Programming Note: We are going to do serious questions for one more week, as the dust from the midterms settles. Then, non-politics questions next weekend, and then we're taking Thanksgiving weekend off.

Election Results: Corn Belt Gets Another Democratic Governor

For many decades, political pundits have treated the Bible Belt and the Rust Belt as useful political constructs, with the idea being that the voting in the states of those regions tends to swing in the same direction most of the time. After taking note of the fact that most people in the so-called Rust Belt hate that term, let us move on to observe that there are two other "Belts" that might reenter the conversation in short order.

The first of those is the Black Belt: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. These are the states that were, far and away, the most reliant on slavery in the antebellum era, and where many descendants of enslaved people reside today. Not coincidentally, 11 of the 12 (all but Maryland) seceded to form the Confederate States of America. These states were dominated by overtly racist white Democrats for about a century after the Civil War, then by dog-whistle-racist white Republicans for a couple of generations after that. Now, particularly after what happened last Tuesday, a lot of the power in these places is in the hands of Democrats, particularly Black Democrats. If there's a realignment under way, in which moderate/liberal white Southerners and Black Southerners begin to really flex their muscles, then we might end up writing the phrase "Black Belt" many times in 2027 and 2028.

The second of those is the Corn Belt: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota and Wisconsin. These are, by and large, the "prairie populist" states, where farming is a large part of the economy. The more urbanized of those states (e.g., Illinois) have been trending Democratic for quite a while. But notice how many of the more rural states (e.g., Iowa) might also be headed in that direction, thanks substantially to the farmer-unfriendly policies of the Trump administration. Folks in these places have cared about culture-wars issues for a very long time. But they tend to care even more about putting food on the table. If the Democrats can deliver on economic issues, that might be enough to put many of these states in, at very least, the purple column.

The development that prompts us to indulge in this speculation, as readers might guess, is that the Kansas gubernatorial race has been called by all the major outlets, and Democrat Cindy Holscher is the winner. With 98.1% of the vote reported, she leads Republican Ty Masterson by 0.6 points, 50.3% to 49.7%. Masterson would need about ¾ of the remaining vote to pull ahead, and that wasn't going to happen. To his credit, he has conceded graciously. That has actually been an important, if under-reported, story of these midterms: Most Republicans (with one very obvious exception) have done as American politicians have usually done for two centuries: If they lost, they accept that like grown-ups, and they have enough class to congratulate their victorious opponent. We can but hope that tradition is on its way to becoming firmly re-established.

Holscher's win gives us a number of interesting superlatives. Starting with the Kansas angle, this is the first time in 50 years that the same party has held the governorship for three straight elections. Meanwhile, the blue team took the three biggest marbles in the Kansas statewide races: the governorship, the U.S. Senate seat, and the attorney generalship. The AG win means that the obnoxious, racist, sleazy Kris Kobach will once again be booted from public office, hopefully never to return. The Republicans took two of the smaller marbles—Insurance Commissioner and Treasurer—while the secretaryship of state is still up in the air.

Turning our attention to national trends, once all the new women governors-elect are sworn in, the U.S. will have 18 states led by women. That is a record, by a fair margin—the previous high is 14. Kansas will also be one of three states to have had 4 or more woman governors, and one of three states to be on their second consecutive woman governor. That said, there is a state that has had five women as governor, and there is a state that will have their third consecutive woman governor by February of next year. Care to take a guess? We'll name the states in question at the bottom of the page.

Also, as long as we are on the subject of election results, Alaska released another bunch of votes yesterday. With 88% reporting, Democrat Jonathan S. Kreiss-Tomkins stands at 50.2% in the gubernatorial race. This is enough that numerous outlets have called the election for him. And truth be told, we don't know what the other outlets are waiting for. It is simply not plausible that the votes for the three Republicans will somehow coalesce around one Republican candidate. Some of the folks who voted for Bernadette M. Wilson, Dave Bronson or Treg Taylor must surely have ranked Kreiss-Tomkins second or third. Others must have ranked fewer than three candidates, meaning their ballots will eventually be exhausted.

As to the Alaska Senate race, which is the last major race to be uncalled by the AP, Democrat Mary Peltola's lead is now up to 5,800 votes, again with 88% reporting. That puts her at 49.2%, which is on the cusp of the no-ranked-choice-tabulation-needed promised land. Additional good news for her is that a bunch of votes from Matanuska-Susitna (a.k.a. Mat-su) that were uncounted have now been counted. That's traditionally a pretty Republican area, but adding those ballots only netted Sen. Dan Sullivan (R) 275 votes. He's now at 47%. Further, Peltola's vote total is once again greater than the combined total of both Dan Sullivans. So, Donald Trump might not get to send out all those posts he has undoubtedly been itching to write. Who knows how much longer this one will go uncalled, though the latest plausible day is next Wednesday, as ranked-choice processing is supposed to begin on Tuesday (if necessary). Luckily for Peltola, she already knows a thing or two about life in Washington, so it's not too big a problem if she misses freshman orientation. (Z)

Scandal of the Week: The Nvidia Story Isn't Going Away

When we wrote about the Nvidia scandal yesterday, CEO Jensen Huang's career looked to be on life support, thanks to his zipper issues. A few hours after we went live, Huang learned his situation was untenable, and resigned before he could be unceremoniously fired. He will be replaced, at least on an interim basis, by chief financial officer Colette Kress. She is not known to have had any clandestine sexual relationships with Chinese spies.

Republicans are hopping mad about the whole situation. Some of them are security hawks and believe that the carelessness of Huang, not to mention the White House, has put a lot of valuable tech in the hands of the bad guys. Others appear to suspect this is going to hurt the GOP with voters. We thought it might be a little too "inside baseball" to interest the general public, but we guess that since it involves spies and sex, it's kind of like a real-life James Bond movie. So, maybe it will hurt the Republicans politically.

Needless to say, when you're hopping mad, you want someone to blame. And the blame is falling on Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, who suddenly has an uncomfortable number of Republican fingers pointing at him. This is reminiscent of how Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is getting the blame for the Iran War. In both cases, the blame is not misplaced, per se, but the guy at the top is getting a free pass he does not deserve.

Republicans in both the House and the Senate don't have too much time left when they will be calling the shots, but at least a few of them want to seize what limited opportunity they have to take ownership of the "cleanup" here. Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), who will lead the Senate Banking Committee for about 6 more weeks, has demanded that both Huang and Lutnick testify before the Committee. Huang has already agreed, and Lutnick is not in a great position to say "no." They undoubtedly will play their cards close to the vest, though it will be good practice for when the Democrats take over, and haul the duo back to the Hill for several more friendly chats.

Meanwhile, the guy at the top has a great idea for Huang's replacement. Yesterday, Trump hopped on his home-of-leaked-intelligence social media platform to declare:

NOW THAT Nvidia CEO JENSEN HUANG, who has done a fantastic job, has resigned, there is only one man to take his place — TIM COOK of Apple. A Legend replaces a Legend! President DONALD J. TRUMP

We have three thoughts. First, it's terribly inappropriate for a president to make such suggestions—not that that ever stopped Trump. Second, of course Trump thinks an adulterer who leaks intelligence to anyone who asks is doing a good job—heck, that makes Huang presidential material in TrumpWorld. Third, of course Trump wants Cook, since Cook is a sycophant.

Anyhow, you undoubtedly haven't heard the last of Nvidiapot Dome. (Z)

Legal News: With a Bunch of Blue AGs, There Are Going to Be Some Changes around Here

One of the stories flying under the radar in the wake of last week's election is the big gains in state attorneys general seats by Democrats. We touched on this on Monday and we'd like to do a deeper dive on the implications of what will no doubt be radically different approaches to this job. And note that most of the flips came in states that also elected a Democratic governor, so that partnership will include a shift in priorities and quite probably a return to a more traditional, and less ideological and politically retributive, use of those resources. That's very good news for the people living in these states.

Let's look at some of the places where there will likely be the biggest impacts:

Reproductive Rights: This is the big one. Many Republican state attorneys general have been very aggressive in prosecuting or supporting the prosecution of pregnant women and doctors they claim have run afoul of draconian abortion bans. Not only that, but they've also initiated lawsuits challenging the FDA's approval of mifepristone and pursued out-of-state doctors and organizations that sell abortion medication online.

Texas: Soon-to-be-former AG and serial philanderer Ken Paxton tried to burnish his "pro-life" and "Christian" credentials by criminalizing pregnancy and aggressively enforcing Texas' near-total abortion ban, SB 8. Among his targets were Dr. Maggie Carpenter, a New York doctor and founder of Abortion Access, whom he sued for selling abortion medication to patients who live in Texas. Incoming Democratic AG Nathan Johnson has already said that he won't waste Texas' resources on such overt political endeavors that have no legal basis: "I will not pursue the judicially absurd position that Texas law has extra territorial effect. I can honor other states' shield laws."

Texas is also a plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the FDA's approval of mifepristone, at least so far. Johnson is "reviewing" all such cases and will determine if Texas' continued involvement is appropriate. If Texas withdraws, Florida would be the only remaining plaintiff, which would call into question whether Texas is the right venue for the case. Paxton also intervened in a lawsuit against Planned Parenthood for billions of dollars on dubious claims of improperly collecting Medicaid payments. Planned Parenthood has argued that the court explicitly permitted the group to continue to collect federal payments while the lawsuit is ongoing. Johnson has hinted that Texas will no longer participate in that case. That said, the Trump administration is seeking to intervene in the case, which is set for trial early next year.

Johnson has also said that he will strike down "abortion trafficking" ordinances at the local level. "If some county thinks they're going to pass an ordinance that says you cannot drive through on our roads on your way to New Mexico to receive abortion services, that's not going to fly," Johnson said.

Aside from that, Johnson's office can also issue clear guidelines to physicians regarding exceptions to the abortion ban and doctors' rights regarding medical discretion, so that patients won't be left to bleed out in parking lots before they can receive the care they need. Abortion bans have caused mortality rates for pregnant women to skyrocket, especially in Texas, whose Maternal Mortality and Morbidity Review board has refused to release any statistics about the ban's effect. That will also change, as Governor-elect Gina Hinojosa (D) appoints people to that board.

Finally, Johnson can investigate and enforce regulations against Crisis Pregnancy Centers, which Texas has showered with taxpayer money and which often masquerade as medical clinics and mislead women about reproductive care options. He can also investigate law enforcement that are arresting pregnant women in hospitals after experiencing miscarriages or for bringing bogus charges like "abuse of a corpse."

Kansas: Soon-to-be-former Attorney General Kris Kobach (R) spent enormous resources targeting clinics and defending anti-abortion laws even after the state Supreme Court held that reproductive care, including abortion, is a fundamental right under the state constitution. Now, Kansas will have an AG in Democrat Chris Mann who will respect the Court's decision and work to get those laws off the books. Kobach was also involved in lawsuits around telemedicine and the provision of medication abortion. Those will likely also be dropped.

Georgia: Georgia also has a draconian abortion ban, the so-called Heartbeat Bill, that essentially bans abortion at 6 weeks. Like the Texas AG, the incoming Democratic AG, Tanya Miller, could issue opinions regarding exceptions to the ban and when doctors can use their medical judgment in providing abortion care. The new Democratic Governor, Keisha Lance Bottoms, could also take a page from Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs (D) and issue an executive order stripping any power from county prosecutors to pursue abortion-related cases and putting that power exclusively in the Democratic AG's hands.

ICE: State AGs are limited in what they can do in this area, as we've seen in Minnesota and California. However, when the federal DoJ fails to do anything to enforce civil liberties and rein in ICE abuses, the state AGs can fill some of that void by initiating investigations and assisting county DAs in prosecuting offenders. And ICE officers who commit crimes will no longer find refuge in Texas to escape accountability. Any extradition requests will be honored. The AGs can also investigate detention centers for violations of state laws, especially inhumane treatment, denial of medical care, and wrongful death.

Corporate Accountability: In New York AG Letitia James (D), we've seen what an attorney general who is committed to enforcing the law against corporations based in her state can accomplish. Look for these Democratic attorneys general to also start holding corporations accountable for their misdeeds. Elon Musk understood the implications of a Texas state government controlled by Democrats when he poured almost $500 million into the election. The reason he moved to Texas is that he didn't like California's efforts to rein in his companies. Well, now those companies—Tesla, SpaceX, AIx, etc.—are going to face the same kind of scrutiny in Texas and won't be given the free pass to skirt regulations, pollute the environment and violate labor laws like they were before under a more compliant Republican government.

Protecting the Public Interest: Democratic AGs can also join lawsuits to protect the environment against federal efforts to kneecap the EPA or water down clean air and water rules as well as fight efforts to sell off or degrade public lands. They can fight general Trump corruption and the misuse of public funds that impact state residents. They can ensure voting rights are protected and be instrumental in drafting regulations around AI and data centers. As Sean Rankin, president of the Democratic Attorneys General Association, notes, these offices will now be "managed fairly." For Texas in particular, "it will not be managed politically. It will do its job and it will take care of the constituents in Texas. And that's a change."

In short, the rule of law is once again reasserting itself across much of the land. (L)

Project 2027, Part II: Time To Put This Cow out to Pasture

Well, time to put this donkey out to pasture, perhaps.

In this series, there are some topics that aren't too time-sensitive, because they won't be actionable until January 3, 2027. However, the choice of leadership is something that is being wrestled with right now. The general presumption, given the way inertia works, is that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) will be promoted to Senate Majority Leader, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) will be promoted to Speaker.

This is almost certainly what will happen, but there are certainly some Democratic voters and officeholders who are not happy about it. Schumer is a bit long in the tooth (75), is very bland, and tends to use verbiage that comes off as spineless or conciliatory. Jeffries takes money from some very unpopular folks, like AIPAC and the crypto industry, and he also tends to use verbiage that comes off as spineless or conciliatory. Further, both men are seen as old blood when a lot of voters are looking for new blood—Schumer because he's been in Washington forever, and Jeffries because he's Nancy Pelosi's guy.

We will start our assessment with Jeffries. We have considered the matter carefully, and have concluded that for the 260 or Democrats who get a vote here, trying to cashier the would-be Speaker would be extremely impolitic. Here are five reasons why:

1. One of the big storylines in this election was Black voters exercising their political muscle and making the Democratic Party and the Congress a bit more diverse. It would not be well, mere days or weeks after such a development, to set aside the man who is set to become the first Black speaker in history.
   
   
2. Speaker of the House is a pretty tough job. The Speaker must do a lot of fundraising, a lot of recruitment of candidates, a lot of cat herding, and a lot of serving as the de facto spokesperson for the Democratic Party (especially when the president is not a Democrat). Jeffries is not great at that last job, but he's pretty good at the others. If the Democrats were going to replace him, they would need someone who has at least some experience with these tasks. That means someone already in a leadership position. And none of the people in leadership, besides Jeffries, is Black—which brings us back to problem #1. If John Lewis was still alive, maybe. Or if Barack Obama was willing to take the job (remember, the speaker need not be a member of the House), then maybe. But Lewis rising from the dead is roughly as likely as Obama agreeing to serve.
   
   
3. Members of the House have to run for reelection every 2 years. Earlier this week, Rep.-elect Don Leonard (D-OH) told reporters about some friendly advice he'd received from people who will be his new colleagues: If you challenge the throne, you're going to find yourself without committee assignments, and without funding for your reelection campaign. Leonard reiterated that this was not phrased as a threat, merely a heads up as to how things work. In any case, the point is that any member who rebels is taking a big risk with their career.
   
   
4. Meanwhile, the Speaker needs the votes of a majority of the entire House (in other words, at least 218 votes). So, an apostate Democrat would need to find 217 other Democrats willing to join in the apostasy. That is a LOT.
   
   
5. While Jeffries is kinda "old blood," by virtue of having been in office since 2007 and in leadership since 2017, and being Pelosi's protégé, he's only 56. It's not like a replacement would be all that much younger. In fact, he's one year younger then the median age for members of the House right now.

So, Jeffries should (and undoubtedly will) be chosen as the next Speaker.

With Schumer, we think the calculus is considerably different, for these reasons:

1. He actually is pretty old and, more importantly, he has basically become the living embodiment of "entrenched, feckless Democrat" in the eyes of much of the Party. He's been in Washington since 1981, and he's been in the Senate since 1999. Replacing him would make a very powerful statement that voters are getting the changing of the guard that many of them clearly want.
   
   
2. Senate Majority Leader is a somewhat easier job than Speaker, because there is less of everything—fewer cats to herd, fewer seats that need recruits, fewer fundraisers. The filibuster, for as long as it lasts, also cuts down substantially on the cat-herding duties.
   
   
3. Because the job is easier, and because senators generally have more experience than members of the House, there are a number of very plausible replacements for Schumer among his colleagues.
   
   
4. Because senators have a 6-year cushion, they are taking less of a risk in challenging the throne. Not no risk, but less of a risk, especially since there aren't a couple hundred other senators available to take seats on committees. Further, the Senate Majority Leader is elected only by their own conference/caucus. So, an apostate senator need only round up roughly 27 other apostates, as opposed to 217 others.
   
   
5. It is certainly possible that Schumer will be challenged, when his seat is up in 2028, by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). And if she does challenge him, she will likely win. It would be a black eye for the Democratic Party if their Senate leader went down to defeat in the primaries.

For some, or all, of these reasons, there have already been several senators who have come out against another term as leader for Schumer. That list includes Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), who pretty much represent the two ends of the Democratic political spectrum. Sen.-elect Abdul El-Sayed (D-MI) has also suggested he won't back Schumer, and several of his newly elected colleagues have also hinted in that direction.

It is still likely that Schumer will keep his job (and he is VERY unlikely to yield it voluntarily, since he is surely eager to take a 55-45 or 56-44 majority out for a spin). That said, it's not impossible that he'll be demoted. We took a look at the possible replacements, and came up with eight of them, taking care to eliminate: (1) members who would just be a case of swapping in one Social-Security-eligible bland white guy for another, (2) members who are likely to be running for president in 2028 and so will be too busy to run the Senate and (3) new members. With those caveats, here is our list:

1. Chris Van Hollen (MD): We mention him first because he's already announced a challenge to Schumer, and has been endorsed by Sanders. At 67, he's not much younger than Schumer. He's also not that much more charismatic. However, he's popular with his colleagues, and he's also one of the progressives' favorite senators, since he's taken a hard line on money for Israel, and since he's directly challenged ICE, including a visit to Kilmar Abrego Garcia while Abrego Garcia was being held outside the United States.
   
   
2. Cory Booker (NJ): He's young for a senator (57), is very charismatic, is very popular with his constituents and his colleagues, and knows a thing or two about some well-executed political theater (remember the semi-filibuster). Also, having Black men leading both chambers would make quite a statement. We do realize that he might end up running for president.
   
   
3. Elizabeth Warren (MA): She's actually older than Schumer (77), but she's beloved by both the progressives and the eggheads. She would drive Donald Trump absolutely nuts, and her elevation would break a glass ceiling, as there's never been a woman who served as Senate Majority Leader.
   
   
4. Elissa Slotkin (MI): She's quite young by Senate standards (50). Like Warren, she would break a glass ceiling, and like Warren, she knows how to go toe-to-toe with the Trump administration. She might be too centrist for many Democrats, however.
   
   
5. Catherine Cortez Masto (NV): Cortez Masto would break two glass ceilings, as the first woman and first Latino or Latina to serve as Majority Leader. That should please the lefties. Meanwhile, the fact that she's actually a moderate should please the moderates. Plus, she knows a thing or two about winning in purple states, and so would be good at recruiting swing-state candidates.
   
   
6. Mark Kelly (AZ): We realize that he might also be running for president. But if not, there is nobody on this list who would be better at doing battle with Trump.
   
   
7. Adam Schiff (CA): Ok, Schiff would be pretty good at battling Trump, too, especially since he prosecuted the first impeachment. Also, California has only had one Majority Leader, and that was for just 2 years from 1951-53 (William Knowland).
   
   
8. Raphael Warnock (GA): We think he offers the most attractive opportunity of all. He's 57, Black, very charismatic, and also able to lock horns with Trump. Further, he bet big on Scott Colom in Mississippi and won. If the Democrats really want to try to get a foothold in the Solid South, who better to lead that effort than Warnock?

Again, it is very unlikely that Schumer gets pushed aside. If he does, though, then the Democrats should do something to recognize his service to the Party, and his role in building this majority, by giving him a title like Leader Emeritus (in other words, the same honor that was bestowed on Nancy Pelosi when she stepped aside). Otherwise, maybe we'll have to dust this list off in 2029, if AOC does challenge Schumer and win.

We asked readers for their thoughts; here are some of those responses:

R.M. in Pensacola, FL: I think Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer are both fine gentlemen, but both are not up to the moment that we are currently at as a country.

First, both are beholden to corporate interests. Shocker. This is why Democrats have fallen on their face when presented with the opportunity to do big things for the American people in the 21st century. It's why Obamacare wasn't as strong as it should have been after Barack Obama had a supermajority in the Senate following his election, which partially led to the disaster of the 2010 midterm election.

Secondly, both are horrible public speakers. That might even be kind. Neither of them do anything to inspire the general public. I fall asleep anytime either of them are on my TV. Maybe it's a corporate check that excites them. Who knows?

That being said, they will end up as Speaker and Majority Leader, respectively, for the next 2 years. The votes just aren't there for anyone else. If Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is smart, she will meet with Schumer in the next 6 months and tell him that she is going to primary him in 2028, and he will stand down (I don't think she has a chance at being president running from the House. Her best chance is running as a senator). Then, there will be a much better majority leader in 2029 with a new Democratic president. Maybe there will be someone to replace Jeffries in 2029, as well. Two years is a long time in politics.

---

H.D. in Toshima, Japan: There are lots of good arguments that Hakeem and Chuck are ineffectual, out of touch, too old in Chuck's case, and unwilling to prosecute a stiff case against Trump and his Republicans. Nevertheless, when you ask advocates for removal who they would put in place, you get a wide variety of people who could be equally or more polarizing. Dance with the ones that brung you, Democrats, keep their feet to the fire on individual issues, but avoid, more than anything, a melee in the big tent.

---

S.A.K. in Karnataka, India: By now, everyone and their dog has a view on whether Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer should continue leading their respective caucuses. Right off the bat, both are uninspiring, underwhelming and pedestrian, albeit to different degrees.

Jeffries is by far the worse of the two. When he speaks he comes across as deeply insincere and someone who has different versions of the same rote stuff memorized for any question tossed at him. He's that weird combination of someone very unpopular with the ideological base yet very popular within his caucus. His strength lies in being a "centrist" Black politician. That demographic is going to be critical to Democratic fortunes in 2028. No Democrat, especially those with presidential aspirations, will want to be on the bad side of Black voters. Ergo, the likes of AOC endorsing him. While names like Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) and Joe Neguse (D-CO) are being thrown around, I don't think they would appeal to Black voters, especially in the South, as much as Jeffries does. And in any case, none of them will win against Jeffries. All of this is without even considering the brute Democratic majority. Progressives will have to take the L on this one.

Schumer has undoubtedly played a part in the midterm Senate victory, but his position is far more vulnerable. When Cory Booker and Mark Warner are uncommitted, you know something is amiss. Add to that the fact there is a very real competitor. I, for one, hope that Schumer announces that he will retire in 2028, coalesces the caucus around him, and goes all-in on creating strategic carve-outs from the filibuster and putting uncomfortable bills on Donald Trump's desk. He has a gift-wrapped opportunity to create a legacy over these next couple of years. If it comes down to a vote, I think he will survive. But it could be a pyrrhic victory, marred by infighting and impasse in the caucus.

I would give both of them a chance to work with big majorities. There is no way they are so obtuse as to miss the scrutiny they will face over the next couple of years. Trump and the Republican Party will remain unpopular. The odds of a Democratic trifecta in 2029 are pretty good. Progressives can then take their shot at the majority leader's chair. Who knows, they might even have a filibuster-proof majority to work with. Now, wouldn't that be something!

---

A.G. in Scranton, PA: I'm an old-school Democrat. I believe in stability in government and in not just doing things to make a statement or to snatch a news cycle. I think Senator Schumer is an intelligent man with a lotta good years of service to his name and that he deserves a lotta credit for being a steady—though sometimes a little weak-kneed—hand on the rudder of the Democratic Party.

But... the American people voting for more of the same is not the lesson we should take from Donald Trump's ascension to the presidency—twice—and it is most assuredly not the lesson we should take from our historic win at the polls last week. The American people are fed up with Donald Trump, yes, but many say they voted for him because he didn't sound like a politician.

Chuck Schumer is many things, and one of those things is a man who looks, acts and sounds like a politician. If someone asked a child to draw a politician, the child would draw Chuck Schumer. He's the Jell-O mold they use for making politicians.

Don't elevate someone whose claim to fame is being able to recite every neo-liberal buzzword in 20 seconds, or who carries with them a list of all the reasons Americans should support socialism. Don't elevate someone based on their ability to check this box or that box. Don't elevate someone that will remind every person who swore an oath that they would never vote for a Democrat, but who just went against their better judgment and did.

Don't be Democrats about it... but find someone people can look at and think, "That person speaks my language. That person knows I'm having trouble making ends meet. That person has seen hard times just like I'm seeing and gets why it is I don't want to hear about a billion investigations when I can't put gas in my car."

Thank you, Sen. Schumer, for all you've done over the decades, but the message I think Democrats should have heard was this: "We're sick of politicians."

It's time for someone new.

---

J.O. in Las Vegas, NV: Schumer simply must go. He has engaged in a pattern of meekness that simply does not meet the moment. I cannot trust that he will do any better, even with significant majorities in both houses. We need someone who is going to press down on the gas to rein in Trump's worst impulses.

---

H.B. in Acton, MA: Schumer certainly has to go; we love Grandad but it's time to pass the baton to someone with more energy and youth and a fresher perspective.

About Jeffries, I'm less sure. I'd be glad to see someone else with a greater willingness to act. But maybe Jeffries could come into his own, find his energy, and fight.

---

C.T. in Cape Coral, FL: They both need to be replaced. Neither is a stunning speaker nor combative enough. I've seen this scenario so many times: Democrats get control, GOP bomb-throwers launch lying and deceptive sound bytes gleefully reported by the lemmings in the press and repeated ad nauseum by bloggers with the result that low information voters and the general public who aren't paying much attention believe them. And what do the Democrats do? Wimpy responses or they take the high road, and the GOP wins round after round in the court of public opinion.

We need articulate Democratic leaders who can and will give as good as they get. Launch combative sound bytes in return. Fight the GOP loudly and often when they lie, deceive, and twist reality. Make substantive changes quickly for the American people and ignore the GOP minority.

Hakeem and Chuck aren't up for the challenge. Neither is Chris Van Hollen, the alternate Senate leader candidate being bandied about. Booker is my choice, along with a House member with the same skills and temperament.

---

L.G. in Wimberley, TX: They both need to go.

Young people came out and voted for Democrats by very large margins. If the Democrats keep Hakeem and Chuck in leadership positions, I think they are risking losing young voters for 2028. The kids (from my perspective, that means anyone under the age of 45) voted for change. Keeping those two in leadership roles is not the change the kids have in mind.

I think Sen.-elect James Talarico (D-TX) does not support Schumer as leader. It's time for younger people in leadership roles.

I have to hand it to Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), he stepped back in favor of Greg Casar (D-TX) after the Texas midterm redistricting dummymander. Doggett has not stepped away from politics, though. He spends his time mentoring the new generation of Democratic candidates. I wish more Congresspersons recognized that the time comes to exit gracefully.

---

J.H. in Santa Fe, NM: In regard to the question of whether to keep Schumer and Jeffries: At first, I thought: "Yes, keep them, avoid the fights and get right to work on legislation that matters." But after the Hegseth debacle, I now feel Jeffries at least should go. Get someone who is a forceful, progressive speaker who knows how to count heads!

---

D.B. in St. Louis, MO: I cannot see how either caucus can responsibly remove either Schumer or Jeffries in light of the enormous electoral victories for the Party on Election Day. These did not happen in a vacuum—they were, in part, engineered by Schumer and Jeffries.

The primary job of the minority leaders are to become the Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House. They did their jobs.

In the new Congress, their jobs will be to end the Trump administration and hold the ReThugs accountable. History will judge how well they do this, but they must be given the opportunity.

We've also put another small poll together; any reader who cares to weigh in, click here.

As to the poll we put together for the last item in this series, on impeachment, here are the results:

When do you think the Democrats should impeach Donald Trump?

• Once he does something (else) that is impeachable (68.5%)
• Never (23.4%)
• As soon as possible (8.1%)

When do you think the Democrats should impeach Pete Hegseth?

• As soon as possible (95.7%)
• Once he does something (else) that is impeachable (3.5%)
• Never (0.8%)

Who is the most worthy target for an impeachment, if not Donald Trump or Pete Hegseth?

• AG Todd Blanche (46.1%)
• HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr. (26.3%)
• FBI Director Kash Patel (16.2%)
• OMB Director Russell Vought (3.6%)
• Someone Else (3%)
• DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin (2.8%)
• U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro (1.1%)
• Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy (0.3%)
• Vice President J.D. Vance (0.3%)
• Secretary of State Marco Rubio (0.2%)

Given currently available information, what number of impeachments is advisable over the course of the next 2 years?

• 2-4 — Enough to send and repeat the message (65.6%)
• More than 4 — We need a veritable parade of miscreants to face the music (16.9%)
• 1 — Just enough to send a message (16.2%)
• 0 — It always looks like a cheap political stunt (1.3%)

Several readers wrote in to say they would have preferred an option, for Trump, of "If and when there are enough votes to convict." As to the "someone else" to impeach answers, the most popular choices were Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon and White House Chief-of-Staff (WHCoS) Stephen Miller. Miller is, in the view of most legal scholars, not impeachable in the sense of removing him as WHCoS, as that is not a Senate-approved job. However, he could be impeached, convicted and barred from holding an elective or Senate-confirmed office in the future.

Also, quite a few readers are unhappy about the fact that the Hegseth impeachment vote failed because a bunch of Democrats were not present on the floor of the House. Fair enough, but do consider three things. First, even if the articles of impeachment had been approved, there is virtually no chance they would have resulted in a trial, since Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) would have sat on them. Second, because there most certainly would/will be an impeachment trial when the Democrats control the Senate, the absences might have been deliberate, so as to produce this result. Third, if the Democrats had been present, Johnson might not have called the vote.

The next entry in this series will address what the Democrats should do about the Epstein files. If you have thoughts on that subject, send them to us at comments@electoral-vote.com. (Z, V, L & A)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: The Great Rockwood Flood of 1919... Was Made of Chocolate

Presumably, everyone reading this (at least, in the United States) has heard of Hershey. Many fewer readers will know about their primary rival in the early 20th century, Rockwood & Co. of Brooklyn. Part of the reason for that is a disaster that cost the company $75,000—big money in those days—namely a May 12, 1919, fire that destroyed the structural integrity of one of the firm's giant holding tanks, causing thousands of gallons of molten chocolate to be released.

Unfortunately for the Sanitation Department, Rockwood's factory was located at the top of a hill, with the result that several streets and their gutters were completely slathered in chocolate. Fortunately for the schoolchildren of Brooklyn, Rockwood's factory was located at the top of a hill, with the result that several streets and their gutters were completely slathered in chocolate. According to newspaper reports, some children ran multiple miles to take advantage of the situation:

Little fellows fell on their knees before the oncoming flood and dipped it up greedily with their grimy fingers.

Chocolate-gorged truants, some with far-away looks in their eyes, were hauled off to school.

Here ended the episode that will go down in the anthology of Fudge River as the greatest little fire that ever occurred in Brooklyn.

The cleanup and the $75,000 loss were no fun, but—in contrast to other food-driven floods, like the 1814 London Beer Flood or the 1919 Boston Molasses Flood—nobody was seriously injured or killed. So, a reasonably happy ending, especially for all those schoolkids. Well, until they developed diabetes, presumably.

Moving along, we gave two hints as to last week's headline theme. On Friday, it was: "it's the third timely headline theme in a row, though not because someone died this time." And on Saturday, it was: "the qualifying verbiage in the third headline is, admittedly, a bit cheeky."

And here is the solution, courtesy of reader R.D. in San Diego, CA:

The theme looks to be massive disasters, timely due to the Republican wipeout.

• TrumpWatch 2026: The Rats Are Preparing to Flee the Titanic—Iceberg 1: Unsinkable 0
• Election Results: Tuesday Was a Good Night to Be a Challenger—This one blew me away back in 1986.
• National Bytes: Has the Trump Presidency Entered a New Phase?—Trump Presidency one or two or both?
• The Memes: Was It 9/11 or 11/9?—Never forget.... that a certain someone was immediately bragging that he now had the tallest building in the city.
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: The French General Napoleon Tried to Flee Europe after Waterloo—Presumably not the ABBA song.
• This Week in Schadenfreude: Laura Loomer Does Her Best Chernobyl Impression—How long has it been since Russia has attacked the containment dome?
• This Week in Freudenfreude: Maybe the Apocalypse Is Not Nigh, After All—Mad Max voted blue.

"The Trump presidency" was the cheeky one, of course. And this headline adds the Great Rockwood Flood of 1919.

Here are the first 60 readers to get it right:

N.B. in Phoenix, AZ G.R.R. in Claremont, CA D.E. in Ann Arbor, MI D.L. in Uslar, Germany B.R. in Arlington, MA N.G. in Shrewsbury, MA J.P. In Fredericksburg, VA J.T. in Philadelphia, PA T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts D.C. in Teaneck, NJ M.S. in New York City, NY P.Q. in Metuchen, NJ A.S. in Langhorne, PA I.H. in Occupied DC P.L. in Skövde, Sweden K.H. in Albuquerque, NM M.K. in Bothell, WA A,A. in Richmond, VA D.M. in Oakland, CA M.Z. in Sharon, MA T.K. in Manchester, MO H.M. in Paris, France M.M. in Charlottesville, VA C.W. in Atlantic Beach, FL W.V. in Hemet, CA R.N. in Cleveland, OH K.M. in Ypsilanti, MI R.R. in Westborough, MA T.L.H. in St Louis, MO P.A. in Redwood City, CA

A.D. in Vass, NC M.S. in Canton, NY S.F. in Pemberton Borough, NJ S.G. in Durham, NC M.B. in Albany, NY R.G. in Bella Vista, AR R.S. in Landing, NJ D.D. in Bucks County, PA J.U. in Chicago, IL P.H. in Bozeman, MT A.A. in Branchport, NY A.H. in Espoo, Finland M.D. in South Haven, MI M.W. in Hartford, CT D.B. in Glendale CA S.I. in Minneapolis, MN T.S. in Berlin, Germany S.D. in Cedar Park, TX M.T. in Wheat Ridge, CO N.S. in Pittsgrove, NJ R.E. in Birmingham, AL S.L. in Glendora, CA D.S. in Layton, UT P.R. in Kirksville, MO A.F. in Minneapolis, MN K.G.W. in Lafayette, IN M.J. in Ottawa, ON, Canada J.C.B. in Seattle, WA J.S. in Columbia, MO J.N. in Zionsville, IN

The 60th correct response was received at 8:00 a.m. PT on Friday.

For this week's theme, it relies on one word per headline, and it's in the category Language, we suppose. For a hint, we'll tell you that we thought for sure we'd use the phrase "hot potato" in a headline, but... there's none where that would make sense.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line November 13 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Soldier Takes the Wood to Hegseth

We don't mean that headline literally, of course. Figuratively. If Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth were literally to be spanked by a soldier... well, who knows what would happen.

In any event, when it comes to the military, Hegseth is very concerned with performative stuff, like ranting and raving about how much testosterone each soldier has. He does not seem to care much for the soldiers themselves, whether active-duty or retired. And as if on cue, given that we had just written an item about why the Democrats should impeach him when they have a chance, Hegseth and several cronies put on a public display of their feelings.

The site was the Tomb of the Unknowns, and Hegseth and several friends/underlings traveled there on Veterans Day in order to perform "respect" for veterans, particularly those who paid the ultimate price. While they were visiting, someone in the group told some sort of joke, and Hegseth & Co. began laughing. As anyone who has ever visited the Tomb of the Unknowns knows, this is a no-no. And if you violate the rules, the specialists who guard the tomb will make sure to let you know it. So it was with Hegseth's crew, and video of them being reprimanded quickly went viral:

For anyone having trouble making it out, what the soldier barked was: "All visitors will maintain an atmosphere of silence and respect at all times."

Looking to head off another PR crisis, Hegseth took lemons and made lemonade. That is to say, the next day, he invited the soldier in question to the Pentagon, and awarded him a Joint Service Commendation Medal. That's a pretty good recovery, but it does not change the fact that millions of people have seen the Hegseth party disrespecting America's war dead. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Nobody's Gonna Paint Baby Into a Corner

Today's vocab word is "Malaphor." That is when you combine two metaphors, like "Painted into a corner" and "Nobody puts baby in a corner." In other words, it's basically a portmanteau of metaphors. We crafted that malaphor because we think it best suits the subject of today's freudenfreude, which is about three different cases of people whose right to vote was considerably complicated by Republican politicians and policies, and who made sure to get their ballots cast nonetheless.

We shall start in Mississippi, where a woman named Kayla Murchison Fowler was among the tens of thousands of voters purged from voter rolls based on information derived from credit histories. She voted by affidavit, and then called the number on the card she was given, to check to make sure her vote would be recorded. The phone number was disconnected, so she moved on to the website listed on the card. It was offline. She then drove to the office of the Madison County Circuit Clerk, only to find it closed for renovations. She then used some serious Google skills to figure out where the temporary Madison County Circuit Clerk office was located, and then drove there. The employees working there were disinterested, so Fowler shared a few... insightful words about how her ballot better be counted, or she'd be on the phone with the ACLU. The next day, she got confirmation that her ballot had been accepted.

Next up are Cindy and Lisa Napolitan, who are mother and daughter, and who live together in a nursing home in Texas, as they both have multiple sclerosis. They have always made sure to exercise their right to vote, usually casting their ballots by mail. However, they did not feel terribly comfortable doing it that way in 2026, for obvious reasons. That meant voting in person (during the early-voting period).

Because of the Trump administration's obsession with alleged voter fraud in nursing homes, there was no polling place at the nursing home where the Napolitans reside, in contrast to previous years. And because of Texas' voter ID law, the duo needed current ID, which they did not have because they are no longer able to drive. So, they got the DMV to come to them, to get photos taken and paperwork filled out. The new licenses arrived just before early voting began in Texas, and on the first day of early voting, the mother and daughter got a ride to their closest polling place, IDs at the ready, and cast their (early) ballots.

And finally, a story from Florida, where the Republicans' sins were not related to restricting voting rights, but instead to their failure to restrict global warming. West Palm Beach is pretty low-lying, and these days, thanks to rising ocean levels, parts of it flood on a somewhat regular basis. That is what happened on Election Day, in the neighborhood where a woman named Rayna O'Nan lives. Thanks to the water, driving to the nearest polling place was not possible, nor was walking. So, she got out her paddleboard, and paddled to dry land. She got a ride from there to the polling place, and then a ride back to where she'd been picked up. She paddled back home and then posted photos and a message to social media: "No one has an excuse not to vote today! I literally paddleboarded to make sure I could cast my vote. This flooding in West Palm Beach is getting out of control!"

What can we add here, other than tipping our hat to four different women who made absolutely sure they were able to exercise their franchise.

Have a good weekend, all! (Z)

Arizona has had five women as governor (and New Hampshire has had four, as will be the case with Kansas in short order). Meanwhile, Gov.-elect Deb Haaland (D-NM) will be the third consecutive woman to lead that state, following Susana Martinez (R) and Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D). Arizona also had a run of three woman governors, but it ended with Doug Ducey (R).

---

Previous report         Next report

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.
• Guidelines for questions (Saturdays) and letters (Sundays)

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger