<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><title>Speakership on Huffman Writes</title><link>https://www.huffmanwrites.org/tags/speakership/</link><description>Recent content in Speakership on Huffman Writes</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 12:05:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://www.huffmanwrites.org/tags/speakership/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Twenty-Seventh of Fifty-Six: What My Own Rubric Got Wrong About Mike Johnson</title><link>https://www.huffmanwrites.org/posts/essays/twenty-seventh-of-fifty-six/</link><pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 12:05:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://www.huffmanwrites.org/posts/essays/twenty-seventh-of-fifty-six/</guid><description>I published an objective ranking of all 56 Speakers this morning and it placed Mike Johnson twenty-seventh. That number is accurate and it is close to meaningless, and the reason it is meaningless is a mistake I made in my own method. A rubric that counts what a Speaker produced cannot see a Speaker whose method is subtraction.</description></item><item><title>Ranking the Speakers: All 56, and the Method Behind It</title><link>https://www.huffmanwrites.org/posts/essays/ranking-the-speakers/</link><pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 11:15:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://www.huffmanwrites.org/posts/essays/ranking-the-speakers/</guid><description>There has never been a scholarly ranking of the Speakers of the House. There is one survey from 1998, of 50 Speakers, and the eighteen since have never been rated at all. This is the whole method for grading all 56, the profile string that encodes each one, the four checks that validated the data, and the measurement showing how much of a Speaker&amp;#39;s standing is his record and how much is merely how well he is remembered.</description></item></channel></rss>