Schumer is the one i'd like to see gone.
Both NY senators—Schumer and Gillibrand—owe their political lives to incumbency familiarity, my term for what is commonly referred to incumbency advantage. I use familiarity over advantage because incumbency advantage implies people are paying attention enough to figure out an incumbent can deliver more for them because of seniority in Congress than a challenger who will start at the bottom of everything. I don't believe people pay that much attention because if they did, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in.
Incumbency familiarity works for incumbents in two ways (1) voters have heard the name somewhere, and (2) the local media—state, region, city—play into that by referring to a challenger as "little known" so and so. It's happening here in Virginia with the margin between challenger Hung Cao and the detestable Tim Kaine being much larger than the margin between President Trump and Harris.
How someone could support President Trump and Tim Kaine says more about name familiarity, I believe, than Kaine's seniority in the Senate. Which is more likely?
"I want Trump because he'll fix inflation and the border, but I want Kaine because he'll deliver more benefits."or
"I want Trump because he'll fix inflation and the border, but I want Kaine because I know who he is and I don't know who this Hung Cao is."You can argue that voting for Trump and Kaine means you figure Trump will succeed and Kaine will deliver more because of it, but Kaine is mostly going to oppose what Trump wants to do. Yes, people don't think that deeply on it and that is why I say it's incumbency familiarity not incumbency advantage. Either way, it's maddening.