View this post on the web at [link removed]

Hakeem Jeffries was supposed to be the House speaker right now. Democrats weren’t supposed to lose the 2024 election, and even as the Kamala Harris campaign squandered an early lead, House Democrats believed they were poised for a majority—divided government, or no.
In fairness, they did gain seats—just not enough to win. They lost the popular vote for the House by about two and half points. It was a miss.
Jeffries nevertheless remains undisputed leader of the House Democratic caucus. That’s to some extent because he shines by comparison. Questions surrounding Chuck Schumer’s leadership are much more clear cut. He lost his majority in 2024, and has lowered expectations of himself to the point where few in the party believe he can serve up a Senate majority, let alone that this should be a condition of continued leadership.
This is why Senate Democratic primary candidates have raced to opposed Schumer’s continued leadership. Jeffries holds on because he could plausibly claim the speakership was stolen or lost by people he couldn’t control. It’s quite likely that the Republican gerrymander in North Carolina combined with New York state Democratic Party incompetence cost him the gavel. Plus, unlike Schumer, he only took the helm of his caucus in 2023—he’s the first young-ish Democratic congressional leader in a quarter century and he’d barely had a chance to prove himself.
He is thus likely to cruise to the speakership in 2027. If Democrats win the midterms in a landslide, it will come with a large House majority, and Jeffries will be able to claim, plausibly, to have rebuilt the party from its lowest moment. Absent scandal or failure, there will be no clear way to stop his rise. But that won’t make it a good idea.
LOCATION, LOCATION
I want to make two points about this, one general, another specific to Jeffries. ...

Unsubscribe [link removed]?