At New York, I offer some thoughts on why the desire for fresh party leadership is not confined to any faction.

The Beltway media love to frame every intraparty Democratic discussion as a “struggle for the soul of the Democratic Party” between ideological factions. That’s evident in an Axios piece looking ahead to a post-midterm scenario in which Hakeem Jeffries seeks to consolidate his power as House Speaker and sees Democrats in disarray:

“House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) faces mounting behind-the-scenes frustration from progressive lawmakers and candidates that’s likely to burst into public view after the midterm elections.

“Why it matters: Unless Democrats win a big enough House majority in November to govern without the progressive wing, a Speaker Jeffries would have to contend with the left flank’s demands.

“An influx of Democratic Socialists of America-aligned members in January will compound latent distrust of Jeffries that’s festering in some corners of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.”

The most immediate problem with this lefties-versus-Jeffries framing is that there aren’t going to be remotely enough DSA or Congressional Progressive Caucus members to topple Jeffries unless they are willing to vote against him after he’s won a House Democratic Caucus vote, and there’s zero indication that sort of heretical play is in the cards. But the broader problem with the Axios take and so many others like it is the presumption that ideology is the sole reason anyone would prefer to enter the final two years of the Trump era with new Democratic leadership. Take it from this card-carrying centrist: There are plenty of Democrats who want leadership changes just as badly.

Are many progressives annoyed with Jeffries going out of his way to say he is not a fan of Medicare for All and is a fan of Israel? Sure. But as Axios’s own account makes clear, progressives are reflecting unhappiness with the status-quo orientation of their congressional leadership that goes well beyond their own ideological ranks: “A senior Progressive Caucus member told Axios they ‘consistently hear from constituents how displeased they are with the Democratic leadership, including Leader Jeffries.’” It’s very safe to say such sentiment also extends to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer. And it’s not ideology or even party identification that most shapes such views. It’s not the “liberal party base” that’s unhappiest. It’s those who are alienated from the political establishment, especially young people and independents, two categories that include a disproportionate number of swing voters.

A late July 2026 CNN-SSRS survey testing the favorability of a variety of political leaders found, unsurprisingly, that sizable portions of the electorate had never heard of Jeffries or Schumer or had no opinion of either man. But their favorability ratings were especially low among 18-to-34-year-old voters (9 percent for Jeffries, 8 percent for Schumer) and independents (11 percent for Jeffries, 9 percent for Schumer). More generally, the current leaders just aren’t popular throughout the electorate, and ideology does not appear to be the problem. A June 2026 survey by Verasight showed an assortment of progressive and more moderate Democratic leaders with overall favorability ratings over 40 percent: Barack Obama (54 percent), Bernie Sanders (45 percent), Zohran Mamdani (44 percent), Pete Buttigieg (43 percent), Jon Ossoff (42 percent), and Kamala Harris (41 percent). Jeffries was at 36 percent, and Schumer was at 30 percent.

Even though they are constantly in the news articulating Democratic positions and messaging and attacking (and being attacked by) Trump, the current congressional leaders are mostly leaving a meh impression, a bad impression, or no impression at all on voters. This could be toxic in an era when public confidence in both major political parties is low and the president of the United States is counting on Americans believing the two parties are so equally offensive that his many outrages and failures are no worse than the alternative on offer.

For purposes of the midterms, perhaps the Democrats’ pallid leadership is acceptable since such elections are invariably referenda on the president’s record and agenda. But on November 4, a comparative election cycle will begin, and suddenly, it will matter a great deal what voters think of Democratic as well as Republican politicians. Eventually, a presidential nominee will emerge to define the Democratic Party for the 2028 election. But what the unhappiness with Jeffries and Schumer shows is that the party should worry less about the ideology of its candidates or preconceived notions of “electability” and a lot more about the existential necessity of standing relentlessly for change.

Democrats rightly wonder why anyone can believe right now, as so many voters do, that the two major parties are basically the same. It’s not because they think that, on an ideological scale extending from the far left to the far right, the parties are in the same place. It’s because they think both parties are interested in perpetuating their own wealth, their own power, and the interest and advocacy groups that keep them in power.

It has almost become irrelevant whether this growing conviction is accurate. So long as it persists, any political party that wants to survive long term needs to promote itself, relentlessly and credibly, as a change agent. That doesn’t exclusively mean “moving left” or hurling thunderbolts at capitalist oligarchs. It can also mean “moving to the center” and cracking down on government inefficiency (the real kind that squanders opportunities to do good, not the phony “fraud” Republicans claim in order to cut safety net programs or the phony “waste” people like Elon Musk use as an excuse to wantonly punish competent and dedicated public employees).

Right now, Democrats stand for the restoration of government as it existed before Trump’s shocking return to power in 2024. They need to reflect on exactly how much anger and alienation it took for the electorate to give Trump power once again. Progressives and centrists can and should be able to agree there’s no going back. Providing new and innovative leadership, in Congress now and in the White House soon, must be job one after the midterms. As Ben Rhodes said recently in a New York Times op-ed: “It’s not just about optics or political positioning: Only new faces can make voters believe change is possible.” Amen to that.