Combative Centrism comes for Chuck

Organizing is a muscle, not a battery. Where's the plan to compete in 35 states?

Two rambunctious terms have been buzzing around Democratic politics this week, relating to the ideologically flexible anger Democrats feel towards their own party.

Is a “Democratic Tea Party” on the horizon?

Do Dem voters desire “Combative Centrism”?

Meanwhile a third question dominates the strategic debate for Democrats. After a summer marked by an ideologically flexible insurgency against a septuagenarian party leader, there is a growing focus on translating that anger to ending the Senate Leader’s term. In July, a wide variety of Democrats agreed President Biden was too far past his prime. But the result of that insurgency was a loss.

So, what kind of conflict is coming for Chuck Schumer?

A combative centrist uprising focused on winning.

---

1. A Democratic Tea Party?

Politico Magazine has a big piece out on the intra-party antipathy that “ratchets up pressure in the 2026 primary election season”.

Written by Lakshya Jain, founder of the election analysis outfit Split-Ticket, the article’s accompanying charts are worth many words - and potentially some serious action:

Democratic voters are livid with their party, in a complete turnaround compared to the last Trump term. Today’s Democrats are the most upset voters have been at their own party since the GOP’s Tea Party.

Congressional Democrats have typically enjoyed higher popularity with their voting base than their Republican counterparts. But the trauma of the 2024 presidential election defeat appears to have ruptured that relationship. A review of Quinnipiac University’s annual first-quarter congressional polling reveals that, for the first time in the poll’s history, congressional Democrats are now underwater with their own voters in approval ratings.

Read the full piece in Politico here.

Not to do the progressive therapy-speak thing, but “rupture” and “trauma” seems like an accurate descriptor for the reaction of both Democratic activists and elected officials. The activists are exhibiting some symptoms (agitation, confusion, and a fight-or-flight mentality) while many leaders seem detached, numb or submissive.

So is a Democratic version of the Tea Party on the horizon?

---

2. Combative Centrism

One sharp difference with the Tea Party - and the 2018 progressive surge in urban Democratic primaries - is the lack of an ideological rift between Democratic voters and their leaders¹. The dimension of conflict is attitude, not ideology.

Jain notes the ideologically temperate nature of the attitudinally intemperate Dem voters:

Despite the restive energy in the party’s progressive wing, the Democratic discontent does not seem to be centered around a desire to pull the party to the left or the right. Democrats cannot seem to agree on which direction the party should move in — recent Gallup polling found that 45 percent wanted the party to become more moderate, while 29 percent felt it should become more liberal, and 22 percent wanted it to stay the same.

Patrick Ruffini has coined the term “Combative Centrism” to describe this dynamic appearing in polling: Democratic voters want the party both to move to the center and to be more combative.

Noah Smith has a persuasive piece making the case for why - and how:

To many progressives, this must seem like a contradiction. To fight Trump harder, in their minds, means to stand up more strongly for progressive causes — trans rights, DEI, depolicing, and a more permissive attitude toward asylum-seekers. To compromise on those ideas, by definition, would be to accommodate or compromise with Trump…right?

The flaw in this thinking is that the issues most Americans care most about — the things they want Democrats to fight Trump hardest on — are not necessarily the same things progressive activists care about. The axes of “moderate vs. progressive” and “fight vs. compromise” simply don’t line up.

Tahra Jirari

makes this point succinctly on The Rebuild: “Democrats don't face a choice between fighting harder or moderating—they need to do both simultaneously.”

There is one tiny little problem though: in the words of AOC, moderates are ‘meh’ about everything.

So where the hell are Democrats going to get a faction of centrist insurgents? And even if they did, what would they do?

---

3. What’s the Plan to Win, Chuck?

Back to Chuck Schumer in the political crosshairs. His decision not to shut down the government and “fight harder” has elevated questions about his ability to build and communicate a legislative strategy to counter Trump.

Matthew Yglesias

has boiled it all down in a Bloomberg column this morning:

What should Schumer critics do? Actually address voters’ biggest concern (Democrats losing) with the biggest problem facing Democrats in the Senate (they must moderate to build a caucus that consistently wins):

the first responsibility of anyone making an argument for new leadership: What is the new leader supposed to do? What is the plan to win a majority? Tellingly, the progressives calling for Schumer’s head have no strategy of their own to offer, because the only strategy that would work is one they don’t like. Schumer, meanwhile, seems paralyzed by fear of further angering the left and unwilling to articulate the plain truth.

This is how combative centrists build their muscles.

Organizing is a Muscle

The first rule for radicals, as we covered in Centrist School, is to approach organizing like a muscle:

“Getting into these fights is not like draining a battery. It’s like a muscle. The more you use it, the stronger it gets.” - Elizabeth Warren

Centrists typically look at conflict like something that is draining. But, structured effectively, conflict builds. And the “combative centrists” need to build.

Democratic centrists have done it before, despite the obstacles inherent in building a crew of antagonistic moderates. As we wrote in Rules for Engaging Radicals:

Political moderates tend to be more conflict-averse. But, as political scientists and political leaders demonstrated last time Democrats were in deep trouble (in the late 1980s), those who want to grow the party must structure productive conflict with the far-left.

This doesn’t mean fighting just for fun, it means drawing important distinctions to communicate more clearly to the rest of the country. Conflict has real costs and can distract — many on the far-left share motivations and goals with the center-left — so questions are warranted.

Is conflict necessary? Is it truthful? Is it helpful?

Define the Schumer Problem

Is attacking Schumer for not shutting down the government to “fight harder” necessary? Truthful? Helpful?

Maybe? But maybe not, as we covered last week.

If the problem centers around not shutting down the government, or around the intricacies of legislative strategy and vagaries of modern political communications, then the conflict will build power for the progressive left without getting Democrats closer to electoral victories.²

But there is another, much larger problem with Chuck Schumer. A problem for which the only proven answer comes from centrists.

Over his 8+ years as the party’s senate leader, Schumer has overseen a shocking decline in electoral competitiveness.

When Schumer took over in November 2016, Democrats had Senators representing Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, Indiana, and Florida. The prior session, Democrats represented Iowa, North Carolina, Arkansas, Alaska, Louisiana, and South Dakota.

Those are 13 states Democrats no longer represent, most of which Democrats do not even seriously contest now.

That’s a lot of states!

Democrats currently hold both Senate seats from 22 states, plus Tammy Baldwin, Angus King, and John Fetterman.

This dismal situation has been widely known for more than half of Schumer’s tenure as leader. In a 2021 Ezra Klein column in The New York Times, David Shor described a total senate apocalypse that has only been avoided by a combination of luck (Democrats have won most of the close Senate races) and the insanity of their opponents (Republicans have nominated terrible candidates multiple times, including in Trump-won states last year).

Here’s Yglesias again:

It’s possible to argue that, considering these fundamentals, the party has actually done pretty well in winning elections. Schumer is a smart tactician who has recruited better candidates than Republicans, raised more money and ran better ads.

But tactics only get you so far. What Democrats need is a strategy for winning a Senate majority — a strategy that would put states like Alaska, Iowa, Ohio and Florida back on the map, while adding Texas. This is the only way to make Democrats systematically competitive in the Senate.

What the Democrats need, in other words, is not just more moderate candidates. They need a more moderate ideology.

Republicans have all 50 Senate seats representing the 25 states that Trump won thrice, and Chuck Schumer very clearly has no plan for changing that.

Define the (Senate) Problem

The fight is coming to Chuck Schumer, necessary or not. The question now is if that conflict is truthful and productive.

And that requires defining the problem that Democrats have with him.

The current debate is conflated with broader dissatisfaction with party leadership. Arguments about the party brand - or even winning back the House in 2026 and the White House in 2028 - are endless, and often lead to debates over better TikToks and bro-friendly YouTubers and targeted voter turnout and “year-round organizing” or whatnot.

This general party debate is then applied to Chuck Schumer: is he the “best messenger”? Does he “have a strategy to fight Trump”?

This obscures the true problem for Democrats: the party can win the presidency and House in a good year. It’s a coin flip, with a coin that can be loaded by great candidates and smart investments.

But winning back the Senate with the current party is more like needing to roll snake eyes. With dice loaded in the wrong direction.

Combative centrists have an opportunity to create productive conflict that is truthful.

Where’s the plan to compete in 13 more states, Chuck?

1. The most famous recent upsets of legislative leaders (Dave Brat over Eric Cantor, AOC over Joe Crowley) were driven by an unprepared incumbent blindsided by an outsider. But much of that focused on issues and ideology, which are not as much at play here. Another dynamic is possible, more similar to the current MAGA dominance. If politicians, staffers, donors, and media all see a revolution on the horizon, that makes it even more likely that candidates will adopt a pugilistic style and view intra-party battles as legitimate.

2. AOC is using the current debate to great effect as a muscle-building exercise, focused on broadening her ideological appeal and a potential Senate challenge to Schumer.