Honor an Election of Change. Replace Chuck Schumer

Now that Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland is challenging Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for Senate majority leader, we have a choice that lets us honor an election of change. Schumer’s supporters credit him for every Senate upset and proclaim his inevitable coronation as majority leader after leading the Senate Democrats for nearly ten years. But if he’s such a Zen master strategist, why do most of the new senators who represent so much of the party’s future almost unanimously want someone different? Maybe because they’re actually in touch with average Americans, and recognize that letting Schumer continue to symbolize the Democratic brand as majority leader insults the very desire for a different direction that powered their victory.

The new senators-elect calling for change so far include Annie Andrews, Abdul El-Sayed, Troy Jackson, Peggy Flanagan, Adam Hamilton, Chris Pappas, James Talarico, and Juliana Stratton. Scott Colom, who just claimed a historic victory in Mississippi, has questioned having two leaders from the same borough of the same city. Existing senators opposing Schumer range from Sens. Bernie Sanders and Raphael Warnock to Elissa Slotkin and Mark Warner. These senators represent diverse sectors of the party—the problems with Schumer go beyond any “progressive vs. moderate” divide. But all recognize the need for a change, and their response undercuts every argument about Schumer being key to the Democratic victories. Why kneecap them from the start by insisting on the old regime?

I saw the grassroots response this past June when I gave the opening keynote at the Washington State Democratic convention. The delegates were a diverse group of hard-working volunteer activists, spanning highly progressive Seattle districts, suburbs that recently turned blue, blue-collar cities like Spokane and Tacoma, and conservative rural areas where even identifying as a Democrat takes courage. After exploring the possibilities and challenges of the moment, I described how Schumer has dragged down the Democratic brand—with his closeness to Wall Street and relentless embrace of Israel being particularly toxic with young voters—and why he needed to go.

To succeed in 2028 and beyond, Democrats will need a strong positive vision, not Schumer’s tepid rehash of corporate-friendly Clintonism.

I then asked the crowd to try a thought experiment: Would anyone want Schumer campaigning alongside them in a critical race, whether local, state, or national? Given the breadth of delegates in the room, I expected some pushback and argument. Instead, which I didn’t expect, the entire room burst into laughter. They responded to that idea as though it was literally absurd.

So why would the Democrats want Schumer, with his 13% approval rating, as a leading spokesperson for the party? They need leaders to inspire enthusiasm, build on the election’s successes, and rebuild the party brand, not a leader who deflates momentum and sows doubt every time he opens his mouth. Here are three reasons why picking Schumer would undermine the amazing achievement of the Democratic wave:

Schumer’s strategic record is far weaker than the Democratic victories imply. Supporters say Schumer helped recruit candidates like Roy Cooper, Josh Turek, Sherrod Brown, and Mary Peltola. But all but Turek were obvious choices whom many others were also working to convince. Schumer also backed Haley Stevens in Michigan, Janet Mills in Maine, and Angie Craig in Minnesota, all of whom were problematic—in Stevens’s case, her election-eve backstabbing nearly cost Democrats the seat. Schumer’s Senate Majority PAC controlled massive Democratic dollars. But Schumer didn’t invest in Kansas until October 9, or in South Carolina until five days before the election. Schumer never invested in Louisiana, where Democrats lost by less than two points after July and September polls showed they were within four points. Nor in Florida, where Angie Nixon lost by less than three after select polls had shown her equally close. In contrast, Ken Martin’s Democratic National Committee paved the way for even the long-shot victories by routing money to every state party, with red states getting proportionately more, echoing the role that Howard Dean’s 50-state strategy played in the Obama wave.

Mississippi is a key example. Democrats like Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Warnock helped Colom’s long-shot candidacy raise money early on, with Warnock raising $750,000 and offering valuable introductions and advice. JB Pritzker also played a key role, investing $1.6 million. AOC helped too, as did grassroots donors. I gave my $100 in April after reading a thoughtful Bulwark assessment of Colom’s chances. With every resource and access to inside data, Schumer should have had the judgment to invest early even on the possibility of Colom winning. But aside from one joint fundraiser, Schumer didn’t financially support Colom until October 20, although he now tries to take credit, and credulous reporters seem to accept his claim. He’s embodied the opposite of strategic acuity.

Schumer’s a terrible symbol for the party. Physically, though “only” 75, Schumer echoes Joe Biden’s frailty. He’s useless on social media, rambles in interviews, and writes press releases with 35-word titles. He’s rightly been called “the senator from Wall Street,” a disaster in a populist moment. He refused to endorse Zohran Mamdani after the Democratic primary, even though Mamdani excited precisely the kinds of new voters who then fueled this national wave election. Schumer also voted for the disastrous Iraq War that helped pave the way for Trump, and continues to excuse the actions of an Israeli government that’s rightly condemned worldwide. As majority leader, he’ll be under even more public scrutiny, which will make it far harder for Democrats to marshal the grassroots enthusiasm necessary to build on their successes and battle Trump and Stephen Miller on the public stage.

Democrats won in spite of their brand, not because of it. We don’t need someone who embodies the brand’s weaknesses. Only 29% of voters viewed the party favorably in an October 28 NBC poll, a week before they threw the Republicans out. Schumer’s the last person to change that assessment. In contrast, Van Hollen has ties to all the elements of the Democratic coalition, having run the fundraising efforts for both House and Senate Democrats, and then emerged as a critic of Democratic complacency in the last couple of years, including challenging Biden’s unflinching allegiance to Israel and confronting leaders like Schumer, who refused to back Mamdani. It took real courage for Van Hollen to travel to El Salvador to meet with and help build the pressure to free Kilmar Abrego García, the Maryland man whom ICE had deported there in defiance of a court order. So he’d make an excellent majority leader, and would have my vote.

If senators prefer someone other than Van Hollen, there are lots of others who could similarly unite the party, embody the best of its values, and be powerful spokespeople instead of coming off as if they have one foot in the grave. Democrats won because people so hated what Trump has done, and because grassroots volunteers organized with such commitment, persistence, and intensity to make the blue wave a reality. To succeed in 2028 and beyond, Democrats will need a strong positive vision, not Schumer’s tepid rehash of corporate-friendly Clintonism.

It’s right to keep celebrating our amazing victory, but replacing Schumer will make building on all we’ve won far easier. Groups from Indivisible to the Machinists union have weighed in for change so far. Now it’s time to get other organizations to join the grassroots pressure and to insist that our Democratic senators back a majority leader who embodies the vision we’re fighting for and can present it to the public in a way that builds on all we’ve just achieved.