After a Democratic "tsunami" in this week's midterm elections that has been widely seen as "a mandate to deliver big change," progressives within and beyond Congress have cast doubt on whether the New York Democrats likely to lead both chambers are actually up for facing Republican President Donald Trump's veto threats and fighting for the "bold agenda" 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 "dirty" bill that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is suddenly speaking out about, political organizer Corbin Trent argued that "Schumer is bad at his job" and "Jeffries is not ready for this moment."

Although some races haven't yet been called, "Democratic voters, independent voters, and even some Republican voters spoke loudly and clearly: They want this country to go in a different direction," wrote Trent, a former communications director for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and two-time presidential campaign staffer for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

Trent, who also co-founded Justice Democrats and now runs the super political action committee A Fight Worth Having, stressed that "this is an amazing, unprecedented moment in my lifetime. I'm 46 years old, and this is the most hopeful political moment I've ever experienced."

"Democrats have spoken loudly and clearly that they want new leadership. Unfortunately, too many of the people in Washington aren't listening," he added. While Trent and his group are far from alone in calling for new Democratic leadership when the party takes over Congress in January, Schumer and Jeffries are expected to become majority leader and speaker, respectively.

"Do you expect to face any kind of challenge in the election for Senate majority leader?" Michael Barbaro, who hosts The New York Times' podcast The Daily asked Chuck Schumer on Friday. He simply responded, "No."

Schumer ultimately added that "our caucus is focused on moving forward. Everyone's very happy with what we all did. But this is just the beginning. As I said before, and I'll say it again and again to my caucus, to the country, to everybody: If we don't deliver, all this will go away. This is just the first step. But I think we're united together to do that."

He delivered a similar message of unity during a Thursday night appearance on MS NOW, telling host Lawrence O'Donnell that the victorious Democrats—so far the party has 54 seats in the Senate and 253 in the House of Representatives, but those numbers could rise—were "all running on the same basic themes: costs, chaos, corruption."

As both majority and minority leader in recent years, Schumer has faced criticism from the party's left flank—and, as Al Jazeera noted Thursday, at least seven Democratic senators-elect have signaled or outright said they will not support him: Abdul El-Sayed (Mich.), Peggy Flanagan (Minn.), Adam Hamilton (Kan.), Chris Pappas (NH), Juliana Stratton (Ill.), and James Talarico (Texas).

However, as Fox News chief congressional correspondent Chad Pergram explained Friday, basic math and a lack of clear challengers suggest Schumer will win: "The selection of Senate majority leader is not a vote which plays out on the floor. The concept of 'Senate majority leader' has only been around since the early 20th Century and is not mentioned in the Constitution."

"Let's say Democrats do win Mississippi and Alaska, giving them 56 senators who caucus with the Democrats. All Schumer needs is 29 Democrats to support him in caucus, and he's the next majority leader," Pergram wrote on social media.

He noted that other possible contenders are Democratic Sens. Brian Schatz (Hawaii) and Chris Van Hollen (Md.), but the former is running to succeed retiring Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and the latter reportedly isn't seeking the post—though Van Hollen has said publicly that Democrats should demand an ambitious progressive agenda before backing Schumer or anyone else.

"Progressives are flipping Republican seats and winning critical battlegrounds where pundits told us our politics could never compete. Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan. Troy Jackson in Maine. James Talarico in Texas. Sam Forstag in Montana. Randy Villegas in California. Bob Brooks in Pennsylvania," said Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Our Revolution, which grew out of Sanders' 2016 presidential run. "We gave people something to vote FOR, and they showed up."

"The progressive movement drove this victory. We spent a decade building the infrastructure, developing leaders, and making the argument that brought us here... This is a vindication of our politics and our theory of change: Organized people can beat organized money when we advance an anti-corporate, working-class agenda," he stressed, recalling when "the talking heads, academics, and party establishment scoffed at Bernie Sanders and our movement for talking about oligarchy."

The organizer said that "this was the corruption election. Affordability was central, but people were also asking why life keeps getting more expensive and who keeps cashing in. From AI and data centers to healthcare, Big Pharma, crypto, oil, and the war industry, people want a say over decisions being made at their expense. Corporate control of government is making their lives harder."

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)—which notably congratulated Jeffries and Schumer, who wasn't even on the ballot this cycle, by name on Wednesday—along with GOP megadonor Elon Musk "and other billionaires and corporate interests have poured money into shaping our politics," Geevarghese continued. "Our victories show that their money does not make their agenda inevitable. People can organize, fight back, and win."

In the wake of these victories "powered by a progressive wave," Geevarghese called on Democrats to "use every committee, hearing, and budget negotiation. Follow the contracts and conflicts of interest. Put executives and administration officials under oath. Fight for concrete gains and make Trump answer for what he blocks."

"People need to see Democrats using every bit of power they have to fight for them," he said. "That requires leadership ready to meet the moment. Chuck Schumer should step aside. Bernie Sanders has provided the clarity and urgency a real opposition party needs. Leadership must match that ambition, including by investing in candidates and communities too often written off."

Aru Shiney-Ajay, executive director of the youth-led climate group Sunrise Movement, similarly said in a statement after the midterms that "young people voted for change. We deserve a Senate majority leader who will end the filibuster so we can stop the Iran Oil War, end corporate control of our government, and create good green jobs, not more data centers."

"Young people won't get that with the same old Democratic leadership. Schumer, it's time to put the American people first–commit to ending the filibuster or step aside," Shiney-Ajay added, referring to controversial chamber rules that effectively block legislation unless at least 60 of the 100 senators support advancing it to a final vote.

As for Jeffries, he got "the majority of his dreams," as Axios put it earlier this week. The outlet reported:

The left's strategy is "going to look different from what it would have been with a smaller margin," one incoming House progressive told Axios, noting that "leaders have more flexibility when they have big majorities.

Progressives "can't really extract much now [with this] colossal majority," a progressive strategist acknowledged, adding that "we don't have to do this high-stakes Jeffries fight."

Although Jeffries is on track to secure the role, there are calls for him to not be the next speaker. Nearly 900,000 people have signed a related Change.org petition, Nicole Whitted, an author and social media creator who receives compensation in connection with the effort.

"After historic wins on Tuesday, I believe the Democratic Party and our country as a whole is at a crossroads," Whitted told Newsweek. "My opposition to Hakeem Jeffries is about more than any single policy disagreement. It's about real leadership that aligns with today's Democratic voter, real accountability, and whether the party is genuinely listening to the voters demanding change."

In anticipation of Jeffries serving as speaker, the outlet Sludge examined his "financial backing from executives at Anduril and Palantir, cryptocurrency industry interests, and major Wall Street investors—business interests with a stake in how aggressively the new majority pursues corporate beneficiaries of Trump's presidency."

In response to that reporting, Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the pro-single-payer Campaign for New York Health, said that "you can't lead the opposition party while being bankrolled by the opposition. This should not be a controversial take."


From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.

all 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 20 points 4 days ago

They're the face of Israel and corporations first. They're gonna whip up enough members to make sure nothing changes, guaranteed.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 4 days ago

    They weren't the face of this wave ... they should fuck off.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    Schumer is looking out for that make-believe Republican family in his head.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 days ago

    Even his own make believe family didn't vote for him, or the democratic nominee, I don't think every, or maybe once.

    The whole thing is just so weird. This guy needs to go. The democratic party should not follow into being a party without shame.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    Go on Bluesky and let 'em know. Every time those Zionists show up I bitch them out. Not mindless anger, but I don't hold back either.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 4 days ago

    They're not stupid

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 4 days ago

    I'm sure they're both thinking about the AIPAC/Palantir bonuses they'll get as majority leaders. Doesn't matter what anyone else thinks or wants.

  • source
  • 58 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 117 points 3 days ago (8 children)
  • [–] 18 points 3 days ago (7 children)

    Don’t 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    Having a non-AIPAC SML and House Speaker would be significant progress though...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago

    We can't 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 would've had to be complicit in this by the way.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (1 child)

    The only thing I’d 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.

    It’s all by design of the largest empire ever to exist. They’re using our weapons, we’re killing the same folk.

    This isn’t a fight against Israel as much as it’s a fight against the militarization of our foriegn policy and inability to be a part of the international community. It’s out fault and Israel is our mess, we can’t offload it onto another country. Additionally, the idea of Israel being some big puppet-master smells a lot like antisemitism of old. It doesn’t have to be that complicated. They don’t accept AIPAC money because they’re controlled by Israel, they accept the money because they share the same goals.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago

    They don’t accept AIPAC money because they’re 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 doesn't 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 50 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    After a Democratic “tsunami” in this week’s midterm elections that has been widely seen as “a mandate to deliver big change,”

    The whole "voter mandate" thing is thrown around too much these days, and it just isn't 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 isn't 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.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago

    It's such a terrible metric though.

    "Hello Mr Progressive, do you think the government is corrupt?"

    "Yes, the Republicans are corrupt."

    "Hello Mr Maga, do you think the government is corrupt?"

    "Let's Go Brandon!"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago

    DNC wont admit that the genocide and Epstein support played any role in Harris's 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 40 points 3 days ago (5 children)

    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 leader… and one is to fight for aid to Israel, all the aid that Israel needs,” he told a group of pro-Israel Jewish leaders at the time.

    “As long as I’m in the Senate, this programme will continue to grow from strength to strength, and we won’t let anyone attack it or undo it,” Schumer said, even referring to US taxpayer aid for Israel as his “baby”.

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    Thanks for looking up a good source on Schumer's Israel statements, esp in regard to taxpayer funding for Israel. I knew it was out there but never went after it. Reading it now, it's even worse than I remembered.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    My pleasure. Spread the word.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    Bold to think those who are pro Schumer will listen to facts

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago*

    I don't expect them to hear me, nor do I care. They are whatever they are, and meanwhile there's 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 3 days ago

    With boasts of "My job is to keep the left pro Israel" it is necessarily incompatible for Schumer to be "Americans first" leftist or other positions.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    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 we’re gonna get what we want on this

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    Didn't particularly trust them to lead before either

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 days ago (1 child)
  • [–] 15 points 3 days ago

    Anyone that trusts those two should not be at all trusted

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    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 can't hold that vote hostage in the same way they could House Speaker.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 3 days ago
    [–] 8 points 3 days ago

    "after"?!?!?

    Nah. We haven't wanted them. Ever. And I think I first started knowing about their fuckery right near the 2025 term start. So. It's 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. It's even getting news coverage for once.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 3 days ago

    Jeffries gotta go!

    Get fucked Chuck the cuck!

    Fire Fetterman into the sun!

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

    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.

    He's 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.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    Did they trust them before? If so, why?

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

    Someone voted for them in order for them to get where they are now. Don't know the logic as to why, but someone thought it was a good idea.

    If they're not opposed to Trump, then they are opposed to democracy and the welfare of the people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 3 days ago

    True.

    We also didn't trust them before.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 days ago

    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 it's a good direction (on purpose by it's leadership), and the right will be able to once again point to weak leadership. They'll be correct in voters' 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, we'll be back to square 1 in a year. Let's check back in 6 months and see how off I am.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 3 days ago

    I wouwould love to see a breakdown of congress between Republicans, democrats, and progressive democrats

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 3 days ago

    Begone Corpos

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    Anyone have a good template for emailing their senators/reps to demand new leadership?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    CONTACT YOUR U.S. SENATORS — DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP & CAMPAIGN FINANCE

    Senate Democrats are expected to select their leadership in December 2026. If you’re concerned about the influence of AIPAC, corporate PACs, and wealthy donors on Democratic leadership, now is an opportunity to make your voice heard.

    FIND YOUR SENATORS

    https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm

    Select your state to find your senators’ phone numbers and official contact forms.

    SAMPLE EMAIL

    Subject: Democratic Leadership and AIPAC/Corporate Donor Influence

    Hello Senator,

    I’m a constituent from [City, State], writing to express my opposition to Chuck Schumer continuing as Senate Democratic leader and Hakeem Jeffries continuing as House Democratic leader.

    I’m deeply concerned about the influence of AIPAC, corporate PACs, and wealthy donors on Democratic Party leadership and policy decisions.

    I believe our elected representatives should be accountable to their constituents, not powerful lobbying organizations or major financial contributors.

    I’m asking you to:

    • Oppose Chuck Schumer’s continuation as Senate Democratic leader.
    • Support leadership candidates who demonstrate independence from AIPAC and corporate donor networks.
    • Reject future AIPAC-affiliated campaign contributions.
    • Advocate for meaningful campaign finance reform and transparency.

    Please register my opposition and let me know your position on Schumer’s continued leadership.

    Thank you for your time and service.

    [Your Name]
    [City, State]

    SAMPLE PHONE SCRIPT

    Hello, I’m [Name], a constituent from [City, State].

    I’m calling to express my opposition to Chuck Schumer continuing as Senate Democratic leader.

    I’m concerned about the influence of AIPAC, corporate PACs, and wealthy donors on Democratic leadership.

    I’d like Senator [Name] to support new leadership that is independent of these donor networks and accountable to voters.

    Please record my position, and I’d appreciate a response about the senator’s intended leadership vote.

    Thank you.

    IMPORTANT

    Senate Democratic leadership is selected by Democratic senators, not by a public election. Republican senators do not participate in the Democratic caucus vote.

    Hakeem Jeffries’ House leadership position is decided separately by House Democrats.

    Find your U.S. representative here:
    https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

    You can also research campaign contributions through the Federal Election Commission:
    https://www.fec.gov/data/

    Make your voice heard. Personalize the message, contact your elected officials, and request a response.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago

    Yeah; because we've got eyes, ears; and can tell AIPAC shills even when the bastards rebrand to UDP.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago (3 children)
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    Those petitions do nothing, if you have Dem reps keep contacting them, when you're doing it get your local friends and neighbors to contact them as well.

    Even if you got a shitty neoliberal politician, they're going to be afraid of challengers from the left, and eager to hitch their wagons to progressives.

    Hell, you can only sign a petition once, you can email/call/fax/whatever your elected representatives as often as you want.

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

    Yeah sure, but signing costs nothing, as does emailing your representatives. a couple of clicks doesn't hurt the movement. If these petitions do anything, they at least recruit people who would never pick up the phone. Someone who signs today is statistically more likely to donate, march, or contact a rep tomorrow, it is an entry point to being part of a movement and you don't grow a movement by telling casual supporters their first step is worthless.

    What I'm trying to say is, there's no reason to burn down the recruiting tool that brings the next ten thousand people into the fight.

    Also I just want to add that this blue wave can have geopolitical ramifications, there is a real chance of change right now, a number of proven signatures allows immigrants, non-Americans and youth below voting age to still sign, amplify, donate, and potentially organize other movements in a way that could spark meaningful change.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 3 days ago*

    If these petitions do anything

    They don't...

    It makes people feel like they did something and makes them unlikely to do something that works. It's basic psychology

    number of proven signatures allows immigrants, non-Americans and youth below voting age

    Just because you cant vote, doesn't mean you're representatives don't represent you...

    Do you think elementary kids writing letters to politicians can vote?

  • source
  • parent
  • its fine. this is why we have representative democracy! just dispose of them and replace them with ideologically identical AIPAC goons.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago* (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    How the fuck does change.org have the money to buy a single character domain???

    What the fuck is their business model??

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments