The reporting on Mike Johnson's impending budget deal (likely to land after another brief continuing resolution) suggests he's going to end up with a fairly similar deal to what his ousted predecessor had proposed. While he does intend for it to be passed via something vaguely resembling normal order (i.e. as a set of appropriations bills rather than a last-minute omnibus) there's some question as to whether that will satisfy the same cadre of republicans who yanked McCarthy.
This question will resolve YES if a motion to vacate is voted on (regardless of outcome) AND it seems to be substantively due to the circumstances of the budget deal he is negotiating (in my sole opinion). It resolves NO if no vote happens by market close, or if the effort to remove him is not (in my opinion) primarily due to his handling of the budget. If he dies or is removed from Congress before market close, this will resolve N/A (please pay attention to that detail).
I'll add any clarifications needed in the comments, and if something seems important enough I will edit the description to make it more apparent. I will not bet on this market.
Related questions
@SemioticRivalry It has to be voted on for this to resolve YES. If it lingers in limbo for however long beforehand, that's fine.
Matt Kibbe is joined by Rep. Thomas Massie, who explains why he’s calling for the speaker to be replaced and outlines what he calls “the three betrayals of Mike Johnson.” First, Johnson abandoned the regular order budgeting process in favor of a massive omnibus bill. Second, he reauthorized warrantless surveillance of Americans by the FISA courts, and third, he is ushering through a military spending package that would send American taxpayer dollars to fund the wars in Ukraine, Israel, and Palestine.
@DanMan314 Yeah, I saw those quotes from the interview. I'm leaning towards this counting for YES, but I'll confess that's because of my more or less speculative opinion that Massie himself mostly only cares about the budget issue and while he's not happy about the other two, has included them to capture additional support from the zeitgeist.
I think someone could plausibly construct an argument that the additional items are what pushed him to support the motion, which would sort of reverse the above thinking, but I haven't seen evidence for that position I find compelling.
@AndrewHartman Wait so a lot of the current drama is due to the Aid bill. But the MTV started bc of the budget. So would this still resolve yes if MTG's MTV goes forward?
@Joshua I'll have to review Massie's public statements about his reasoning in detail. From what I recall of him being quoted in articles, he might trigger the resolution. If this ends up getting voted on, feel free to post some snippets you feel are probative in one direction or the other.
@Joshua And to further clarify - MTG's reasoning also matters but is a lot less clear to me. She's not exactly a principled and organized thinker. Anyone else who gets involved in bringing the motion to a vote also matters, motivation-wise, but the rationale that members use in determining how they will vote is immaterial (since the question is about whether it'll be voted on, not the outcome).
@jack I actually debated the phrasing of the title and description for a while, after looking up house procedures. If you need clarity, I mean specifically that a vote happens on a motion to vacate. I felt that was more opaque than the language I chose to go with, but I figured someone would complain and I'd explain in the comments.
@AndrewHartman I'd suggest something like "Will the House hold a vote to attempt to oust Mike Johnson as Speaker..." as a phrasing that is both easy to understand and technically accurate.
And why not put the specifics in the description? That's what the description is for.