It's Time for a Change in Congressional Leadership

Democratic Leaders Nancy Pelosi & Chuck Schumer

During a private caucus call that was leaked to the press almost instantly, Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D) voiced the frustrations of a number of Democrats, and in the process gave voice to what a lot of people felt on Tuesday night and the days after.  According to reports, Spanberger, who appears to have won reelection Tuesday in a close race in a seat that Donald Trump won four years ago, called Tuesday's elections for the Democrats a "failure."  She went on to state "This is me recognizing that we lost members we shouldn't have lost" and implied that the attack ads that were coming at more moderate members of the Democratic caucus were unfair, but brought on by some public positioning of more liberal members of the caucus (namely, the "Defund the Police" movement, and its provocative naming).  She also heavily criticized the use of the word "Socialist" (which has been embraced by some members of the caucus) and said that House Democrats will be "torn apart in 2022" if their takeaway from Tuesday was that it was a success for the Democrats.

Nearly a week out from the election, and despite the joy of this weekend for the left, it's worth noting that Spanberger is absolutely right.  Tuesday was a date that the Democrats were able to stave off Donald Trump, but not much else, and it's worth having a discussion of why that happened, and the hard reality that the Democrats' current strategy in Congress is not working, particularly in the Senate, and that it's time for a change.  Whether or not the Democrats (who are not good at change or punishing their leaders for failure in the same way that Republicans are) are capable of that change is a question for the coming weeks, but I think after being elated about the Biden victories, it's time to ask-how can the Democrats move forward from an underperformance?

House Speaker Sara Gideon (D-ME), one of a number
of Democratic candidates who failed to deliver Tuesday

Before we get into that underperformance, though, it's worth noting what I mean about "underperformance since technically the Democrats held the House and will net seats in the US Senate, and in theory could still win the Senate in January.  Based on public polling, the 2020 cycle should've been a home-run for the Democrats.  Polling suggested that the Senate would be in the bag, with races in North Carolina, Maine, Colorado, and Arizona all at least spelling a 50/50 split, and small-donor dollars rising to the occasion to "make competitive" another eight Senate seats in purple/pink/red territory.  The House also felt like, after a truly strong performance in 2018, another big opportunity for growth, with the Democrats going from being favorites to win the House (but likely to lose about half of their majority margin) to picking up seats in the double digits.  And the state legislatures were finally poised to be watershed moments, with Democrats looking like favorites (or at least tossups) to pickup state legislatures in Minnesota, Texas, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, & Arizona.  In addition to public polling that showed Joe Biden in the 8-10% range for the popular vote and with a healthy advantage in the electoral college due to rebounds in the Rust Belt & huge opportunities in the Sun Belt, the Democrats were looking at an historic run similar to 2008.

But, when the votes were actually tallied, the only part of that appeared to be true was Biden's advantage in the electoral college (and even that was underwhelming to polling & the expectations that Democrats put forth).  The Senate could be won if the Democrats win runoffs in Georgia (they are not favored to do so), but the Senate wasn't supposed to come down to Georgia-it was supposed to be won in Iowa, North Carolina, & Maine, all of which the Democrats lost, in the latter by an embarrassing margin considering public polling, their fundraising advantage, & the fact that Joe Biden won the state (so they just needed to keep straight-ticket voters in an era where split-ticket voting is supposed to be dead).  The Democrats flopped at almost all of their House pickup targets-money was funneled to pickup opportunities in the suburbs of Missouri, Indiana, & Arizona to no avail, and after months of bragging about pickups in Texas ranging from 4-6 seats, with one race still to call (but the Democrat down), it looks like the House Dems will come out with a goose egg.  And those state legislatures-while we're still waiting on results in Minnesota, it's entirely possible that no majorities will exchange hands in the favor of the Democrats, and in some cases the Republicans strengthened their majorities.

Rep. Donna Shalala (D-FL)

What made all of this worse is that the Democrats, for all of their crowing about an abundance of opportunities, didn't protect enough of their House incumbents.  While it's possible that Kendra Horn & Collin Peterson were always going to be goners (those seats were very pro-Trump), Abby Finkenauer & Donna Shalala were unexpected losses, and in the latter's case, seems to have been a district that the incumbent Democrat lost while Biden carried the seat.  Shalala wasn't on pretty much anyone's list of realistic flips, and the fact that she lost while Biden carried the district shows a total failure of the campaign & the DCCC to alert us to the seat's vulnerability.  We are still waiting on results, but it's likely that the current list of seven incumbent Democrats will grow as we get more results in New York & California, and outside of (maybe) California-25, the Democrats will keep their pickups to just three seats (NC-2, NC-6, & GA-7, the latter being the only one they won without the advantage of mid-decade redistricting).

This proves, in my opinion, Spanberger's point, and I'll build on it.  For four years, we heard from pundits that the Democrats can't beat Donald Trump just by "not being Donald Trump," but that was not the case.  The Democrats wisely chose a generic Democrat (Biden is the sort of candidate that might not excite many, but he'll upset few), and simply presented him as an honorable, disciplined option against Donald Trump, and it worked.  But the Democratic Party could not beat the Republican Party by just "not being Donald Trump" and that's been their campaign for four years now, and in three elections they've failed, particularly in the Senate.  Democrats repeatedly see issues like minimum wage increases and expanding Medicaid win statewide in purple/red states, but the candidates who espouse those beliefs on the campaign trail consistently lose (look at Claire McCaskill in Missouri for the best example).  And at this point the only way I see a change coming here is through new leadership.

I am reluctant to endorse Nancy Pelosi's removal as Speaker for a trio of reasons.  First, Nancy Pelosi is one of my heroes, and I deeply admire her to the point where I would give her the benefit-of-the-doubt to a fault.  But more practically, Pelosi is a good Speaker (she gets the job done, and is a great negotiator), and she won the majority in 2020-the job should be hers as a result.  But Speakers of the House don't suffer from "lame duck" issues in the same way that presidents do, and I think it would be appropriate for Pelosi to announce that the next term will be her last as Speaker, as after twenty years of leading the House Democrats, it is time for a change.

Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA)

I am less reluctant to ask for the Democrats to start waging a battle for her successor, and in this fashion, I think Steny Hoyer needs to step aside to allow that to happen.  If Pelosi is not going to run for another term, it's appropriate heading into the midterms that the Democratic Party show its cards on who the country will get if they elect a third consecutive Democratic majority in the House (cause otherwise we're going to get a year of "AOC will be the new Speaker").  I think this would be a wise moment for the House Democrats to pick someone that they see as a future leader, as a future Speaker, and because of Hoyer's age, it won't be him who is the next Speaker, and I think we need to start grooming a new star from the House, preferably one that will be able to bridge the electoral concerns of an increasingly restless liberal caucus with the reality that the Democrats cannot hold a majority in the House without people like Spanberger also holding office.  Liberals can't win everywhere, and until we start doing better in state legislative races, gerrymandering is going to be a hurdle we have to get across.

I feel less worried about asking for Chuck Schumer to stand down, and in fact, I don't see a way that the Democrats succeed if he doesn't leave.  His leadership is not strong enough in the Senate to win a majority.  I'm not blaming him for a lot of the roughshod tactics of Mitch McConnell (there's only so much you can do in the minority), but his inability to recapture the Senate in the past three cycles (technically Harry Reid was leader in 2016, but as Schumer was the obvious incoming leader, he bears some of the responsibility there), is unforgivable.  He has routinely wasted time, press, & resources on races that were not competitive, and were never going to be competitive, specifically Tennessee in 2018 & Kentucky in 2020, both horribly failed Hail Mary's that came at the expense of other, more winnable races (Bill Nelson barely won in Florida in 2018, and got out-raised 3:1 against Rick Scott).  

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)

For three cycles the chess pieces were on the board to win the Senate, and Schumer wasn't able to get a victory.  We kept spending money in Florida in 2016 when it was obviously lost, while our candidate in Pennsylvania that year (Katie McGinty) was getting outspent 2:1 in a race that she'd lose by less than 2-points.  People oftentimes talk about "if they're spending in a "safe" seat, it means dollars they aren't spending in a competitive one" but that doesn't really work if there are competitive races on the map that you're being outspent on anyway, and we never actually win those "safe" seats.  Schumer's inability to win back the Senate is evident, and has taken three cycles where the ability to win the seats were all there (but his messaging & in 2016/18 fundraising apparatus wasn't).  This points to the only solution being that he needs to step down.

I don't think the Democrats have the courage to do this.  They should've, quite frankly, considered pushing Schumer aside in 2018 when he didn't win during a Trump midterm, and there are few Democrats who seem willing to risk their necks challenging a sitting leader, but the grassroots needs to demand it, and be practical enough to ask for someone who is more palatable than Elizabeth Warren (who will not succeed where Schumer failed) for Middle America as the battle for an actual Senate majority is going to come in states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina, & Georgia.  Joe Biden proved that you can't demonize everyone (even if you try), and figures like Sheldon Whitehouse, Amy Klobuchar, and Jeff Merkley would make better choices to lead a new generation in the Senate.  I hope I'm proven wrong here and there is a real discussion about removing Schumer from his leadership post, because if we don't have this discussion, things are not going to get better, and Schumer has proven time & again that he doesn't have the ability to beat Mitch McConnell & the Senate Republicans at the ballot box.