The fact that Trump, his advisor Hannity, and a slice of his caucus are hostile to Ryan is less ominous in a sense than the poll result; it is clear that there is now a yawning gap between the Republican establishment leadership and the party rank-and-file. All of that will make governing by finding the necessary coalitions and compromises much more difficult. But it also suggests that the vote for Speaker will be one of the most fascinating and tumultuous post-election events.

Of course, it is possible that the Trump meltdown in October will lead not only to a Clinton victory but to a massive Democratic sweep, including taking back a majority in the House. That would almost certainly make Nancy Pelosi Speaker again. Of course, it might be a challenge for her—the new Democratic majority, if there is one, will be thin, and most of the new members will be from Red districts, with several pushed by their local politics to reject Pelosi. But there would not likely be an internal challenger, and her popularity within her caucus, along with her tireless efforts to elect those Democrats, would work very much for her.

Assuming that Clinton wins, what if Democrats fall short in taking back the House? That is where the dynamics get so interesting. Democrats will certainly pick up seats—most likely, a minimum of ten to fifteen, more likely twenty or more. That would reduce the GOP margin substantially, to perhaps five to ten seats. And, as I have written before, the Republican departures, both voluntary and involuntary, will come disproportionately from leadership loyalist ranks, strengthening the hand and role of both Freedom Caucus radicals and other Trumpist populists.

Freedom Caucus member Rep. Mark Meadows (who led the charge to oust John Boehner,) said recently, “A lot of people who believe so desperately that we need to put Donald Trump in the White House -- they question the loyalty of the Speaker." Meadows and his allies are trying to delay the Caucus vote, scheduled for the week after the election, to mobilize opposition to Ryan. They might confront Ryan after the election and before the Republican Conference votes to choose its candidate for Speaker, demanding concessions that would include cutting discretionary spending even more sharply, returning to the use of the debt ceiling as a hostage to force the new President Clinton to capitulate to their demands, and refusing to cooperate with her on any area of public policy—a set of demands Ryan could not accept without destroying his capacity to lead, along with deepening governmental dysfunction beyond its current sorry state.

Ryan might well look at this looming mess and decide it is not worth it. He could say, “I stepped into the breach reluctantly to save the party and the country and become Speaker. Now I want to step back and take the role where I can do the most good: chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.” Or, to preserve his future role in politics, he could decide it is a good time to leave the House to spend more time with his young family.