āSchumer is bad at his job,ā said one organizer. āJeffries is not ready for this moment.ā
After a Democratic ātsunamiā in this weekās midterm elections that has been widely seen as āa mandate to deliver big change,ā progressives within and beyond Congress have cast doubt on whether the New York Democrats likely to lead both chambers are actually up for facing Donald Trumpās veto threats and fighting for the ābold agendaā sought by US voters.
As critics of artificial intelligence data centers prepared for a Friday protest outside the Brooklyn home of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer over a ādirtyā bill that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is suddenly speaking out about, political organizer Corbin Trent argued that āSchumer is bad at his jobā and āJeffries is not ready for this moment.ā
With boasts of āMy job is to keep the left pro Israelā it is necessarily incompatible for Schumer to be āAmericans firstā leftist or other positions.
Schumer works for Israel, not the American people. No way in hell he should lead the Democrats in the Senate.
"I have many jobs as leaderā¦ and one is to fight for aid to Israel, all the aid that Israel needs,ā he told a group of pro-Israel Jewish leaders at the time.
āAs long as Iām in the Senate, this programme will continue to grow from strength to strength, and we wonāt let anyone attack it or undo it,ā Schumer said, even referring to US taxpayer aid for Israel as his ābabyā.
The Democrats did not sweep the midterms just to keep spewing money at Israel so they can give their citizens free health care and higher education while we pay for their genocide of of the Palestinian.
Thanks for looking up a good source on Schumerās Israel statements, esp in regard to taxpayer funding for Israel. I knew it was out there but never went after it. Reading it now, itās even worse than I remembered.
My pleasure. Spread the word.
Iāll be adding that link to posts like these.
Bold to think those who are pro Schumer will listen to facts
I donāt expect them to hear me, nor do I care. They are whatever they are, and meanwhile thereās work to be done. Those of us who are in favor of tangible, meaningful change like myself likely know exactly to whom I am writing, and why.
Anyone that trusts those two should not be at all trusted
AIPAC clowns.
Donāt kid yourself into thinking the fight against Israel ends with them. The majority of politicians take money from AIPAC. We are slowly changing that but it will take time.
Having a non-AIPAC SML and House Speaker would be significant progress thoughā¦
Sure but if almost everyone takes money from them there is virtually zero chance they can whip up enough support to get a leadership role.
Thatās more of a Citizens United thing. Also crucial
Okay dude, itās a big pie. We can only eat it one slice at a time.
We canāt get rid of their influence until we find and release all the blackmail they keep on our people. Not just Epstein, there would be more.
The FBI and CIA wouldāve had to be complicit in this by the way.
The only thing Iād caution is this:
Israel is really good at what America wants it to do and now they are maybe too good at it. The idea that Israel is controlling America is like saying the owner is controlled by their pitbull.
Itās all by design of the largest empire ever to exist. Theyāre using our weapons, weāre killing the same folk.
This isnāt a fight against Israel as much as itās a fight against the militarization of our foriegn policy and inability to be a part of the international community. Itās out fault and Israel is our mess, we canāt offload it onto another country. Additionally, the idea of Israel being some big puppet-master smells a lot like antisemitism of old. It doesnāt have to be that complicated. They donāt accept AIPAC money because theyāre controlled by Israel, they accept the money because they share the same goals.
They donāt accept AIPAC money because theyāre controlled by Israel, they accept the money because they share the same goals.
Cart before the horse there, friend. When you take money from someone, especially on an ongoing basis, you do what they tell you. It doesnāt matter why they accept it. It matters what they do afterward in exchange for it, and continue to do.
In fact, this arrangement of completing tasks and doing favors in exchange for regular pay is so prevalent that many of us just call it a job, and the payers are known as employers.
āafterā?!?!?
Nah. We havenāt wanted them. Ever. And I think I first started knowing about their fuckery right near the 2025 term start. So. Itās not new. But I have seen a lot more people now talk about it. And more people are demanding a change in leadership.
Petitions going around. Itās even getting news coverage for once.
Schumer is totally out of touch and thinks his 1994 agenda will work again. Jeffries wants to establish himself and not ruffle feathers of the mega donors (Schumer as always).
The DNC is still owned by corporate Democrats and it will operate how it has for the last couple decades. It will talk mean and deliver flaccid arguments.
The base will be fractured on if itās a good direction (on purpose by itās leadership), and the right will be able to once again point to weak leadership. Theyāll be correct in votersā eyes and that will be just enough foothold to start pushing back.
The DNC needs new blood if things are to change but their endearment to moneyed interests will keep that from ever happening.
Unless a separate form of leadership bursts onto the scene, weāll be back to square 1 in a year. Letās check back in 6 months and see how off I am.
The democrats donāt need wet blankets, they need attack dogs.
After a Democratic ātsunamiā in this weekās midterm elections that has been widely seen as āa mandate to deliver big change,ā
The whole āvoter mandateā thing is thrown around too much these days, and it just isnāt always accurate, but in this case I think it was 100% a mandate. But a mandate for what? The people who voted for this blue wave are not necessarily all aligned on every issue, or even most issues, but they are definitely unified in their disdain for Trump and his cronies. I think the mandate is for the Democrats to finally be true, aggressive opposition to Trump. I think Democrats, both left and center, now see anyone who isnāt able or willing to viciously oppose Trump, and all the plutocrats and other oligarchs who support him, as a liability or even complicit. That is Schumer, and his ilk. They are ineffectual opposition, so they have got to go.
I think everyone is aligned on two issues - affordability and wars.
Both need these two guys to shut up and let the new dems coming in get some work done.
DNC wont admit that the genocide and Epstein support played any role in Harrisās loss in 2024. They are pretending it was all about the economy. so we are being propogandized right now about what the mandate even was about. The DNC is trying to redefine what the blue wave was even about so they dont have to make any changes. They want the status quo-- which means keeping a truly awful republican empowered in government so they can be almost as bad.
The people who voted for this blue wave are not necessarily all aligned on every issue, or even most issues, but they are definitely unified in their disdain for Trump and his cronies. I think the mandate is for the Democrats to finally be true, aggressive opposition to Trump
+1 on this. Exit polls showed that perceived government corruption was the deciding issue in the 2026 midterms, more than ICE, Israel, or gas prices. Dems are going to lose the coalition before Congress is even sworn in if they start going for the culture war bait. The people in Mississippi who voted blue did so because they want to see the kleptocracy end
Itās such a terrible metric though.
āHello Mr Progressive, do you think the government is corrupt?ā
āYes, the Republicans are corrupt.ā
āHello Mr Maga, do you think the government is corrupt?ā
āLetās Go Brandon!ā
I think the mandate is for the Democrats to finally be true, aggressive opposition to Trump.
Youāre right but we donāt have to speculate. The top four issues for voters were the economy, the state of democracy, immigration and healthcare, and of those the immigration people broke Republican and can be safely disregarded (though some kind of reform is needed in any case). When it comes to more concrete stuff, the war in Iran and data centers also got a lot of attention. So the voter mandate is pretty big; voters want effective opposition but also real change.
One issue is that Dems are better for all of those issues and that was the same in '24, and didnāt matter since most donāt understand these details. They blamed Dems for the steady and best recovery from the pandemic, for things that were not their fault, they donāt really know this stuff and use feels instead. The current price issues are from the senseless tariffs and war, which wouldnāt have with Harris. Maybe the companies would have raised prices for higher profits anyway to make her look bad and theyād fall for it too.
They flip flop, didnāt like prices that the world was also dealing with, and flipped to maga, then back to Dems now. If they used logic and looked at the platforms and see what policies work well elsewhere, what aligns with those, they would stay with Dems as the best chance for progress, but they donāt, and consistently flop around willy-nilly, with the winds, whatever their tiktok told them or for group bonding.
Iām not sure what point relevant to my reply youāre trying to make.
The problem is moderate Dems and progressives donāt agree on how to fix the economy. The moderates think the Ezra Klein āAbundanceā doctrine is the way to fix it, but progressive want a more economic populist approach. I totally agree that the first mandate from the voters is to fix the economy, but until thereās a consensus among Democrats on how to go about that I donāt think they can really act on that mandate. But acting aggressively to defend democracy from Trump is a mandate they can act on now.
I totally agree that the first mandate from the voters is to fix the economy, but until thereās a consensus among Democrats on how to go about that I donāt think they can really act on that mandate.
Are we going to keep trying the same type of economic policies that have been in place since Reagan? Cause those clearly arenāt helping anybody other than the billionaire oligarchs.
If weāre going to try something new, then maybe we should try the type of economic policy that progressives are calling for? Just a thought.
But acting aggressively to defend democracy from Trump is a mandate they can act on now.
Yes, agreed.
The problem is moderate Dems and progressives donāt agree on how to fix the economy.
That hasnāt stopped moderates sinceā¦ ever. In practice we should expect both sides to try and push their agenda, but thatās just how politics works. You donāt need a majority or even a plurality in order to try to do something. Waiting until thereās consensus on how to do something is generally a good way not to do it, and politicians are at least in theory supposed to have a vision or agenda theyāre in office to implement, not just do whatever the polls say. More importantly, if they donāt do something about the economy nothing else is going to matter because the pendulum will swing right again.
Multiple reports have come out and said the offices are getting hundreds and in some cases close to a thousand calls a day telling them to get new leadership. I think weāre gonna get what we want on this
Iām going to keep calling until it jolly well occurs
This is the way.
The question is, will progressives allow Jeffries to retain his leadership position? Historically, even progressives among the Democratic party have been unwilling to play hardball the way conservatives will in the Republican party.
Remember, you need an absolute majority vote in the chamber to be elected House Speaker. To be Senate majority leader, you only need a majority of Democratic senators to vote for you. To become Speaker of the House, you need an absolute majority of House members to vote for you.
This means progressives have real leverage in the House, if they choose to use it. No Democrat is getting elected House speaker without either getting progressives onboard or crossing the aisle to make a compromise with a few Republicans. Progressives can and should use this fact to force a change in House Speaker.
The Senate is different. Here only a majority of Democratic senators will be required. The progressives canāt hold that vote hostage in the same way they could House Speaker.
This is when there always seems to be just barely enough. And they take turns pretending to be the one going against the party
Didnāt particularly trust them to lead before either
Itās like a backwards Mitch Hedberg routine
I meanā¦ Back in 2016 when I first voted for Hakeem Jeffries, I guess I just didnāt know any better
But, 10 years ago, I think itās fair that I should be forgiven
They may be problematic, but still better than any R option
Aye, ditch āem.
I gave them the benefit of the doubt before, I no longer am being generous. They need to go.
Schumer has done nothing but go on a whole self fellating tour with how he picked the great candidates, candidates like Haley Stevens, winning the elections and not a single actionable plan.
Heās not meeting the moment again with the leadership needed to match the anger of the temporary Democratic voters that got Democrats into office across the nation.
I wouwould love to see a breakdown of congress between Republicans, democrats, and progressive democrats
