Electoral-vote.com

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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)

This item appeared on www.electoral-vote.com. Read it Monday through Friday for political and election news, Saturday for answers to reader's questions, and Sunday for letters from readers.

www.electoral-vote.com State polls All Senate candidates