The “Replace Schumer” Movement Is Growing. We Know Where This Ends.

The Slatest The leadership fight is on. That may not be a bad thing. Photo illustration by Slate. Photo by Maksim Pasko/iStock/Getty Images Plus. This story is adapted from the Slatest newsletter. You can sign up here to get it in your inbox every day. Well, that was fast. Despite the Democrats’ historic midterm win, party unity is already fraying over the most basic of questions: Who should lead their party in the House and Senate? A band of mostly progressive lawmakers and activists is trying to derail Sen. Chuck Schumer’s bid to reclaim his position as Senate majority leader. In Congress’ lower chamber, a parallel effort is underway to thwart Rep. Hakeem Jeffries’ attempt to become the first Black speaker of the House. Neither rebellion seems particularly likely to succeed, but even their failure may tell us a lot about the Democrats’ future. What are progressives doing to resist Schumer and Jeffries? Some, like Sen. Bernie Sanders, have made it clear that they won’t support Schumer. Others are coalescing around an alternative: Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat who has made inroads with progressives by backing “Medicare for All” and voting to cut off U.S. arms sales to Israel. Van Hollen hasn’t yet declared a challenge to Schumer ahead of next month’s vote but says he’s “actively listening” to colleagues who have encouraged him to. Meanwhile, progressive activist groups are urging voters to contact their representatives and pressure them not to support Jeffries. Hundreds of anti-Jeffries calls and emails have reportedly flooded congressional offices since the midterms. And although no challenger has yet emerged, there’s still time; the vote to elect a new House speaker will take place in January, after newly elected lawmakers take their seats. So are Schumer and Jeffries in real trouble? No, and they won’t be unless things change dramatically. Schumer needs to win only a majority of the Senate Democratic caucus to become leader, and he appears on track to do that. Had Democrats won fewer Senate seats last week, the effort to block him might have more juice. As it is, it’s hard to argue that your party is in desperate need of new leaders when its old leaders just helped deliver the most brutal midterm smackdown either party has suffered in a generation. (The vote is also private, which means even senators who’ve criticized Schumer could choose to back him without facing public scrutiny for flip-flopping.) Jeffries needs a majority of the House—that is, 218 lawmakers—to become speaker. Democrats are on track to hold at least 260 seats, meaning Jeffries could absorb significant defections without losing his speakership bid. This isn’t 2023, when a narrow and fractious Republican majority meant it took then-Rep. Kevin McCarthy four days and 15 rounds of voting to secure the gavel. But there are already signs that Jeffries has some work to do when it comes to corralling his caucus; 11 Democrats missed yesterday’s vote on an impeachment resolution against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, allowing Republicans to kill it. Still, even some leading progressives—like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—are sticking with Jeffries for now. But if these efforts are probably going to fall short, why are they happening at all? Schumer and Jeffries both belong to Democrats’ comparatively centrist wing, and infighting between those centrists and progressives has been a major theme since 2016. Some of the jockeying may be an effort to set the stakes ahead of the 2028 presidential election. Senate and House leadership positions are largely behind-the-scenes vote-wrangling jobs, hardly the sort of public profile that a presidential candidate-in-waiting might aspire to. Yet Van Hollen does appear to be contemplating a presidential run, and progressives writ large are using the leadership elections as an early chance to prove that the Democratic establishment can’t afford to marginalize them. Even if Schumer and Jeffries end up winning, a sizable vote of no confidence would make that clear. Not all of the opposition is ideological, though. After Donald Trump won reelection, Schumer and Jeffries came to embody what even many Democrats saw as a stultified, aging, and ineffectual political establishment. Schumer will turn 76 this month and has been in Congress since Ronald Reagan was president; Jeffries is just 56 but has already held political office for nearly two decades. Both are New Yorkers who live in Brooklyn even as Democrats’ most impressive wins last week came in states like Texas, North Carolina, Iowa, and Kansas. Jeffries in particular has struggled to walk the line between triumphalism and humility, and between investigating Trump officials and delivering on voters’ affordability concerns. He infuriated some Democrats by calling last week’s victories a “red-white-and-blue moment” and by arguing that “the American people don’t want us to get even, they want us to get things done on their behalf because life is way too expensive.” Polls also suggest that many voters remain dissatisfied with the Democratic Party as a whole, and a definitive break from the old (both literal and figurative) could be a chance to improve the party’s image. So what does all this early infighting mean for Democrats’ future? It could turn into much ado about nothing; after all, we’ve been through a version of it before. Lawmakers demanding a younger generation of leaders unsuccessfully opposed Nancy Pelosi’s bid to become speaker after Democrats retook the House during Trump’s first term. Some of these divisions may also be better read as political theater. Schumer helped elect several of the Democrats who now oppose his bid for majority leader, including Elissa Slotkin, Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, and Troy Jackson in Maine. Letting them keep a campaign promise without imperiling his bid to lead the caucus would be a win-win. But early divisions can also become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The reality is that both Democrats’ moderate and progressive wings—and the many candidates who fall somewhere in the middle—made possible the party’s sweeping victories last week. They’ll also need to work together if Democrats hope to govern well, both over the next two years and after 2028. Without cross-ideological unity, the party wouldn’t have succeeded in passing the Affordable Care Act under Barack Obama or the largest climate bill in U.S. history under Joe Biden. If they hope to make similar or even greater strides under the next Democratic president, a better use of these next few weeks might be to bridge those divides rather than to widen them. Tolga Akdoğan Whether you’re a Democrat who’s tired of all the division or Chuck Schumer, who’s tired of counting votes, consider the following distractions: The curse of the world’s richest Wife Guy: The global economy has been rattled by the news of Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang’s affair with an alleged Chinese spy. There’s a big problem when one man’s infidelity can tank the stock market, but Steffi Cao zeroes in on another issue that this scandal has revealed. Namely, the curse of the Wife Guy. A Tolkien series, now with more romantasy: The Rings of Power is back for its third season on Prime Video, and the show is moving in a new direction. Laura Miller argues that it’s leaning into dark romance—and getting further away from the essence of Tolkien’s work. The right answer to America’s education woes? Almost everyone can agree that K–12 schooling—with its overreliance on screens, fixation on testing, and shift away from reading whole books—is in need of a serious overhaul. But few can agree on what the solution is. Rebecca Onion took the plunge to see if a controversial teaching philosophy holds the key. Some wordplay to end the day: What’s a tablet that wasn’t around in Moses’ day (four letters)? What might be “extra” or “bad,” but ideally not extra bad (six letters)? Solve these clues and more in today’s crossword. Today is a moment for many Americans (including me) to remember loved ones who have served or are serving in the armed forces. I’m wishing you a reflective rest of your evening and will see you tomorrow.