Schumer, who has steered Senate Democrats since 2017, became liberals’ favorite punching bag this cycle, an avatar of everything wrong with a listless Democratic Party. The ubiquitous New Yorker was, detractors said, too prone to seek compromise, too wary of committing to fights with President Donald Trump and his administration, too likely to cram so many messages onto an agenda that none of them landed. For a party that still remains unlikely to truly find its footing until it has a presidential nominee, Schumer was a convenient scapegoat for a coalition party in the minority.

“No one loves Chuck Schumer,” one victorious campaign consultant said this week. “But he’s the only guy who wants the job. At least right now.”

In the run up to the election, a handful of Senators—Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Brian Schaatz of Hawaii, Cory Booker of New Jersey—were seen as potential contenders to replace Schumer as majority leader. But in the days that followed, none raised their hand.

The math is just on Schumer’s side. While Sens.-elect Adam Hamilton of Kansas, Troy Jackson of Maine, and Abdul El-Sayed of Michigan all said on the campaign trail that they would not back Schumer, that’s not a sizable enough bloc to end his continued leadership. Other incoming Senators like Juliana Stratton of Illinois, Peggy Flanagan of Minnesota, Chris Pappas of New Hampshire, and James Talarico of Texas have sidestepped the Schumer question for months.

Schumer only needs a bare majority of his caucus to move from minority leader to majority leader—not a majority of the voting chamber as is needed to become House Speaker. And other members of the caucus are longtime Schumer allies. Many owe him favors related to his running Senate Democrats’ campaign arm with a vise-like grip for the last two decades. Raising billions for party candidates—either directly or indirectly through campaign committees and an aligned super PAC—gives him plenty of chits to call in.

God, not Schumer. That's like replacing the Coke Cola of Republicans with the Diet Coke that is Schumer.

all 42 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 51 points 5 hours ago (8 children)
  • [–] 31 points 5 hours ago (1 child)

    Correct- it is written by Time magazine. The owner of which loves Trump. Even put him as Time's "Person of the Year" in 2024. This is just to try and dissuade the pressure against current leadership.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 4 hours ago

    All US news is a psyop, mouthpieces of the billionaires who actually decide what's going to happen, decades in advance (except for flukes, but they know how to shape public opinion around those, too).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago (5 children)

    Psyop for what? This might be the most truthful political reporting the Times has published in years. Who wants Schumer?

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

    I think the term psyop is a bit extreme. It’s more corporate/establishment Dem propaganda to me. It’s truthful in saying that people want a change but it also says there’s no chance of that and that Schumer is going to be coronated because of his fund raising abilities.

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

    The fundraising claims I'm seeing peddled are dubious.

    We were just learning this year back in July and August that the DNC itself was being massively outspent and in debt, its fundraising records horrible.

    Moreover whoever is in a leadership role will naturally be big fundraisers. That's not really exclusive to Schumer; it's more exclusive to the position. He's literally one of the least-popular US Senators in the country. I'm pretty sure Van Hollen could do just as well in all reality. The Senate Majority PAC would basically exist in his absence. Leaving aside the fact that he can still fund-raise as a US Senator, even if not in a leadership role, if it really is about him.

    I wouldn't count chickens yet. A lot of people said there was no chance Biden would step down too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 27 minutes ago (1 child)

    The DNC is not the fund controlled by Schumer. The DNC was being outspent by other Democratic funds, such as the DSCC.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 21 minutes ago*

    True but if Schumer's fundraising impact was that considerable then he could've laterally helped the DNC or DSCC to offset their lossses. Just as Schumer's PAC can support other candidates, they can support other Democratic PACs and the DNC. If he's not, then that could suggest he's leveraging it for his own political agenda, which we all should know by now isn't a good one.

    Either way the fundraising isn't tied to him; Van Hollen in the driver's seat could just as easily raise funds, if not more so.

    Moreover we must wonder what back-door deals are being made in order to gain those kinds of funds.

    That is, AIPAC is an enormous fundraiser, too — but at what cost?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 children)

    Schumer is a Sinema.

    He needs to go.

    He brings nothing to the table. He's literally one of if not the least-popular US Senators in the country. He is flaccid in his fight, and has the charisma of wet cardboard. Worse than that, I genuinely believe he's a compromised asset who for decades has played in the New York circle of the likes of Cuomo and Bloomberg — and we know how crooked they are.

    Honestly, Indivisible or DSA or someone needs to organize a nation-wide Democrat-centric protest to revamp the Democratic party, lest they yet again seize defeat from the jaws of victory.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 5 hours ago (1 child)

    I genuinely believe he’s a compromised asset

    He has admitted as much by announcing

    "I have many jobs as leader… and one is to fight for aid to Israel, all the aid that Israel needs."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 4 hours ago

    I called my representative nonstop until I actually got him on the phone and told him that the people are done with Jeffries and anyone who votes for him is done too. I said you can't see it yet but that is a primary'd man; if you vote for him we'll make sure it's the one thing voters know about you in '28.

    I have not yet been able to get my senator on the line, but I have something very similar to tell him.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 5 hours ago

    We want names not on that list

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 5 hours ago

    Primary every single one of them.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

    Worrying, we don't need 4 more years of AIPAC Chuck, it's worth noting, more than a few Democrats have come out in response to this and said they will not vote for him, write your congress person people

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 5 hours ago

    FFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

    All y’all have called your reps / senators, yeah?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 hours ago (14 children)

    If you want change, vote for ???????

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 hours ago (4 children)

    This last election has demonstrated that people who pay attention tend to be left of the "centrist" democrats. You know, those Democrats who fight against the accomplishments of FDR and MLK jr by attacking and undermining progressives and DSA members. This election has also shown that progressives and DSA candidates can successfully primary centrist democrats and win general elections, even with the Democratic party attacking them.

    I suspect there will be a wave of so-called centrist democrats finding themselves primaried out of existence in the next cycle. Especially if they keep this shit up. I'm looking forward to seeing these guys get booted out for their betrayal.

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

    And in the general, I think we have a pretty sizeable group of non-ideological change voters, people who really don't have a theory of WHY things are the way they are so are always up for grabs, but they will vote for any candidate that promises substantial change.

    That was a large part of Trump's appeal--"drain the swamp."

    I'm guessing the traditional Left-Right political analysis is increasingly less useful and what we should be looking at is Change-Status Quo.

    We also really have to continue getting eyes and ears onto alternative media where people can develop a world model accurate to the corrupt oligarchy that is robbing us by pennies every second of our lives. The MSM is certainly not going to tell people.

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

    The move off MSM is happening. I think AIPAC screwed up by targeting Hasan Piker. Most people had no idea who he is and it was puzzling seeing him being attacked by the GOP, the Democrats and the MSM. I think this caused a lot of people to look him up to see what the hubub was about. And then when they find a guy who is reasonable, articulate, handsome and funny they started to understand how they're being manipulated.

    Then when you have people like Neera Tanden, a long time Democrat operative, and Sarah Longwell, a never Trumper Republican operative spending a lot of time gratuitously attacking the left flank and Hasan in particular it becomes more obvious that big money is actively manipulating the electorate.

    I've been a politics junkie for at least 3 decades and I never took much stock in the idea that Israel was manipulating us from multiple fronts in order to take more land in the Middle East and destroy the Palestinians, etc... But after this year, I feel like I've been duped for most of my adult life. I don't think I'm the only one, either. The Zionists have almost gone full mask off at this point and now they are desperately trying to control the narrative and it seems the more they try to control it, the more attention they draw to themselves and their heinous actions.

    I should also point out that the political consultant class, which Tanden and Longwell are part of, see populist movements of any type as a threat to their business model. They cannot allow the people to think they can select their own candidates and use their own labor to get them elected. Because doing that means fewer consulting gigs and less money from ad buys for the consultant class.

    Right now people are able to communicate with each other and organize more effectively than ever before because of the internet and already we are seeing the Epstein class attempt to manipulate the conversation. They've been pretty effective on centralized platforms like Twitter, Facebook and Reddit. I suspect Youtube will be next by shutting down independent media.

    But the good news is that this election has demonstrated clearly that the people can pull together and overcome the resources of the Epstein class, for now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago (1 child)

    Even discussion of the upper classes was considered "class warfare" not long ago, but here we are and everyone talks about the "Epstein class" and knows exactly what we mean and nobody thinks its radical in any way.

    I have picked up my world model in bits and pieces, so it's hard to pinpoint all my sources, but probably a significant one was What's the Matter with Kansas, which came out around the time of Bush, fil, first ter. But the other thing that was patently obvious at the time was Democratic subservience to the neocon agenda, and before that Bill Clinton's capitulation to neoliberalism which is all "third way politics" ever was.

    What was your media diet that you missed AIPAC for all this time? Even though I was already on his side of the fence, I only started listening to Piker after he was Public Enemy One this cycle. And I also started listening to the I Had It podcast after they were dragged for laughing at Charlie Kirk jokes. Offending the civility police of the MSM is really the best advertising.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago

    My media diet was mainly MSNBC, Sunday talk shows, the times and the post and magazines like the Atlantic and Harper's. I'd also read Jacobin on occasion and watch Amy Goodman. When we dropped cable (because of Fox News) we started watching youtube and went through a bunch of different channels before settling on Majority Report, Hasan, Breaking Points, Secular Talk, TYT, and a bunch of others.

    My SO really liked Secular Talk and I found Kyle Kulinski to be crass and obnoxious but when I fact checked him, I found that he was never wrong. And then he made me laugh really hard one day and I think that broke my Kyle dislike.

    A few years ago a family member recommended the IHIP podcast and we immediately loved it. They weren't too into politics yet but once they did, they really caught fire.

    Not a fan of TYT anymore because of Cenk and what's her name selling out. We've recently started to realize that the people we enjoy and trust the most are the ones who take no corporate money. Imagine that.

    As far as missing AIPAC is concerned, I was aware of them, but I bought into the propaganda. I would probably still be buying it if Israel hadn't lost their minds and gone full mask off.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago (8 children)

    Third parties with no chance of winning, clearly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 hours ago (7 children)

    I love the concept of third-parties, but if you can mount an effective third-party challenge, you can definitely take over your local Democratic establishment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (6 children)

    If things were such that third parties could win, that would be awesome and I would be all for voting for good ones. Unfortunately they can rarely be anything but spoiler candidates.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 hours ago (5 children)

    Yes. First-past-the-post has consequences that are unavoidable as gravity, no matter how much we hate it. At some point, you have to take over the party, as many of us have started to do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 hours ago* (3 children)

    Just like third party's, I wish it were this simple....

    Putting DSA in charge of the DNC will still lead to whoever that is being disciplined by the same broad economic and systemic pressures as the current corporate Dems....assuming they don't purge and block DSA before that.

    You still have to fundraise, still have to staff the party, still have to support all the infrastructure to operate, still have to buy ads on oligarchy owned media, still have to provide resources for candidates etc. And that will still confer enormous power to the oligarchy to influence and discipline the party because there is currently no alternative base of organized power to counteract that.

    This is not me arguing defeatism or some sort of pragmatic centrist bullshit, but it is to say that entryism can't just be about replacement or it will fail.

    Historically the only proletarian centered balance of power was not from the inside, but from the outside. Namely, organized labor and mass semi organized movements of people. The only group that can literally bring capitalists and imperialists to their knees by organizing things like strikes, mass boycotts, and coordinated vote conditioning in a way no singular politician in the American system can. It's not a perfect tool, as history also shows, but that is also why IMO an entryist strategy should be centered first and foremost on making it easier to organize power outside of the two party system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 hours ago (2 children)

    This is the obvious truth and why labor had to be so thoroughly dismantled.... and I'd also like some research if labor, at this stage, is a counter the Left, since any truly leftist economic policies would dilute the benefits that Unions have fought for their own members....

    But, yes, systemic change is difficult for all the reasons you mention, and establishing independent power bases is the only way its going to work. I think the internet gives our media a fighting chance, and from there we can boost our organizing. That said, the power of taking over a party is pretty damn clear and it absolutely has to happen before we can see real structural changes enacted (which, of course, would include breaking the oligarchy and the rules which allow and enable it).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago* (1 child)

    The big issue with American unions has been that capitalists were very slick with things like Taft Hartley and largely banned or made incredibly difficult sectoral bargaining.

    That not only makes it very hard to unionize, it creates contradictions and alignment asymmetries that make the labor movement easier to discipline or suppress.

    But as imperfect a vessel it is(american unions, for instance, were at times bulwarks of defending US imperialism), aside from actual revolution, no social democratic advancement has succeeded in a capitalist country without strong organized labor movements on their side.

    This is a very good conversation about the connection with unions and socialism from a Marxist that is also colleagues or working in close proximity with other people at top levels of DSA strategy and thinking.

    https://confrontingcapitalism.substack.com/p/why-socialists-fight-for-unions

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago

    So far all our energy is bent towards winning elections with things like Medicare for All and taxing the rich, but legislative changes like getting rid of Taft Hartley, trust busting, getting rid of qualified immunity, etc., all sort of get ignored. I don't ever hear anyone talking about it. And maybe that makes sense, because we don't have a chance of enacting any of it until we control the party, but we need to have some kind of blueprint (that maybe we have but I don't know of).

    Worked with a SEU rep (Service Employees, just total bottom barrel of the labor market) and they get it. Lots of other unions seem much more interested in protecting their turf.

    Thanks for the link!

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 1 point 12 minutes ago

    You vote for Schumer or Jeffries and you will 100% face a primary challenger from the DSA.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 5 hours ago (4 children)

    No it's not diet, it's just a slickly tweaked variation. More sugar for more addictive powers while a slightly greater temporary energy boost followed by a harder crash.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 4 hours ago (3 children)

    it’s just a slickly tweaked variation.

    You're describing diet soda here when compared to regular.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments