The Fallout of Chuck Schumer's Cowardice

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

I would've had this article done yesterday, but, honestly, I've been super tired this week & also that would've deprived me of writing a complete article.  For those who have been following along in the past few days, a government shutdown has been averted, thanks in large part to Sen. Chuck Schumer, who was willing to defy most of his caucus, virtually the entirety of the House Democrats, and most of his base headed into next year's midterms to pass a bill that contained no guarantees that Donald Trump & Elon Musk would stop their utter destruction of the US Government between now and when the funding expires in September.  

We have a general rule around here that we don't discuss individual pieces of legislation, because I find it exhausting, legislation fights are generally pretty ephemeral to give too much light to them for a hobby and, after 4000+ articles, you probably know my opinions on most pieces of legislation, but we're going to make an exception today both because it's a very weird situation, politically, and because I think it opens up some conversations electorally that are worth discussing.  For the record, I think what Schumer did was wrong, less so on the merits of the bill and more for what he just established.  This bill did not have input from either Schumer or House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries-Democrats were lifted out of it.  Virtually every House Democrat save one (Jared Golden, whom we'll discuss in another article later this weekend) stood against this, including Democrats in actually conservative districts like Marcy Kaptur & Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (unlike someone like John Fetterman, whose state barely went for Trump in 2024 and voted Biden in 2020).  Schumer also has spent much of the past four years arguing that he couldn't pass a lot of serious legislation (such as codifying Roe v. Wade) because of the filibuster...and then when he had a chance to stand against Trump, he chose to abandon the filibuster and roll over.  The precedence this sets is that the Democrats will do ANYTHING to keep the government funded, including abandoning every other position in a debate.  We're so used to Republicans failing in negotiations, this is up there with basically how poorly someone like Kevin McCarthy used to run the House.  It's also the extremely rare circumstance where Schumer largely stood against what the bulk of what his conference wanted; 37 Senate Democrats just voted against something their leader actively helped happen.  Schumer, in my opinion, should be ashamed for the lack of courage he showed today, and deserves all of the hate he's going to get in the coming weeks.  He also have a better plan for how to handle the drop off in small-dollar donations as I sure as hell am not giving to the DSCC after this.

People were pretty quick to point out this makes Schumer vulnerable to a challenge from the left, and indeed Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has been extremely vocal in her criticisms of Schumer (though, it has to be noted that Hakeem Jeffries & Nancy Pelosi spending the day criticizing Schumer should probably be the bigger headline as that is far more unprecedented).  There are three problems with this.  One, it is probable that by the time that Schumer is up again in 2028 that this will be a distant memory.  It's hard to tell what legislation sticks as a rule (for every Affordable Care Act vote, there are hundreds that people only remember for about a day or two), but we'll have countless fights with Trump before 2028, and Schumer has time to get back into the New York Democratic Party's good graces.  Two, Schumer is one of the most aggressive retail politicians in the country; he is not the public speaker that Ocasio-Cortez is, but he's also spent 40+ years cultivating relationships across New York that will be hard for anyone to best.  And third, and most important, Schumer is likely to retire in 2028.  He'll be 78, and will have been Senate Leader for 12 years...he'll want to move on to the book deal & speaking tour portion of his career.  So I'm not getting as hung up on that-AOC could easily be the nominee for Senate in 2028, but she probably won't have gone through Schumer to get there.

That said, primaries aren't totally off the table here.  Most of the ten Democrats today would be past them for a variety of reasons.  Several are already retiring (Jeanne Shaheen, Gary Peters), others are bound to be on their last term (Angus King), and still others are in marginal enough seats where the Democrats won't want to disrupt the balance (Catherine Cortez Masto, Maggie Hassan).  Brian Schatz is a really odd figure on the 10 supporters list, particularly given he doesn't have the cover of Mazie Hirono (the only senator who spent much of day being silent to ultimately vote "No").  Hawaiian politics are distinct, so it's hard to tell if this will result in a primary, but it likely takes his name off of the table to succeed Schumer as leader given all of his chief competition (Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Chris Murphy) voted "No" here & it abandons a lot of the grassroots work he's done in cultivating a social media following in the past few years.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)

The three remaining names tell a different story.  Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, if you believe DC gossip, was the most adamant (after Fetterman & Schumer) that they not have a shutdown (sources say she was heard yelling about the shutdown at a conference meeting yesterday).  Gillibrand is a polarizing figure in the party for reasons that are largely sexist (given her outsized role in pushing Al Franken to resign), but I am curious what her end game is here.  She's only 58, and has sincere ambitions (she ran for president in 2020), but at this point it's hard to see where they go.  I think she's vulnerable for a bunch of reasons to a primary, but timing will help her.  She's not up until 2030, and most of the top Democrats (like AOC) will make their run in 2026 (against Hochul) or for an open Schumer seat.  I don't know her plan here (she pushed hard to get the DSCC job...but she's not going to be in leadership after this), but her behavior the past few days is eyebrow-raising.

The two names that are surely getting a primary threat after this are John Fetterman & Dick Durbin.  Fetterman has spent much of the post-election season overreacting to Trump winning his state.  I think Bob Casey losing while Elissa Slotkin, Jacky Rosen, Tammy Baldwin, & Ruben Gallego all won Trump states threw off Fetterman's confidence, and honestly it's hard to tell how serious of a person Fetterman is.  Much is made about his clothing, but more concerning is he has a shockingly bad attendance record in the Senate, regularly just skipping votes.  In many ways, his attitude is reminiscent of former Senator Kyrsten Sinema, who also got to the point in her first term where the base hated her so much a path to reelection wasn't there.  There are plenty of Democrats in the state that would consider a run, and if I'm Conor Lamb (and given we were born two days apart, I practically am), I'd take advantage of the extremely thin "right of first refusal" window in 2028 and go after him again.  This vote alone won't doom Fetterman, but he's lost so much goodwill (and seems to relish in criticism rather than handle it seriously) that I don't see a world where he isn't primaried in 2028, even if it's unsuccessfully.

Lastly, there's Dick Durbin, who is the only senator of the 10 who is still (on paper) considering running for reelection and up for reelection in 2026.  Durbin is 80-years-old, has been in Congress since before both Conor Lamb & I were born, and already was facing a primary threat given how he handled the blue slip process during the Biden years.  This vote isn't surprising (he is #2 in the caucus, and part of that job is backing Schumer), but it might as well have come with a retirement announcement.  The Illinois bench is very deep for Democrats, and there are few opportunities to move up.  There will be some Democrats who would refuse to go after Durbin out of respect for his long tenure if he runs...but there's no way there isn't at least one that would smell blood in the water and try to skip ahead in line.  I personally think today signaled that Durbin doesn't want to seek reelection, but if he does...he's going to have the toughest primary of his career ahead of him, one I suspect he'd lose in a head-to-head battle.

To close out, I want to bring this back to Schumer, whom I am really disappointed in, even if not entirely surprised given he's never been the grittiest leader.  Democrats have had competent leadership in Congress for most of the 21st Century.  Dick Gephardt, Tom Daschle, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, & Hakeem Jeffries...none of these names are remotely in the same "silly season" league as figures like Trent Lott, Kevin McCarthy, and convicted felon Dennis Hastert.  But if we're being honest, Pelosi (and to a much lesser degree Reid) is the only truly exceptional leader of the bunch in the long run of Congress.  Schumer did a good job at managing the Manchin & Sinema egos the last four years, but he's nowhere near Pelosi's skill level.  Pelosi being so good at leading House Democrats made it so that Democrats got complacent in keeping their leaders longer than they should have.  I have long espoused that we should turn over congressional leaders more often if they don't secure majorities.  In fact, if you go far enough back on this blog, you'll find articles where I say that Pelosi should leave office prior to her back comeback in 2018 (in that I'll admit I was wrong-she was exactly the figure we needed to get through the first Trump term).  Leaders leaving is a way to sort of stow-away a bad idea, and allow for new leaders to emerge (Americans love the future in politics), and it's also a way to make sure that any bad strategies get left behind.  If a congressional leader can't secure a majority in a couple of cycles (like Gephardt couldn't) or they lose their majority (like Schumer did in 2024), it makes sense to let them go.  You don't owe loyalty to someone who can't win in politics (it's not a regular job), and Schumer's inability to win in 2024 (even against tough odds), and in particular him not being able to win Pennsylvania...I'm sorry, we shouldn't be in this position right now because he should've been a backbencher by now.  Hopefully Democrats learn this lesson soon, because he is clearly not up to the moment of taking on Donald Trump.