The progressive group Indivisible called for Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday to replace Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) as Democratic leader after the party secured control of both chambers of Congress in Tuesday’s midterm elections.

“Yesterday, voters made it very clear that they want a new generation of Democratic fighters,” the group wrote in a social media post. “We need a leader in the Senate who is capable of leading that fight. It’s time for Senate Democrats to choose new leadership.”

The group cited the Democratic leader’s faltering approval ratings in its Wednesday statement. An NBC News poll conducted at the end of October found only 13 percent of registered voters viewed Schumer’s leadership positively.

“The American people did not elect Democrats by historic margins just to bend the knee and go back to business as usual,” Indivisible said in its statement. “Senate Democrats need to listen to the voters and turn the page on status quo politics.”

The paid opposition running the Democrats will not falter in their supporting of their Republican donors' causes.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 1 day ago* (2 children)

We should send a message by telling him to retire completely. If he refuses, impeach him. If that fails, escalate. If scaring doesn't work, then physical confrontation is completely reasonable.

Neoliberals are conservatives. The only things conservatives respect are fear and violence. We need to use these tools to remove all of them from the party or they will send us right back into fascism.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 day ago (1 child)

    I'm not sure what grounds for impeachment there are.

    I don't like him either but can't impeach for being pro Israel and anti democracy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

    Yeah I think impeachment gets dicey around what could qualify or not. Their actions don't actually have to be criminal. What falls under harmful to the public trust becomes more of an opinion than a set rule. Like, does taking money for your campaigns from donors tied to supportimg our country starting wars across an ocean with people that in no way benefits the public? Someone could probably make that argument, that saying we should continue sending missiles to a country that has been continuously proven to use them to kill children/innocents/and needed infrastructure for humanity to survive... I would say is harmful to the public trust... But I'm sure others wouldn't.

  • source
  • parent