popped up as a surrogate for Moreno in the Senate race, nor is he a presence in the state’s other competitive congressional race in Northeast Ohio, where first-term Democratic Rep. Emilia Sykes is seeking a second term.

Some Republicans defended the party’s lack of focus on Vance, saying that with Ohio sliding toward Trump, the senator’s time would be better served in more competitive swing states.

“He’s got a lot on his plate,” said Republican state Rep. Josh Williams, who represents a Toledo-area district. “He’s been here advocating for change here in Ohio. I believe that there’s enough momentum here in Ohio for a true shift in politics here.”

Much of Merrin’s argument against Kaptur has centered around the common battleground theme of immigration, and Republicans have also used the career-politician criticism against her in ads. “Marcy Kaptur has been in Congress for 40 years, 40 years of voting for open borders,” declared a recent National Republican Congressional Committee spot.

Kaptur, like many purple-district Democrats this cycle, pointed to the bipartisan border bill torpedoed by Republicans this Congress as part of the work she and other lawmakers had done to address a surge in migration at the southern border. And she embraces her lengthy tenure in Congress head-on.

“I think one of the problems the country is having right now is people don’t stay in elected office long enough,” she said, pointing to long-term problems facing the region like water quality in the Great Lakes or rail infrastructure. “We have to have people who are experienced, and I just think that people have to dedicate their lives to the Republic, to their communities. … We can’t have green people being elected at every level who come with no experience in governance.”

Her longevity has given her a boost in name recognition, though that could also cut against her. The seniority issue elicited strong opinions from voters. Robert Voltz, a 42-year-old Jeep worker out walking his dog who said he was undecided on the House race, said: “I know who Marcy is. I don’t know who her opponent is.” And Susan Hinkel offered an expletive for Kaptur as she left Kroger, adding: “Time for her to go home.”

The 78-year-old Kaptur isn’t giving any hints about her future retirement plans if she wins reelection.

“I don’t know that answer, but the seniority I hold belongs to the people I represent,” she said. “They stuck with me through thick and thin, and I hope they’ll say the same about me someday, that I stuck with them through thick and thin.”

The leader of an effort among conservative senators to shape the race to elect the next Senate GOP leader — and push the chamber further right — is finally putting his ideas down on paper.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) on Monday night laid out a series of proposals meant to decentralize power inside the Senate Republican Conference, taking it away from the office that outgoing Leader Mitch McConnell has occupied for nearly two decades.

In a letter sent to Senate Republican offices Monday night and obtained by Playbook, Lee doesn’t explicitly refer to his proposals as demands. But in the context of a hotly contested race to succeed McConnell between Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas), John Thune (R-S.D.) and Rick Scott (R-Fla.), the list will clearly be seen as a roadmap for winning the support of the roughly dozen conservative senators whom Lee is believed to be speaking for.

“We have the chance to strengthen the Senate, empower individual members, and ensure that the voices of the American people are heard once more,” Lee wrote.

The proposals largely have to do with Senate and GOP Conference procedures, not with particular policies. In that respect, they are similar to the demands that the hard-right House Freedom Caucus made last year ahead of Kevin McCarthy’s election as House speaker.

McCarthy indulged those demands to win election, including giving conservatives de facto control of the floor through prized spots on the House Rules Committee, and he immediately found it difficult to govern effectively. A small cadre of hard-liners forced him out nine months later.

The Senate has traditionally been more collegial, and more respectful of individual lawmakers’ rights. But frustration has grown over the past two decades as more and more power has been centralized in the party leadership suites, and conservatives have blamed that centralization for bipartisan deals that they despise. Lee has taken to calling it “uniparty” rule.

While Scott is seen as the most solicitous of conservatives in the race to succeed McConnell, his broader support is seen as limited. The more likely scenario is that the conservative bloc becomes a possible kingmaker in a second-ballot race involving Cornyn and Thune, who are seen as more natural heirs to McConnell’s leadership style.

Lee’s proposals can be seen as an initial bid to exert leverage in such a scenario. His ideas include:

Requiring three-fourths of the Conference to agree before the leader can “fill the tree,” an increasingly frequent procedural maneuver by which a majority leader can effectively shut down potential amendments. “This would give individual members more say and restore the Senate as a place of genuine debate and negotiation,” said Lee, who has long pushed for a more open amendment process — along with many other senators of both parties.

Require four weeks of debate and amendment for omnibus appropriations bills, the catchall packages that leaders tend to hash out behind closed doors then push through the House and Senate with minimal time for review or debate. “We know when the funding deadlines are; we set them,” wrote Lee. “We should have no problem setting a schedule for consideration four weeks in advance of that deadline.”

Create a “floor schedule” at the outset of the legislative year for appropriations and stick to it — so that the chambers can fully debate and amend spending bills rather than consider them in a rush during the holidays, as has become customary.

Confine the GOP whip to muscling votes only for positions that have majority support from the Republican Conference. Such a rule, Lee said, “would protect Republican leadership from ever being in the position of having to whip for legislation advancing Democrat priorities, as happens from time-to-time when must pass legislation is up against a critical deadline.”

Lastly, propose “policy goals” and “specific strategies” to achieve them that Republicans should aim for during high-stakes negotiations — a nod to conservatives’ belief that they too often get rolled on priorities such as the debt ceiling and spending caps. Laying those out in advance, he wrote, “would give us a shared vision to rally around.”

Like this content? Sign up for POLITICO’s Playbook newsletter.

TALLAHASSEE, Florida — A former Republican candidate for Congress in Florida has been charged with threatening to send a hit squad to kill an opponent in the race, federal authorities said Friday.

William Braddock claimed in a recorded call with a local activist that he would send a Russian and Ukrainian hit squad to kill Anna Paulina Luna during the 2022 primary for a seat in the Clearwater area, the Department of Justice said. Luna went on to win the seat in the general election.

Braddock, 41, was extradited from the Philippines, where he moved after the primary, on a charge of interstate transmission of a true threat to injure another person. He made an initial appearance Thursday in federal court in Los Angeles.

The charges stem from the contentious Republican primary that was heating up after then Rep. Charlie Crist (D-Fla.) announced he was not going to run for reelection for his Pinellas County congressional seat.

POLITICO previously reported that a conservative activist recorded Braddock telling her to not support Luna — who had lost to Crist to 2020 — because he had access to assassins.

“I really don’t want to have to end anybody’s life for the good of the people of the United States of America,” he said, according to the recording obtained at the time by POLITICO. “That will break my heart. But if it needs to be done, it needs to be done. Luna is a fucking speed bump in the road. She’s a dead squirrel you run over every day when you leave the neighborhood.”

At the time, Braddock denied to POLITICO via text to discuss the call and said he had not heard the recording. He also suggested the recording “may even be altered and edited.”

A judge later approved a temporary restraining order against him but did not grant a permanent injunction and local authorities declined to pursue charges. Pinellas-Pasco Executive Assistant State Attorney Kendall Davidson told the Tampa Bay Times back in 2021 that probable cause didn’t exist to file charges in the case because Braddock didn’t make the threat directly to Luna or her family and doesn’t have the reasonable ability to carry out the threat.

The Justice Department said that the FBI investigated the case along with the St. Petersburg Police Department as part of the department’s election threats task force. Florida Politics reported a year ago that Braddock had been arrested by authorities in Philippines in conjunction with the FBI. He faces up to five years in prison.

Luna, who was endorsed by former President Donald Trump, would go on to win the GOP primary in 2022 and win the congressional seat outright. She is running for reelection in the district, which includes a part of the state that experienced the effects of Hurricane Helene. Her office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) defended GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump saying the Russia-Ukraine war must end through negotiation in an interview Sunday rather than counting on a Ukrainian victory.

“I’m not on Russia’s side — but unfortunately the reality of it is that the way the war in Ukraine is going to end is with a negotiated settlement,” Rubio said in an interview with Kristen Welker on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “And I want, and we want, and, I believe Donald Trump wants, for Ukraine to have more leverage in that negotiation.”

Rubio, vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he didn’t know “why we can’t just say that” in regards to Trump’s proposed negotiated deal.

On Wednesday, Trump gave one of his strongest signals so far that he will not fully back Ukraine’s aims, saying Ukraine should have “given up a little bit” at a campaign event in North Carolina. On Friday, after meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump supported a negotiated deal, saying, “It takes two to tango, and we will.” And when asked directly, the former president denied two opportunities to say he wanted Ukraine to win during the last presidential debate against Vice President Kamala Harris.

Zelenskyy and Ukraine’s supporters have insisted that all of Ukraine’s occupied territory must be restored. But Rubio added that the Biden administration, if pressed on what victory looks like for Ukraine, would also agree that a negotiation is the end result.

“We hope that when that time comes there is more leverage on the Ukrainian side than on the Russian side. That really is the goal here in my mind,” Rubio said. “And I think that’s what Donald Trump is trying to say, but he’s going to say it like a businessman. But Biden won’t even tell us what victory is.”

The Florida senator also danced around supporting Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance for saying that a peaceful settlement could look like “the current line of demarcation between Russia and Ukraine, that becomes like a demilitarized zone” on a podcast recently.

“I think what the deal looks like will be up to the parties when they negotiate it. Obviously, Zelenskyy is not going to come out there and say, from a negotiating standpoint is not going to go out there and predetermine what it looks like,” Rubio said. “So I understand why he wouldn’t want to go out there and define what it looks like at the front end.”

He added, “But I think we, as Americans, the reality of it is we are investing billions of dollars into this effort, and it’s important that as we invest this money into this effort that we tell the American taxpayer, ‘This is what the money’s going toward.’ Ultimately, it’s not endless war, right?”

When pressed on whether he would be comfortable with accepting the demarcation agreement Vance proposed, Rubio dodged, saying he would be comfortable with a negotiated deal that ends hostilities and favors Ukraine, “meaning that they have their own sovereignty.” He reiterated that he would not “prejudge any agreement” when asked if that means he did not support Vance’s claims.

“The most important thing here is that these hostilities end and that Ukraine can go back to rebuilding its economy and people can move back. Millions of people have had to leave that country,” Rubio said. “It’s been devastating to them. But that negotiation is going to be up to them. I just want them to have more leverage than Putin.”