Why I've Voted for Chuck Schumer Before And Will Again

 

 

As my readers know I'm a resident of New York State. The first election I could cast a ballot in was in 1998, the first time Chuck Schumer was running for the Senate to vacate the seat held by long time Republican Al D'Amato who was retiring.

I voted for him that year and every time he's been up for reelection ever since I've always cast my vote for him. I acknowledge Schumer is phlegmatic rather than charismatic but that's never been a disqualifier for me. Schumer has always met the benchmark I have for an elected official: he's a good public servant because he fulfills the only three masters any elected official should: the Democratic Party, the voters of the state of New York and the American people. I ask no more of my leaders then that nor should any voter.

During the 21^st century Schumer has moved up the rankings of leadership within the Senate, finally becoming minority leader in 2016 – not a great time for any Democrat to be in charge of anything. In my opinion in what has been a very turbulent time for all three of the constituencies an elected official should Schumer has served all three with as much distinction and grace as humanly possible – and with far fewer rewards then at any time in American history. He became a prominent name in the establishment at the exact time both parties were becoming as virulently anti-establishment as possible and for that reason he has become the target of horrific personal attacks not just from the Republicans and conservatives – something any Democrat who came to Washington in the era of Fox News has to be used too – but by voices within his own party. To the point that even though he has done everything that any elected leader can reasonably be expected to do there are many who think that, if the Democrats regain the majority this November, his reelection to an office he held as recently as two years ago is far from assured.

I've had many reasons to reflect on why this is the case and I believe that much of this reasoning is because, during his tenure as minority leader or majority leader, he has not been to Senate Democrats what his counterpart to Mitch McConnell has been for Republicans: an obstructor, a destroyer of every norm the Senate was known for in the two centuries before McConnell was elected. One might find it paradoxical that a man who the left in particular has famously considered the biggest Congressional boogeyman long before the 2016 election would want someone like that as one of their leaders but it makes perfect sense when one considers that at its core the far left has had as little use for institutions as McConnell and the overwhelming majority of Congressional Republicans in the 21^st century have. They never had much use for institutions when they were working properly; now that they've become ossified so thoroughly that have no use at all.

This would go against everything Schumer is, both as a Senator and as a Democrat. Unlike most progressives he remembers a time before McConnell. When he entered the Senate Trent Lott and then Bill Frist served as leadership for Republicans and Tom Daschle and Harry Reid as leadership for Democrats. None of these men were perfect but in my lifetime McConnell by far has been the biggest outlier as a Senate leader of either party. Considering that John Thune took over leadership when Trump won reelection its clear he's not the same kind of leader I've been used to as a Republican in a long time. It remains to be seen if he will become the kind of obstructionist McConnell was if and when the Democrats regain the majority and the Presidency but there have been signs – small but still present – that he does represent a different kind of leadership then I've been used to from Senate Republicans.

After the 2024 election Schumer was where he was in 2016: Senate Minority Leader. The major difference was that the Democrat voter seemed to be engaged in the kind of election denialism that puts anything Republicans did to shame. Despite Trump winning with the biggest margin of his three candidacies and the GOP gaining control of both Houses of Congress, a poll in January said that nearly two-thirds of Democrats did not want Congressional Democrats to go along with the White House. In other words regardless of the verdict of the voters and the fact that the Democrats really had no power to do anything, the Democratic voters wanted men like Schumer to act like McConnell did when he said: "Our job is to make Barack Obama a one-term President." Never mind McConnell had failed at that or that Trump could not for reelection.

So Chuck Schumer chose to do the one thing absolutely guaranteed to piss off the left. He ignored them and chose to act like a grownup. This has infuriated many Senate Democrats such as Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland both of whom have been listed as wanting Schumer's job if the Democrats win the majority.

They can afford to this because their state's Congressional delegations are almost entire made of Democrats and are far more blue in elections then New York is. For a man whose state has at least four swing districts in the last two elections, it's not a position that Schumer is comfortable taking. The fact that his state had until last year Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Elise Stefanik among its Congressional delegation, it’s an approach that is reasonable – something you can never accuse either Murphy or Van Hollen of being.

Schumer spent the first half of 2025 under fire from the Democrats for refusing to shut the government down. He then gave into his base and let them shut it down until after the 2025 elections led to victory for Democrats in off-year elections. Then he let members of his delegation vote to reopen the government when it was clear his party had gotten all the political juice they could out of him. The left was infuriated when he reopened the government, most clearly because they didn't want to acknowledge that they'd been outmaneuvered by the establishment.

Schumer has spent much of 2026 so far patiently waiting for the President to do his work for him. This basically involving sticking a sock in his mouth and saying nothing publicly during the Iran War. I have no doubt behind the scenes he has been supporting the vote for the War Powers Act and waiting for the President to do what he does best and go after those people he found insufficiently loyal during the Republican primaries for Senate.

The President, as always, lived up to his expectations and as a result Bill Cassidy and John Cornyn are lame ducks who owe the President nothing and will be in the Senate for another six months. In the last few weeks we've seen how the Senate has increasingly been rebelling against Trump's policies, first by passing the War Powers Act in both houses of Congress, then by making it very clear that they had no intention of voting for reconciliation if either his supposed 'revenge' fund was part of the budget. Both times this was seen as Congressional Republicans standing up to the President but there's no doubt that Schumer's hidden hand was involved as he made sure his caucus would be willing to support them. This was a loss for the President that will almost certainly help the Democrats in their battle for control of the Senate in six months.

Its not clear how big a role Schumer has played in recruiting candidates to run this year and how much is the DNC but having spent so much time working with Sherrod Brown it's hard to imagine that didn't play a factor in Brown choosing to run for his seat in Ohio one years after losing it or helping such possible red state Democrats as Mary Peltola running for Alaska. With the added bonus of Roy Cooper running in North Carolina, the odds were looking up for the Democrats going as 2026 began.

He has been helped, I should add, by the fact that the left's efforts to try and recruit progressive candidates for red states has basically come up short. (There is one exception which I'll be dealing with.) Jasmine Crockett was trounced by James Talarico in Texas and combined with Ken Paxton defeating Cornyn in the primary the odds in winning this seat have increased dramatically. This past Tuesday a kind of shadow proxy battle took place in Iowa where Zach Wahls, a progressive candidate who made it clear he was not going to vote for Chuck Schumer if elected to the Senate ran again Josh Turek who Schumer endorsed. Turek trounced Wahls in the primary by nearly 25 percent and as a result Iowa has now moved to Leans Republican. That either state would be in play would have been unthinkable even a few months ago.

This brings me to what was considered just a few weeks ago as the major impetus for the death knell of Chuck Schumer's career in the Senate: the race to replace Susan Collins in Maine.

During that race Schumer had endorsed Janet Mills, the former governor of Maine who was immensely popular. Almost from the start in the polls she trailed the problematic Graham Platner whose campaign started with his staff all resigning within weeks even before the revelation of his unawareness of a Nazi tattoo on his chest.

Schumer, who had been in the Senate as long as Collins has been there knows just how difficult it is for the Democrats to beat her in Maine. He knew just six years earlier the Democrats had nominated Sara Gideon, a very progressive candidate who had led in every poll all the way up to election day but who Collins had beaten by nearly 9 percent. He knows the history of how many Democrats have managed to win seats in the Senate because of flawed Republican candidates. And he had to know that even if Maine Democrats were willing to overlook these flaws in the primary the Republicans and Collins almost certainly wouldn't. Considering that they'd been making remarks about Platner's flaws for public office as early as November of 2025, he knew the knives were going to come out the moment Platner won the primary and never stop until election day.

For whatever reason, perhaps because of the huge lead in the polls Platner had over Mills, he backed down and Mills withdrew from the race a month ago. This was seen as a mortal blow to Schumer's leadership.

A week before the primary it’s a very different story. Just a few days ago the New York Times ran an article about how multiple ex-girlfriends of Platner made very clear what a toxic personality he was. Platner's campaign has denied it and the left is rallying behind him. The problem is these stories aren't going away. Earlier today The Atlantic have a Graham Platner problem, infuriating the Democratic party. While many progressives such as Ro Khanna are reiterated their support, others such as Robert Zimmerman have said "Democrats who defend him sound like Republicans defending Donald Trump after the Access Hollywood state." Cheyenne Hunt, who'd organized against Eric Swalwell over allegations of sexual assault, rescinded her endorsement of Platner Thursday.  Brian Romick, president of Democratic Majority for Israel, made it very clear "people need to answer for this."

Most tellingly many Democrats are researching the mechanism to replace Platner should he withdraw from the ticket. A senior Democratic operative said: "The calculus here is that this is a must win seat and the safer-bet candidate is the best bet when the Senate is on the line. I don't say this often but I think in this case some people owe Chuck Schumer an apology.

Schumer has been silent on the subject but multiple Democrats are very concerned about losing Maine then they were before. It basically breaks down along party lines: progressives have doubled down while more mainstream Democrats are getting angrier. As well they should. Just last week Platner was beating Collins 51 percent to 42 percent. A poll on Thursday showed the lead had dropped to 48 percent to 43 percent. Simultaneously last month prediction markets gave Platner a 70 percent chance of beating Collins. It's now down to 57 percent – and that's before the primary.

It's impossible to think that Janet Mills could have generate this kind of controversy had she run against Collins. While she withdrew from the race her name is still on the ballot – and its clear that if the voters either stay home or don't give Platner as much of a margin there will be room for a move.

In either case as much as Platner and his supporters want to pretend otherwise its impossible to argue that had they listened to Schumer and backed Mills their chances of taking the Senate back would be much easier. And if they do take the Senate back – which sites like Race to The White House have this week tilted that in the Democrats favor for the first time – it will be because voters prefer candidates like Josh Turek and Sherrod Brown more than the populist rhetoric of Graham Platner.

And even if Platner manages to beat the odds and win – which in a post- Trump America no one can rule out  - he will be more isolated in whatever Democrat senators are elected. He was always an outlier among the Democrats that have been running for Senate this cycle, certainly among those who have the best chance of making them the majority party. Left wing candidates have always had far more difficulty winning statewide offices then moderates have: this is something Schumer knows but that the progressives who loathe him have ignored – and the party has suffered immensely as a result.

Schumer will be on the ballot again in 2028. He'll be 77 then and he might very well want to retire at that point, perhaps deciding to jump rather than be pushed. However if he does stand for reelection I will gladly vote for him yet again and support him if he is primaried. He is a good public servant, the kind of senator the Democratic party, the state of New York and the country need now more than ever. That may not be enough for many of today's Americans or today's Democrats. That's always been enough for me. Schumer, as the left loves to crow, is on the right side of history and that's because he's lived through a lot of it.