So, as we look towards January 3, 2027, and the installation of the 120th Congress, the question of leadership is in the air, as Scripps News reports: Who will lead Congress? Leadership battles take center stage after midterms.
Leadership elections are expected to begin next week, with Democrats facing some internal pressure over their current leaders and House Republicans preparing for a potentially tight contest of their own.
[…]
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries are expected to remain at the top of their respective caucuses. Jeffries would be in position to become House speaker, while Schumer would become Senate majority leader.
Both, however, have faced calls from some progressive activists and incoming lawmakers for a change in leadership. Critics argue Democratic leaders did not push back aggressively enough against President Donald Trump while the party was in the minority.
So, let me be clear: I understand the desire to want leadership other than Jeffries and Schumer. I find Jeffries’ halting speaking style frustrating and uninspiring. I find Schumer’s great-grandpa mien to not be the energy I think we need at this moment in time. Neither feels (and that word is kind of key, I think) like fighters.
As such, I get the desire for “better” leaders.
And then my practical brain kicks in, and I ask: ok, then who would the replacements be? And how would the party get there? And from there I am reminded what these jobs are, as opposed to what a lot of people want them to be.
So, first, the question of who instead? I am a daily watcher of all of this, and I must confess that no names come immediately to mind in either chamber. And I say that less in terms of simply playing Fantasy Speaker Draft, and more in terms of terms of someone who is both suited to the job and for whom a constituency exists inside the caucus around which a fight for power would coalesce. That same is true in the Senate.
The word “fight” in the above paragraph is key. To dethrone either man from their positions would require a substantial internal fight within the House and Senate caucuses. I question the usefulness of a factional fight at the moment when the party needs substantial unity to direct its energies to fighting Trump. To be clear: if I thought a fight would lead to a more formidable Democratic Congress, I would be all for it. But at this point in time, no argument has been put forth that I have seen as to how this would work. Again, I have seen no significant answer to the most basic question, which is the “who?” question.
There is also the reality that it would be kind of odd to eject your leadership after winning an historic election. So, yes, Schumer thought that Janet Mills in Maine and Haley Stevens in Michigan were the right moves. But conversely, he helped recruit Cooper in NC, Brown in Ohio, and Peltola in AK. As a general matter, especially given the general weakness of party leadership anyway, the DSCC seemed to have done a pretty good job.
I am not going to try to recapitulate the two shutdown fights here, but I would argue that the outcomes were as positive as could be expected. In the 2025 shutdown, the Democrats at least forced a vote on extending ACA subsidies, and in the 2026 partial shutdown, they at least forced the Republicans to take an alternative legislative route to fund DHS. Yes, the majority ultimately won, but that is what majorities do. I will state that it took some legislative skills to keep both caucuses in line. (And I say all of this as a skeptic of the shutdown strategy to begin with.)
This all leads us to the question of what these jobs are. They are jobs oriented towards managing their respective caucuses. Neither is The Leader of the Democratic Party. Neither is the spokesperson of the party. Neither is the leader of the resistance. Democrats won’t get that person until sometime in 2028, when the nomination fight is settled. That may be a suboptimal situation, but such is life under presidentialism. If you want the leader of the legislative majority to also be the singular leader of the party, you want parliamentarianism.
Indeed, I think a lot of this frustration is driven by the notion that people want a clear Democratic Leader when our system simply does not provide a clear platform for such a person. There is no Shadow Government in a presidential system. And bicameralism dilutes opposition leadership as well. FWIW, the Speaker will likely become the focus, more than Schumer.
I would further note that given our system, it is often the job of the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader to be disliked. The issue for Jeffries and Schumer is not how they appear on mic; it is what they get scheduled for votes on the floor, and what they get voted out of chambers. The real issue, quite frankly, in terms of fighting the administration is going to be who the relevant committee chairs will be, not who the top dogs are.
It seems worth reminding folks that Nancy Pelosi was not an effective Speaker because of her rhetoric on Meet the Press; it was because she could manage the caucus. And there is a reason why most people, when asked to name an effective Senate Majority Leader, conjure LBJ (a hint as to why I note this: it was a long time ago when he was in office, and there have been a lot of Senate leaders since, but no one remembers them).
Again: I get it. I understand why people look at Schumer peering over his glasses and looking like he is about to offer you a hard candy does not inspire confidence. But I think that there is some evidence that he will be fine. But more importantly (to me, anyway) is that I have not seen a viable plan for replacing him. As such, it makes us question the need for a fight, or even for too much angst about the current leadership.
(BTW: if you are rooting for any member of the Senate to run for president, you do not want them to be Leader–it would be more damaging than helpful.)
I would also note that Speaker Jeffries doesn’t mean that members of the House can’t be a firebrand in public. And a Leader Schumer does not stop other Senators from trying to fight the administration.
Moreover, I say again: look to the committee chairs; that’s where the fight will come from.
I suppose I am ultimately asking the ether for a couple of things.
- I would love to see real alternative plans, not just wishes for “better.”
- I would ask that folks think about what these jobs actually are.
- I want people to remember: the next real leader of the Dems will be chosen in 2028.
Am I missing some obvious route forward that differs from the current, obvious pathway? Politics ultimately has to be a practical game, and not one of wish, yes?
BTW: the Republicans have to choose new leaders as well, and Jim Jordan may well be the next Minority Leader. As repugnant as I find him, it is probably in the Democrats’ (and the country’s) interest that the GOP continue to demonstrate the crazy a bit longer in hopes of everyone learning that that is not the way.
