“Schumer is bad at his job,” said one organizer. “Jeffries is not ready for this moment.”
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 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.”
its fine. this is why we have representative democracy! just dispose of them and replace them with ideologically identical AIPAC goons.
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
I’m going to keep calling until it jolly well occurs
Didn’t particularly trust them to lead before either
It’s like a backwards Mitch Hedberg routine
AIPAC clowns.
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.
Having a non-AIPAC SML and House Speaker would be significant progress though…
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.
That’s more of a Citizens United thing. Also crucial
Okay dude, it’s a big pie. We can only eat it one slice at a time.
True.
We also didn’t trust them before.
Jeffries gotta go!
Get fucked Chuck the cuck!
Fire Fetterman into the sun!
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.
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.
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.
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
I think the mandate is for the Democrats to finally be true, aggressive opposition to Trump.
You’re right but we don’t 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 didn’t matter since most don’t understand these details. They blamed Dems for the steady and best recovery from the pandemic, for things that were not their fault, they don’t really know this stuff and use feels instead. The current price issues are from the senseless tariffs and war, which wouldn’t have with Harris. Maybe the companies would have raised prices for higher profits anyway to make her look bad and they’d fall for it too.
They flip flop, didn’t 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 don’t, and consistently flop around willy-nilly, with the winds, whatever their tiktok told them or for group bonding.
I’m not sure what point relevant to my reply you’re trying to make.
The problem is moderate Dems and progressives don’t agree on how to fix the economy. The moderates think the Ezra Klein ‘Abundance’ 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 there’s a consensus among Democrats on how to go about that I don’t 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 there’s a consensus among Democrats on how to go about that I don’t 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 aren’t helping anybody other than the billionaire oligarchs.
If we’re 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 don’t agree on how to fix the economy.
That hasn’t stopped moderates since… ever. In practice we should expect both sides to try and push their agenda, but that’s just how politics works. You don’t need a majority or even a plurality in order to try to do something. Waiting until there’s 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 they’re in office to implement, not just do whatever the polls say. More importantly, if they don’t do something about the economy nothing else is going to matter because the pendulum will swing right again.
Aye, ditch ‘em.
I gave them the benefit of the doubt before, I no longer am being generous. They need to go.
Begone Corpos
Anyone have a good template for emailing their senators/reps to demand new leadership?
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-representativeYou 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.
Did they trust them before? If so, why?
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.
Sign the petition. https://c.org/WxDjpC9pwp
How the fuck does change.org have the money to buy a single character domain???
What the fuck is their business model??
Maybe it was gifted to them by the previous owner.
hope so!
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.
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.
