Is Chuck Schumer toast, or will the Blue Wave victories save him?

Predictions are hard, especially about the future, and my track record is pretty bad; no Democrats have called me to discuss internal deliberations, so I have no inside knowledge to share. 

But there is ample evidence that he is in trouble, and some evidence that the establishment pushback against all the radicals and liberals who got elected this cycle may be regaining the upper hand. 

In other words, nobody but the people actually whipping the votes is in a much better position than you or I to predict the outcome. Everybody is still lining up behind candidates, and a lot of people will lie before they cast their votes. You'll know who the major players are in the fight, but it will be hard to predict where the swing votes will go. 

The far left has already staked out its position: they want Schumer out and Van Hollen in. Schumer is sly; Van Hollen is aggressive by nature. Often the results overlap, but Schumer is much more of a wheeler-dealer, while Van Hollen is a do-or-die leftist. While Van Hollen has said he has no interest in taking Schumer's job, he has declined to endorse him and wants an open debate on who is best to lead the caucus. 

Recommended
Sunday Smiles David Strom A Gunman Went on a Drive-By Rampage in Krakow, Poland Saturday Beege Welborn

My guess is that if drafted, he will serve. 

Ed has written about Jeffries' problems, so let's focus on Schumer, who has been in trouble with liberals for quite a while, and a rather obvious strain of antisemitism has recently complicated his life even further. 

Ezra Levin, co-executive director of the progressive group Indivisible, is among those pushing the effort and was in contact with Van Hollen as recently as Sunday, Politico reported.

“He has not sought the position, but he has also not closed the door to the position,” Levin told Politico. “And I think if there is sufficient public demand, that not only would he possibly get in the race, but I think he could win.”

A person familiar with Van Hollen’s thinking told the outlet that the senator has “received an outpouring of calls and is now in active listening mode.”

That marks a notable shift after Van Hollen said in a live interview with FOX 5 DC last week that he was “not looking to be the next Democratic leader” and was instead “kicking the tires” on a potential 2028 presidential campaign. During the same interview, he declined to endorse Schumer, saying the choice of the next Democratic leader “should not be automatic.” 

Newsweek has contacted the offices of Schumer, Van Hollen and Levin for comment.

Several incoming Democratic senators have either said they will not support Schumer or called for a generational change in leadership, while some sitting senators have stopped short of endorsing him.

Van Hollen and Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin both declined to back Schumer during a post-election gathering in Washington on Saturday. “There should be no coronation of the next Democratic leader,” Van Hollen said, according to CNN.

“I’ve said very clearly that we need to have a discussion in the Democratic caucus, we need to understand what the Democrats are going to do with this new responsibility and these new powers, and nobody should get a blank check without a full understanding of the caucus as to where we’re going to go."

That's a pretty clear indication that Van Hollen would love the job if it were handed to him; he just wants others to lead the fight because he doesn't want a loss to stain his brand. 

The hunger on the sinister side of the party for a Schumer replacement is palpable; it is a real movement, and not a fleeting sentiment. They hated Schumer before, seeing him as the establishment and an example of what is wrong with politics, and his leading his caucus to victory hasn't changed their minds a bit. 

It's not just the far left who have it out for Schumer. I suspect that Schumer actually wants to tackle some of the liberal wish list, and he may think that Trump can be dealt with on some issues — and he may be right. Trump loves deals as much as he loves to fight. The Slotkin wing wants to destroy Republicans, and policies be damned. They have a color-revolution agenda, with power as the first priority and policy a distant second. 

At Crooked Con, Jon Favreau asks Elissa Slotkin about supporting Schumer for leader. She was on record this summer saying she wanted new leadership but answers in a way that is not “I will vote against him.”“If he wants to be majority leader, what is your plan for the first 100 days?”Some murmuring in room and then light applause, but she gave him a “test” he can easily pass.

Favreau not giving up… “there’s never been a woman majority leader in the history of the Senate. Nobody has said they’re willing to run and challenge Chuck Schumer.”

Someone in crowd says “do it!”

Slotkin: “It’s an open field and those conversations are happening rapidly.”

“I don’t have any big announcements to make but those conversations are happening right now.”

Favreau: “It sounds like you’re not saying no, you won’t run for majority leader.”

“… I’m not ruling anything out.”

To my ears it sounds like she is pre-spinning how Schumer critics will justify him being leader again. But if you have different ears it sounds like she wants to run for leader.

I prefer my ears.

The internal battle is real, and you can't tell that much from public statements, aside from those who are unambiguous in their position. Even the least ambiguity means the vote is up for grabs, and each side should pull out their metaphorical checkbooks to buy it. 

Letitia James, part of the New York Democratic machine, is four-square behind Jeffries, which you would expect from an Organized Crime Democrat, especially from New York. The DSA-aligned candidates want one of their own in both slots, and interestingly enough, James has said nothing to defend Schumer. Make of that what you will. 

The lines are clear; what's not clear is who will win the ideological battle. Will it be the establishment, the CIA Democrats in alliance with the left, or the left winning outright? 

I think there are at least three sets of players, with the CIA Democrats playing the role of an alliance partner for one side or the other. They want what they want, and are willing to do a deal with either side if they can get assurances that their agenda will get some real traction. 

That's just my read. What's yours?