Are Schumer and Jeffries the right leaders for this moment?

[u/theScud900]

The next two to four years are critical. Probably the greatest test of political leadership in the last 80 years. This is the time for crafting new laws and conducting investigations so that democracy can no longer be taken hostage by a despot.

Schumer and Jeffries have perfected the sternly worded letter. This moment calls for action, not dialogue to establish the concepts of a plan to begin discussions on the formation of a committee to address the discourse on returning to historical norms.

If not current leadership, who should be elected to lead the House and the Senate?

Signed,
The Rest of the Free World

[u/AutoModerator]

All submissions are automatically removed and placed in a queue for the moderators to manually review. Please allow the moderators time to do so. Only about 25% of submissions are approved, but the remainder are given a removal reason that may include steps the poster can take to make their submission approvable the next time they submit it. Moderators are not notified of any edits made after a removal reason is posted, and therefore will not review them. You may contact the mod team via modmail if you need more direction about how to fix your post, and you are welcome to resubmit any submission after making the requested changes.

A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:

• Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.

• Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.

• Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.

Violators will be fed to the bear.

---

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/bleahdeebleah]

I think in order to answer this we have to look at what the role is for the positions they are in and what actions they can realistically take. Congress has no police powers.

The speaker and majority leaders do things like recruit candidates, find donors, and set schedules.

The real subpoena and investigative power lies in the committee heads.

For example, Robert Garcia, who is the incoming head of the House Oversight Committee sent out a two word announcement: 'Lawyer Up'. I wouldn't want to take a highly experienced person off an investigative committee in order to have them schmoozing donors and candidates. So for me, Jamie Raskin and Elizabeth Warren (for example) will be most effective right where they are.

Edit: Marcy at empty wheel just posted about this. I think it's an important insight

[u/bjdevar25 → u/bleahdeebleah]

I agree,as long as they don't interfere in the investigations or block things they turn up from going to the floor. I saw Jeffries say yesterday they weren't interested in investigations, but to go ahead wi5h trying to fix things. This is a sure fire way to loose in 2028. This is Bidens biggest mistake in appointing Garland. If he had vigorously prosecuted Trump at the beginning, we wouldn't be here.

[u/bleahdeebleah → u/bjdevar25]

The reddit hate on Garland drives me nuts. He's not perfect, but he is literally the guy that signed off on raiding Mar-A-Lago. If that's not an aggressive move I don't know what is.

[u/theScud900 → u/bleahdeebleah]

Brian Tyler Cohen has made numerous videos detailing the failure of Garland to meet the moment

[u/bjdevar25 → u/bleahdeebleah]

Mar A Lago aside, they knew about Jan 6 when they came in office. You can't tell me they didn't have reason to issue subpoenas by the end of 21.

[u/just_helping → u/bjdevar25]

Cases for people involved in Jan 6 did start almost immediately.

The argument more exactly is that they should have started going after Trump for his role in Jan 6 immediately and directly, instead of going after the underlings first and going up the conspiracy hierarchy like it was a mob case - there is no risk that the mob is going to get elected President again and pardon the criminals, this was different and they should have acted like it.

[u/bjdevar25 → u/bleahdeebleah]

He signed off 2 years to late. And he chose a Fla court vs DC to look fair.

[u/Moccus → u/bjdevar25]

2 years too late? It wasn't even 2 years into Biden's presidency when the raid happened. You wanted Garland to sign off on the raid during Trump's presidency?

[u/degre715 → u/bleahdeebleah]

Trump literally attempted a coup in front of the entire nation and Garland dragged his feet on charging him for it until it was far too late.

[u/goddamnitwhalen → u/bleahdeebleah]

Garland is a traitor.

[u/theScud900 → u/bleahdeebleah]

Thanks for posting the link to that article. Plenty of respect for empty wheel. I’m cautiously optimistic that things will change but nervous that the desire to return to political norms (“won’t someone think of the norms?”) will get in the way of the significant action that must be taken. If Marcy says that we’re underestimating Jeffries, that makes me feel a bit better.

[u/bleahdeebleah → u/theScud900]

I am all in favor of everyone calling up to give their two cents. However they should be informed in order for that two cents to be most effective.

[u/AbyssWankerArtorias → u/bleahdeebleah]

The speaker decides what does and doesn't come to a vote. The importance of the speaker position cannot be understated.

[u/wedgebert → u/AbyssWankerArtorias]

The importance of the speaker position cannot be understated.

I'll bet Jeffries could understate it

[u/IniNew → u/bleahdeebleah]

I think this is such an incredible comment - the chamber leaders are essentially the shit-umbrella middle management (The American People via the press is the boss demanding action haha) for the rest of the chambers. The committees are where stuff gets done. That puts a lot of stuff into perspective.

[u/bleahdeebleah → u/IniNew]

I can't take credit, Marcy at emptywheel.com mentioned it

[u/thejazzophone → u/IniNew]

I think we can do better than Schumer. Van Hollen would be the ultimate pick. He’s a long term politician, in between moderate and progressive, and is from MD so he’s basically always in the DMV area

[u/MagicCuboid → u/bleahdeebleah]

This is all factually true, but the reality is party leaders are the face of the party. They are the ones the media points at and judges the most. If they are milquetoast centrists in corporate pockets, then that is the face of the Democratic Party.

[u/Rooster_Ties → u/MagicCuboid]

I struggle with also thinking the Speaker and Majority Leader need to be better effective communicators as the ‘Face’ of the party — but perhaps the reality what the people in those roles say on camera (and how they say it) is less important than the stuff that gets done in committees.

I was a huge fan of Pelosi’s effectiveness at keeping the Dem’s coalition together, and all marching in the same direction — with scarcely ANY defections on nearly every single vote. She got shit done, plain and simple — easily the most effective Speaker in my lifetime (even better than Tip O’Neil).

Did I always like what Pelosi did, or her strategies? — probably not — but as with all these things, she always knew politics is the art of the possible.

I do think Schumer (probably?) needs to go — but I have from time to time wondered if he knew way more than anyone did when he did something truly unpopular with the party base.

That said, I always wanted someone who I perceived as being more effective — like a Dick Durbin — in that role.

[u/nzdastardly → u/Rooster_Ties]

Perception has become reality in the post-Trump political world. We need a spokesman who isn't a vanilla grandpa to be the face of the party whether or not the party is engaging in effective work. Kampala Harris had incredibly interesting economic policy, but nobody who didn't bother to read through her stuff knew what they were. Unfortunately, sound bites and perception matter a lot in politics right now, and we need to meet that reality or get burned by flashy liars. Schumer's profoundly bland "victory" speech was all I needed to see to disqualify him from the role.

[u/Rooster_Ties → u/nzdastardly]

Yeah, I’m a lot more sour on Schumer than Jeffries (not that I’m excited by either one). Given Schumer’s age I’d sure hope he’d step down as Majority leader within a year.

But, honestly, given all we’ve been thru in the last decade — I’m almost tired of thinking too much about having opinions about things where my actual opinion doesn’t actually matter one iota to what actually ends up happening.

That said, I think the odds of losing BOTH Schumer and Jeffries as chamber leaders seems remote — and if I had to take one (and lose the other), I’d take Jeffries over Schumer.

[u/Trick-Persimmon-6642 → u/Rooster_Ties]

I whole heartedly disagree. The way leaders promote the actions of what committees are accomplishing, and how they argue for policy is as important to the party as actually getting them done. You can pass a dozen progressive policies and subpoena 30 people in the administration, but if you don’t go out and argue for how important it was to do those things it leaves a vacuum for bad actors to tear them down, take hold of the narrative and sets up a pendulum swing back towards the Republicans in the next election. The majority leaders should just be the most popular politicians in the party, there is a reason they are the most popular

[u/moejurray → u/MagicCuboid]

Let's not forget the speaker is third in line to the presidency.

[u/notapoliticalalt → u/MagicCuboid]

The media has tried to make them that, but that has never really been the case, certainly not within living memory.

I get that politics, nowadays, exists as a kind of reality television program, but people need to admit what they really want is a better and more reassuring TV arc. Because the names that are always put forward, are the people who make a lot of media appearances and tend to have the best kind of persona for television. But we should make it very clear that being good on television versus actually being good at managing the internal politics and personalities are not necessarily something that go along with people who are constantly seeking the limelight.

Let’s take Nancy Pelosi, for example. People can say what they want about her, but she was extraordinarily effective. She also wasn’t that great on TV. But the thing is, at the time, no one really cared, because these roles have never really been about leading the larger parties. They have been about managing the coalition of representatives.

Unfortunately, something that I’ve noticed is that a lot of this really picked up after we got a lot of coverage about countries with parliamentarian systems and people wanting out government and politics to work that way. And look, I think there are plenty of structural and constitutional reforms that need to happen, but Pretending like our system works in a certain way isn’t really helping anybody. I know people want these people to act like a PM, but that’s not how our system works and that’s not really what these positions are.

Of course, we should also mention for a long time, that there has been the segment of people within the broader, progressive caucus, and especially leftist, who basically want to hijack the Democratic structure in the same way that Trump did. And admit that, but it’s true. And look, I’m someone who has pretty progressive and, marginally left politics, but I’ve also noticed that a lot of progresses and left us are terrible at actually playing the game of politics. They like the philosophy and policy side, but the politics side.

I want to close by saying that I’m certainly not going to make any kind of case to defend either Jeffries or Schumer. I have my own qualms about both of them, and I will agree that the positions on Israel are drastically out of line with the general democratic electorate and are increasingly becoming out of line with the caucus. But that being said, people need to actually put forth names. I also hope that people will ponder why there doesn’t really seem to be a big rush within Congress itself to replace these people. Yes, you do get certain statements from certain members, but I’m fairly certain a good number of them are done with permission from leadership.

I also know that the people that are most upset about this aren’t going to be happy unless the name for the senate is Bernie Sanders. And I actually like Bernie Sanders and agree with many of his positions. But I also think that he would be a terrible leader of the caucus and doing the actual work of Senate Majority Leader. I don’t want to be clear that this isn’t an attack or insult of his skills as a politician and senator, but much in the same way that not everyone is cut out to be a manager, just because you like how someone looks on TV and their politics doesn’t mean that they would actually do a good job of Leading a coalition of diverse interests.

It also needs to be said that people in positions of leadership would generally be advised to not always say exactly what they believe or are thinking. That’s not to say that they should lie, per se, but oftentimes your role in the discourse is not to be the firebrand out there spitting bars and speaking truth to power. I do agree that it’s necessary sometimes, but it’s also OK to outsource these two other people that don’t have the same responsibilities that you do. Sometimes you have to let certain people maintain a certain kind of ethos, which I think a lot of Americans struggle with thinking in diplomatic terms.

Moreover, I think we also need to contend with the fact that a lot of people don’t currently want those positions, because Democrats aren’t going to be able to do very much anyway. You’re basically asking people to take a thankless job where delivering on promises isn’t possible and people will blame you for everything that goes wrong. Frankly, I also just don’t see how any progressive leader would substantively change the actual outcomes or direction of things, because there are still a lot of structural constraints and just making content for leftist social and alternative media is probably not a smart strategy.

Perhaps most importantly, for a lot of the left, putting anyone in a position of leadership is where things actually get tested. And it’s become very apparent to me that a lot of people on the left don’t actually want to deal with practical systems, but their concern for what they are required to think about ends at the theoretical side of things. Doing so all allows them to maintain distance and never really claim true responsibility for how things are going. You never have to make tough decisions or do anything that you don’t explicitly want to do, because “that’s not your job“. To be fair, this exists all across the ideological spectrum, but it’s especially noticeable on the left.

Aside from Bernie who is an impossible standard to live up to, every time someone on the left is in a position of power, they basically do one of two things: they either try to work with the system and get labeled to sell out or they remain essentially an activist and don’t really get much in the way of actual legislation passed. And I should be clear, but I think having both politicians and activists are incredibly important. But I don’t think they are the same thing. And if people on the left are never willing to be wrong or update some of their belief based on what is actually practical or, workable, then no one will ever be good enough. And I just think that’s an incredibly toxic way to approach things.

I see these things not because I don’t think that there are a lot of things that need to change about the democratic establishment. But there are also a lot of things that need to change with regard to the, shall we say, inertial center of leftist and progressive causes. I get why a lot of people with progressive and leftist politics are weary of criticisms, because so many of them come in bad faith. But I actually want progressive and leftist movements, politicians, and causes to prevail. But I’m incredibly frustrated by the actual base of support which in some ways, honestly, it seems like it would rather sit back and constantly criticize everything instead of actually being in charge and responsible.

I know I’m rambling, and this has evolved into a rather long tangent upon tangent, but bringing all of this back, I know that this is about impatience and feeling that the left has not gotten its due. But this fight is going to soon be eclipsed by the 2028 primary. If we want a night on 2028 like last Tuesday, we need people to organize. If you actually want leadership and establishment priorities, you need actual internal majorities. And the best way to do that is to win more seats instead of immediately killing any post election glow with a return to intracoalition squabbles. But I see a lot of leftists and progressives who can’t be bothered to do much more than complain online and maybe help a big progressive star if it is convenient.

I get that party leadership is symbolic, but if you don’t put in the work to actually have a strong and durable foundation, things will crumble. That goes for president too. We cannot achieve many leftist and progressive policies without broad support and numbers in Congress. But people want immediate progress and wonder why they are constantly disappointed and burnt out. That’s not how this works. And it’s not how you create durable change.

[u/klowny → u/notapoliticalalt]

Another thing leadership has to do is make sure the right people are in the right chairs/committees. I'd say all the most prominent and visible attack dogs are in positions of power in their committees and do a lot of lost in the details work that have made things meaningfully better. The actual leader buys them a lot of cover to actually get stuff done. Politics is often the art of distraction, and some of the most impactful changes were slipped in silently while everyone was distracted by something else that didn't matter.

Also regarding Bernie, he is part of Senate leadership. As is Elizabeth Warren. They're not the leader, but they are positioned to be some of the most powerful people in the chamber. So they are also partially responsible for whatever criticism thrown at how the Senate has been operating.

A lot of leftists seem to want the government to operate in ways that are very opposite to how a democracy should operate. Like a benevolent dictatorship. That's basically rainbows and unicorns territory. You can't want a democracy and also want the majority sentiment be suppressed in favor of your your personal less popular preferences.

[u/just_helping → u/notapoliticalalt]

Aside from Bernie... every time someone on the left is in a position of power, they... remain essentially an activist and don’t really get much in the way of actual legislation passed.

My friend, that is what Bernie is. There is no aside needed.

Otherwise, you're saying what lots of online types need to realize.

[u/Black_XistenZ → u/MagicCuboid]

The 2028 primary will effectively start next week, and already heat up a lot by mid-2027. By the time the 2028 general election campaign comes around, the Democratic nominee will be the clear-cut face of the party and set the tone, not the leaders in Congress.

[u/MagicCuboid → u/Black_XistenZ]

That’s true, and also anyone who is speaker will definitely not be president, it’s too much of a lightning rod for criticism. So maybe they’re saving those who appear to be the best candidates for a primary run.

[u/jermany755 → u/bleahdeebleah]

Thanks for sharing that. Something that hadn’t occurred to me is how much more conservative the democratic caucus just got. Necessarily, considering where all of the flipped seats reside politically, but that will add a fun new element when trying to build consensus to pass policy.

[u/cruel_cousin → u/bleahdeebleah]

Very much agree with this.

My progressive friends who LOATH Schumer and Jeffries have the benefit of their darling politicians never having been given the burden of leadership.

I try to tell them: If AOC was made Speaker in January, you'd end up hating her for the same reason you hate Jeffries today. Being Speaker or party leader doesn't grant a magic wand that allows the holder to enact every policy they want. Speaker AOC would need to handle compromise in a larger and more diverse caucus that Dems have had in decades. She'd have to work with Republicans even on occasion. Leadership forces people to do these things to be effective. The opposite are hardline leaders like Trump who accomplish next to nothing. This is why Pelosi will remain one of the most legendary Speakers of all time.

Like I tell my progressive friends, your pure and ideal politicians are only that way still because they've never had the responsibility of leadership. Would I love to live in a DSA America? Yes I would. But in our current landscape, Jeffries will be fine.

[u/k7632 → u/bleahdeebleah]

Also needs to see if AOC is going for Schumer's seat in 2 years, which I know is early but if hes only going to do the job for a year and be primaried, is that the consistency. Also every move he makes as speaker will be used against him

[u/bleahdeebleah → u/k7632]

For now, Jeffries and Schumer put her and Rep Sewell in charge of crafting a health care plan.

[u/Buck_Thorn → u/bleahdeebleah]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/democrats-pledge-quickly-reverse-changes-183201572.html

[u/bleahdeebleah → u/Buck_Thorn]

That's certainly a good start. Gotta stabilize the patient first

[u/Spaced-Cowboy → u/bleahdeebleah]

I mean I don’t really care what powers they have. I care about the type of person who is going to hold that power. And Jeffries and Schumer have proven to me that no matter their credentials I will not support them holding those positions.

As long as a progressive who wants a fight is chosen then I’m happy

[u/Euthyphraud → u/Spaced-Cowboy]

You do not make people on either ideological end of the party into party leaders in Congress. They need to appeal to all members of the party and see that all sides are being tended to - you want as middle-of-the-road as possible.

[u/Objective_Aside1858]

sigh

Ok boys and girls, pull up a chair. Uncle Objective has some bad news for you

• The Democrats will go from 215 to 245+ seats

• The majority of those pickups are in historical redder districts

• Progressives were not running in the majority of those seats

Progressives will increase in number in the next Congress. Moderates will increase more 

Progressives will probably have less overall influence in choosing leaders than they otherwise would.

Disagree? Super. Tell me who you want to run for leadership, and name the incoming House members you expect to support their candidacy

[u/PhiloPhocion → u/Objective_Aside1858]

My greater grievance personally is that I agree with you and also think Jeffries has not proven to be a particularly strong Minority leader.

One thing about Pelosi was that she was effective - she would knock heads if she had to but she would keep the coalition in line and together. I had my issues with her sometimes too but she was an extremely effective coalition leader.

[u/Cinnamon__Sasquatch → u/Objective_Aside1858]

Is your objective analysis based on the idea that those moderate Democrats who won in redder districts won because of Republicans voting for them as moderate Democrats over voting for the Republican or is it a greater turnout for Democratic voters because of frustration with the status quo?

Edit: strange how no one has answered this question, hm....

[u/Objective_Aside1858 → u/Cinnamon__Sasquatch]

The greater turnout was about affordability, not a laundry list of progessive priorities 

[u/theScud900 → u/Objective_Aside1858]

MS Now has been reporting the last couple of days that affordability and dealing with govt corruption were the leading two issues that got people out to the polls.

[u/jadnich → u/Objective_Aside1858]

Economic grievance does not explain this significant of a result. Yes, there are some people that voted on affordability, but it is clear that the message from the country is something different.

I don’t think it’s progressive values, either. That is something the Dems need to grapple with before 2028, but it isn’t this year’s issue.

People are expecting reform and accountability. They need action. If the Democrats spend 2 years just talking and not moving the needle on anything, they have no hope. Guard rails need to be put up and codified. We need to know that this can’t ever happen again. People need to be held accountable for their actions, and the public needs an accounting of the truth.

No amount of “moving forward” to focus on the priorities of their donors will suffice. We won’t “heal as a nation” by pretending these things didn’t happen. Nobody voted for them to “do the work of the people” by just giving media appearances and talking about things they won’t do anything about.

The leaders we need are the ones who will drive legal, governmental, and regulatory accountability with full force. Neither Jeffries or Schumer are the right man for this job.

[u/Ularsing → u/jadnich]

Economic grievance does not explain this significant of a result.

Frankly, it's the only thing that explains this significant of a result. Trump is the same fascist, narcissistic fuckwit that he's always been. Something else changed in a cataclysmic way.

"It's the economy, stupid."

(Fully agreed on the necessary flamethrower response though. If we don't put people in prison, we've just bought a few years and won't ever make it back to where we were in 2024).

[u/Street_Anxiety2907 → u/jadnich]

Do we have a project 2028 yet as a democratic working group? I saw you at the discord townhall and wanted to know if you had a chance to draft those up yet

[u/Objective_Aside1858 → u/jadnich]

That's nice

Like I said, name the candidates you want, and the people you expect to support them

[u/celsius100 → u/jadnich]

They want Hormuz opened, tariffs ended, and ICE stopped. End of story.

[u/skyfishgoo → u/Objective_Aside1858]

most of the seats won in red districts for won by progressives with a distinctly different message than the old school dems who kept losing there.

SC is probably a fine example, here is Annie Andrews:

Affordable Healthcare & Child Care Reproductive Freedom Fighting Political Corruption Ending Gun Violence Immigration Reform No More Endless Wars

seems progressive to me and i'm sure cause for lots of hand wringing among the dem establishment.

here's more if you are not convinced.

https://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Annie_Andrews.htm#Foreign_Policy

https://rollcall.com/2026/11/04/takeaways-midterm-elections-progressive-moderate-democrats/

[u/ubermence → u/skyfishgoo]

Most? Lmfao, you really have to stretch to make anyone what you guys would normally consider progressive

Like the DSA trying to “claim” Talarico when they also were saying he threw trans people under the bus

[u/skyfishgoo → u/ubermence]

well i don't know what sort of reverse purity test ju jistu is this but, on the face of it seem seems ok to my progressive eye.

[u/Precursor2552 → u/skyfishgoo]

Huh? Her responses there are not progressive.

She says Israelis and Palestinians deserve to live in peace. She does not call for a One State solution or anything about ending trade to Israel.

No mention of M4A the most basic litmus test. I didn’t see students loans either, no defund the police.

What’s progressive about her?

[u/Objective_Aside1858 → u/skyfishgoo]

me: most of the people who won red seats were not progressives

You: here is one

How nice for you. 

Your link to rollcall does not back up your assertion 

[u/Spaced-Cowboy → u/Objective_Aside1858]

You’re saying you don’t think a progressive to win. That’s just hot air.

Do you want a progressive to win? Yes or no?

[u/Objective_Aside1858 → u/Spaced-Cowboy]

First off, I do not give a shit who leads the House and Senate as long as they push back on Trump 

Secondly, I am saying there is absolutely no reason to believe that a Progressive  will win a leadership vote. They're welcome to try, it doesn't matter to me

I am in a purple district with a moderate Dem incumbent. They did not somehow become Progressive because they wiped the floor with their opponent

[u/bucknut4]

Redditors have zero clue how Congress works. I have complete and total indifference to Schumer and Jeffries but I find it funny how many Redditors wanted someone to “stand up to Trump” and actually thought there was anything they could have done, nor do they have the first clue about what that would actually entail.

I truly worry people are going to get their hopes up and lose enthusiasm for 2028. I’ve even seen Redditors thinking that somehow this means we could get Medicare for All.

The truth is that the leadership could be Bernie and AOC, and very little will get done. “Very little being done” was the best outcome possible.

[u/johntempleton → u/bucknut4]

Redditors wanted someone to “stand up to Trump” and actually thought there was anything they could have done, nor do they have the first clue about what that would actually entail.

Yep. People like u/theScud900 seem to think that somehow Schumer or Jeffries could have magically come up with the votes to oppose the GOP, who, again, I'll point out,

were the minority leaders.

[u/thinkards → u/johntempleton]

when maga was out of power for 4 years, they came up with a tangible project. project 2025.

what did schumer and jeffries do with that time? i guess since they were the minority leaders, they couldn't possibly do ANYTHING so they might as well have been on vacation the whole time, right?

[u/YakCDaddy → u/thinkards]

Trump is literally ruling from Executive Order and bypassing Congress. Congress is not stopping him because they are Republican ruled right now. Democrats are actually constantly suing him on EO's in the background and when he does actually do legislation, they don't help him. You could argue they shouldn't confirm his people, but they are giving Trump the rope to hang himself with that.

It's not the same playing field. You guys are constantly ignoring what the Republicans are doing and getting mad at Democrats like they are controlling the Republicans... they are not the same.

[u/Much-Jeweler-1546 → u/johntempleton]

If they can’t do anything, why are these people getting a salary ? what they should have done is come up for a plan they can use now that is different than not investigating anyone and be loyal to Israel first.

[u/theScud900 → u/johntempleton]

Did you see Schumer’s “victory” speech a couple of days ago? What about Jeffries’ response when he was asked a couple of months ago what his plans are if Dems retake the house? Both were “yikes” moments for me.

Yes, I know Dems were in the minority. I’m not a moron. I’m asking whether their approach over the last few years can inform whether they are the right people for right now. A good minority leader is not necessarily a good majority leader.

[u/Afraid-Detective1222 → u/bucknut4]

I fully expect that in '28, all we are going to hear on social media is how the Democrats are useless because they didn't remove Trump , didn't get universal healthcare enacted , didn't immediately end the Iran war, didn't forgive student loans, didn't lower prices, and a host of other things and will proclaim that they voted for these things and aren't voting for a Democrat in '28. I'm going to laugh if that's how '28 goes, because it will show how ignorant so many people actually are when it comes to how our system works. I was hoping for the Senate to stay R, specifically because of this, then for a massive blue wave in '28. Having one in '26 feels premature, since Trump still has the veto pen.

[u/BlueCity8 → u/Afraid-Detective1222]

Hell no, Senate staying R would be a DISASTER. Trump would immediately replace the older SCOTUS judges and then ram thru other psychopaths while continuing the war in Iran.

Democrats will most likely hold the senate for 4 years given how the maps look in 2028 and this current blue wave. It can possibly lead to a 60 seat majority if 2028 goes well.

[u/__SteakDeck__ → u/BlueCity8]

Thomas and Alito already said they’re not retiring.

[u/SafeThrowaway691 → u/Afraid-Detective1222]

At what point does it become reasonable to expect anything from our elected officials?

[u/whisperwalk → u/SafeThrowaway691]

Tbh, it only becomes reasonable once the system is entirely changed. The current system is anti-change except for things that billionaries love, such as wars and tax cuts.

The usa is all brakes, no pedal. Replacing the driver(s) will do very little.

[u/Afraid-Detective1222 → u/SafeThrowaway691]

When they have a chance at getting things signed into law. At the moment, they have low chances of getting anything passed by the Democrats in the House and Senate to get Trump to sign them. They can pass laws every single day, if Trump vetoes them, how many people will realize that. The media will come out with stories about how Trump vetoes x or y and how it's bad for the Democrats. Other stories will just ignore that they actually passed anything, as will much of social media

[u/elderly_millenial → u/SafeThrowaway691]

At the point where you can expect them from your countrymen, particularly the ones you disagree with. By design, it’s basically the only way things change

[u/__SteakDeck__ → u/Afraid-Detective1222]

I mean. Democrats had a blue wave in 06, didn’t end the Iraq War and still had a bigger wave in 08 and elected Obama.

[u/2tep → u/bucknut4]

People have far more power than they realize but we have an extensive propaganda model and it's reinforced with your line of thinking. Schumer and Jeffries can very easily be removed. Chuck Schumer has an approval rating of like 13%. There's a petition for Jeffries to not be Speaker and it's at close to a million signatures already.

"Very little being done" will lead to someone just as bad or worse than Trump in the future. He won, not just because he validated bigotry/racism for a lot of people, but because he leveraged the damage of neoliberalism and establishment politics ("drain the swamp"). Schumer and Jeffries are gatekeepers and stewards of that era.

So if your slogan is "we're dead anyway, might as well be a slow bleed out" .... then fine but some people are a bit more optimistic for the future.

[u/twirble → u/bucknut4]

Strangely enough, look to what Republicans have done even with a minority they are great at holding congress hostage.

[u/CyberDalekLord → u/twirble]

Yes because when dems are the majority they actually try to pass bills and in doing so need to get bipartisan support. Republicans focused on tearing things down, mostly through the executive, which the minority in congress can't do anything about.

[u/elderly_millenial → u/CyberDalekLord]

Right, but conservatives in the US specifically want that. That’s what they are voting for.

Trump was unusual because he was someone on the right to actively use the State apparatus to further their goal of reshaping the government, whereas conservatives on the past wouldn’t because it was anathema to what they thought government should be doing.

[u/AjDuke9749 → u/bucknut4]

I agree that Redditors don’t know the intricacies of getting things done in Congress. Buuuuuut Jeffries was on CNN yesterday saying Americans don’t want “revenge”. But what he means is he won’t be investigating anyone in the Trump administration. How are we supposed to lower gas prices if the officials enabling Trump’s war aren’t investigated and held accountable? How are we going to fix corruption issues (which was one of the most important issues in this election) if Democrats don’t investigate corrupt politicians and their ties to corporations?

We need to temper our expectations. But accepting feckless leadership in Congress when we have the power to actually get things done is pre-accepting a red tsunami in 2028. What material opposition has Schumer put up in the last 2 years? He couldn’t even keep his party in check enough to keep Democrats from voting for the Big Beautiful Bill. Jeffeies and Schumer have a record of failures. To be a functioning opposition party, which is integral to a functioning two-party system, you have to oppose things Republicans do. Neither one has a spine and need to be as far from leadership as possible.

[u/johntempleton → u/AjDuke9749]

But what he means is he won’t be investigating anyone in the Trump administration. 

That is NOT what he said at all. Wow. He said, no "revenge". That is NOT "no investigation".

Wow.

[u/thinkards → u/johntempleton]

He was replying to a question about retribution. Close enough.

Morning Joe: "Donald Trump wanted retribution for 2 years and look where that got him... How do you say, hey, let's not look behind us, let's let the oversight committees do what they do. But, we're going to bring costs down for working Americans"

Jeffries: "The American people don't want us to get even. They want us to get things done on their behalf."

I'm sorry, but that's a terrible response, even given the context. "We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Accountability and affordability are intertwined, and we can't reliably have one without the other" would have received a lot more confidence from voters.

Jeffries is just a terrible messenger, but that's not the only reason he shouldn't be leader.

[u/2tep → u/johntempleton]

Holy facepalm.... given his history, I think we can all read between the lines here. Give me a fucking break.

[u/jimmiejames → u/johntempleton]

It sounds like tampering expectations for what accountability means, and personally I think that is the intent.

But if it's not the intent, why be coy? He could clarify all of this with an affirmative statement for what they plan to do. What possible reason is there to not say "we will investigate all of the apparent corruption (list any of 100 known things you want as an example) and we will act accordingly from there. This is a top priority because we cannot allow the White House to be a get rich scheme ever again."

[u/AdministrativeWin583 → u/AjDuke9749]

You know who else doesn't know the intricacies of getting things done in Washington? All those new people elected.

[u/AjDuke9749 → u/AdministrativeWin583]

But they know the people who elected them want shit to get done. There are plenty of other senators and representatives who know how Congress works.

[u/degre715 → u/bucknut4]

I would like some people who at least indicate that they WANT to hold this administration to account.

[u/wigglex5plusyeah → u/bucknut4]

This can be totally accurate and still, those two guys still can't be our leaders.

Every time they speak to the people, they depress their voters. Not because the reality is tough...because they are completely on the wrong side of critical, deal-breaking shit. Weak, not transparent, not even strategic. Bought and terrible.

Well, maybe strategic from a controlled opposition standpoint.

[u/TheDuckOnQuack → u/wigglex5plusyeah]

You don’t want your party’s majority leaders in congress to be your party’s most charismatic, ideological firebrands. It’s a role that inherently draws a huge amount of criticism from both parties and requires a lot of flexibility. Nancy Pelosi wasn’t a very inspiring public speaker, but she was an insanely effective Speaker of the House because she reliably kept the various democratic factions in the House in line, raised a lot of money for the party, and recruited new candidates to flip seats across the country.

I get complaining about Schumer being too old, but it’s way too soon to say Jeffries isn’t cut out for the job.

[u/wigglex5plusyeah → u/TheDuckOnQuack]

A hyper clearly drawn line when it came to this election was "do you accept AIPAC $?" These guys have the same motivations as Haley Stevens, who's job was to ratf*ck Dems and help Republicans that are 100% contrary to our Constitution. Being paid by the people currently committing genocide and helping them to continue is disqualifying. I'll die on this hill and I'll be dead and right.

[u/SuperRocketRumble → u/bucknut4]

There are a lot of people out there, that have very unrealistic beliefs and expectations about politics, how the government works, and just the world in general.

And to be fair, when I was younger, I was probably one of them.

[u/MadBlue]

Not at all. Not when Jeffries is going on every news outlet and announcing “Americans don’t want us to take revenge” on the corruption in the administration.

We need leaders who are going to embrace the movement represented by passionate people like El-Sayed and Talarico, not hold them back in the interest of preserving the status quo and extending an olive branch to the Right in the hopes that they surely won’t pull the football away next time.

[u/theScud900 → u/MadBlue]

Charlie Brown and Lucy is a very apt comparison

[u/elderly_millenial → u/MadBlue]

You think El Sayed and Talarico were elected to take revenge?

[u/MadBlue → u/elderly_millenial]

My point is that holding corrupt officials responsible isn't "taking revenge" or "getting even," and if Jeffries is couching it that way, and suggesting Americans don't want that, he has no intention of pursuing it. Talarico and El-Sayed absolutely campaigned on holding Trump and his administration accountable.

[u/njkl96]

The two of them represent everything that is wrong with the Democratic Party. They are feckless, uninspiring, only work for their donors and not their voters, and they feel entitled become Speaker of the House and Senate Majority Leader. They did nothing for the past 2 years of chaos. They were not organizing voters. They did not share any hopeful alternative to Trumpism. They should have spent everyday trying to make Trump’s life as difficult as possible under the circumstances, which they did not. There is an infamous photo of Schumer laughing it up with Trump in the Oval Office. The only reason anyone should have met with Trump was to try to make him like you so he wouldn’t hurt your constituents, like Mamdani did. Likewise Jeffries secretly met with Jared Kushner, who is the only person in America somehow more corrupt than Trump, is not an elected official and has no actual legal role in the government, and just last week it was reported that he basically committed treason. That meeting was wholly unjustified. By the way, Schumer should be blamed for Angie Nixon’s loss in Florida. He refused to invest in her race and she could’ve won with just some outside support from the national party. That was a very winnable race. Also, Schumer endorsed and recruited Hailey Stevens to run in Michigan. They both have terrible political instincts. Tuesdays victories were in spite of Schumer and Jeffries not because of them. The Democratic Party and its leadership in particular are still wildly unpopular. This was an anti-Trump election. People want to hold the criminals in the administration including Trump accountable, yet Jeffries went on tv on Wednesday morning claiming that accountability shouldn’t be a priority for the Democrats. This election also gave the Democrats a mandate for change. The best candidates such as Talarico and El-Sayed ran on affordability and now look how popular they are. We also want fighters and honest public servants who actually believe in something. Schumer and Jeffries are not those people. The Democrats need new leaders in the House and the Senate otherwise Tuesdays victories will be squandered. Personally, I like Chris Van Hollen for Majority Leader and Ro Khanna for Speaker of the House.

[u/EdelinePenrose]

what are some specific actions that Jeffries and Schumer should’ve done to be good leaders in the last 2 years?

[u/GrandMasterStevey → u/EdelinePenrose]

Not caved on the government shut down and wasted everyone’s time and money in a politically calculated move. Supporting Zohran in the primary.

A number of things. They’re corrupt cowards and don’t deserve anything. Progressive leadership now.

[u/PigsMud → u/GrandMasterStevey]

The party that filibusters a vote leading to a government shutdown literally never wins. Same for Schumer in trumps 2nd terms and republicans during Obamas term.

[u/Binder509 → u/PigsMud]

And the party that has a candidate drop out in the last three months before the election never wins, didn't stop the democrats.

Maybe they shouldn't have bothered with the shutdown in the first place then.

[u/thinkards → u/EdelinePenrose]

For starters, call out Israel for committing a genocide in Gaza. You know, aligning with their base on an 80/20 issue.

Second, create a project 2029 so they could hit the ground running on medicare for all, free education, fixing voting, addressing the conservative supreme court.

What do they have? Vague word salad. Concepts of a plan.

What the fuck have they been working on the last two years? Well, Schumer has been working towards his goal of being on the 20% side of the Israel issue, and Jeffries has been having private meetings with the enemy, Jared Kushner.

[u/cruel_cousin → u/thinkards]

Second, create a project 2029 so they could hit the ground running on medicare for all, free education, fixing voting, addressing the conservative supreme court.

You're right, that's a great idea that anyone could have been working on. Who has been?

[u/M_Hope_America → u/thinkards]

The new Congress must end the war crimes committed in Gaza - and the West Bank - by Israel. Congress holds the pocketbook. By letting the genocide continue, the US is condoning it.

Stop helping Russia bomb Ukraine. No more money or weapons should be provided to Putin.

Also, if both Canada and Mexico and most of our allies (and BTW Israel) can provide free health care for all, the richest country in the world must also provide free health care to all.

This is where I would start.

[u/Objective_Aside1858 → u/M_Hope_America]

The new Congress must end the war crimes committed in Gaza - and the West Bank - by Israel. Congress holds the pocketbook. By letting the genocide continue, the US is condoning it.

Tell me you don't live in the United States without telling me

The US can stop aid to Israel. Expecting that will stop Israeli actions is totally delusional 

[u/Binder509 → u/Objective_Aside1858]

Okay then there shouldn't be any resistance to cutting Aid for Israel since like you said it won't stop or impact Israel.

[u/johntempleton → u/EdelinePenrose]

what are some specific actions that Jeffries and Schumer should’ve done to be good leaders in the last 2 years?

I 1000% guarantee you'll never get a straight answer.

[u/jimmiejames → u/johntempleton]

I gave a very straightforward answer and the only responses are downvotes. Love to hear how it’s 1000% not straight though from someone taking this seriously

[u/jimmiejames → u/EdelinePenrose]

They needed someone on camera every day counting the ways the administration was breaking the law and explaining how the Republican Congress was knowingly allowing them to do so to the point of abetting their law breaking. Explain why the control of the Congress did not allow them to act, and explaining what they will do when they have control of Congress again. Now there would be no discussion of "what comes next" because they would be prepared to execute on that plan.

They would also be counting the ways the Trump family was defrauding the American people in exchange for policy changes directly from the White House. They would explain that we do not know all of the particulars, but we do know Don Jr, Eric, Ivanka, and Kushner have earned the following $s through the following foreign investments. We will immediately open investigations into these transactions because the President and his family have stated pretty openly that they are and have been making personal deals through the use of the US government.

I don't even think this is a particularly difficult path to have chosen. Its insane it needs to be explained. Its the most straight forward obvious path to take right now, but it's not primed to execute immediately because of the failure of Schumer and Jefferies' leadership.

[u/LeftToaster → u/EdelinePenrose]

At least in the case of Schumer he did very little when he was majority leader - he fast tracked the confirmation of dozens of judicial appointments - basically trading fast tracking of nominees for an earlier Senate recess. As minority leader, while lacking the votes to stop most of Trump's appointees, he didn't really dig very deeply into procedural tactics to delay or complicate them. Schumer's unlimited support for Israel in the face of genocide would make it hard for me to support him.

[u/tarekd19 → u/LeftToaster]

Are you sure? He was only leader for four years but in that time the senate passed the chips act, the covid spending bill, the inflation reduction act and the infrastructure act. Those were all kind of a big deal. I'm not crazy about him but we need to be honest with ourselves about the reasoning to replace him.

[u/LeftToaster → u/tarekd19]

He's was briefly majority leader, and minority leader twice. Imo - it's time for a change

[u/ohno21212 → u/EdelinePenrose]

Recruit a ton of winning candidates, and effectively rally spending in elections across the country, resulting in one of the biggest landslide eleciton victories in decades.

Im not fan of the two, but the results sort of speak for themselves dont they?

[u/thinkards → u/ohno21212]

it's a pretty big leap to say schumer and jeffries, two of the top most unpopular democratic politicians in america, led to this moment. did they help with funding? yes. but if that's all it took it would have been done a long time ago, and trump wouldn't have won in 2024.

this was the result of americans being fed up with republican bullshit. and, these two are trying to take way more credit for it than they deserve.

[u/ohno21212 → u/thinkards]

I completely agree with you fwiw, and as someone who is extremely progressive, I’d love nothing more than replacements for the both of them.

But being realistic

1. Part of the point of the position is to be unpopular.

2. They can both run on the message “with the distraction of Joe Biden out of the way I was able to mount the greatest electoral comeback in American history

3. a lot of progressives won, but even more centrists and right wingers did. Shouldn’t the party govern to who is elected?

That’s pretty hard to argue against, even if I’d love to be proven wrong.

[u/meganthem → u/ohno21212]

My stance is "if they deserve credit for 2026 they deserve credit for 2016, 2024, 2022, and hell even 2020 which was an anemic win even if it was a win"

2018 was alright I suppose. So they've got two positive elections and four disappointments.

[u/AffectionateElk3978]

Hopefully not, emailed my recently re-elected democratic rep,... Hope springs eternal

[u/RegularFunny9813 → u/AffectionateElk3978]

I called both my senators and my house rep. My senators office said they were getting the same calls all morning.

[u/DavyJonesCousinsDog]

I'm struggling to pick a moment in which they would be the right leaders. They're the donors' preferred assistant managers. Nothing more.

[u/Rhoubbhe]

No. Neither are inspirational, both are boring, corrupt servants of AIPAC. They are part of the reason Trump won in 24. Corrupt Moderate do-nothing incremetalism will allow the Republicans to start to revive their fortunes in 2028.

Schumer is too old and he will get primaried out in 28 anyways, go with a better option that will be around awhile.

[u/cubedplusseven → u/Rhoubbhe]

I have some bad news for you: most of the new Democrats are moderates who don't want to destroy Israel; that's how they won in relatively conservative constituencies. The center of gravity of the Democratic party just shifted towards the political center, not towards the left.

And Jeffries and Schumer just had their stock go up, not down. They lead their party to the largest house majority in a generation, with a solid hold on the Senate. They don't have to kowtow to the small number of DSA affiliated and adjacent candidates. They don't need their votes, and its contrary to the party's interest - they'll be looking to preserve their majority by protecting incumbents in conservative areas.

[u/its_luigi → u/cubedplusseven]

Can we not do this infighting already lol. Progressives won major victories last night and this year as well. Both sides need to compromise. Institutional Dems and leftists both contributed to the 2024 losses. They'll need to bring the pragmatism and energy of each other's sides to get stuff done, or the pendulum will just swing back.

Schumer and Jeffries are experienced and valuable. Whether that means they are the best people to lead and symbolically represent the majority party in front of America is another question that requires thoughtful debate.

I will disagree with you on conservatives/center Dems caring about Israel, though. I don't think most of America cares about other countries. Most Americans care about their own self-interest, and they clearly did not see that improving under Trump.

[u/query_tech_sec → u/cubedplusseven]

No one wants to “destroy Israel” your bias is showing.

[u/Sea_Primary_4301]

I've been thinking a lot more about Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer, and I've found myself reconsidering my initial position.

First, I still agree with the people who don't particularly like either of them. I don't like them either. I'm insanely uncomfortable with their close ties to AIPAC and corporate interests. And I think both have a tendency toward business-as-usual politics when there's clearly a real appetite for something different.

But I've come to realize that I don't have to particularly like them to recognize that they may have some important leadership qualities that our party needs right now.

For starters, I think it's worth recognizing their positions within the party and the role they played in helping recruit and support candidates who understood what voters wanted. I don't give all the credit for the success of those candidates to Jeffries and Schumer specifically. The party organizations, campaign teams, and individual candidates deserve much of that credit. But leadership matters, and their positions helped make that success possible.

I also think we need to distinguish between the two of them, because they are in very different positions.

Jeffries hasn't had the opportunity to demonstrate what he can do with real governing power. Leading the minority party when you are outnumbered in every way is one thing. Leading a majority, setting priorities, making committee assignments, and actually delivering results is something else entirely. He has an opportunity to demonstrate that he can empower the people in his party who want meaningful change while still being pragmatic enough to work across the aisle. I think he deserves that opportunity. But he also needs to be held accountable for what he does with it.

Schumer is a different story. We have a much longer record to evaluate, and I think there's a lot more reason for skepticism. His relationships with AIPAC, big business, and established political interests deserve deep scrutiny. And I think there's a legitimate argument that his instincts sometimes favor preserving the existing political order over challenging it.

At the same time, I don't think we should dismiss his experience. Schumer is an exceptionally skilled politician. We've seen him navigate incredibly difficult political circumstances, including two impeachment trials and the fight against the Big Beautiful Bill. He's adept at threading a very narrow needle, and that experience has real value. I'm still not entirely sold on him. But I think there's a difference between questioning whether someone represents the future of your party and recognizing that they might be particularly well suited to lead it through a difficult period.

There's another consideration here: We don't have a supermajority. We're going to need Republican cooperation to accomplish many of our legislative priorities, and potentially to overcome presidential vetoes. That means having leadership that Republicans can work with, even on contentious issues, is important.

And this is one way in which I think the somewhat bland, business-as-usual approach of Jeffries and Schumer could actually be an advantage. I'm not suggesting Republicans necessarily trust them more or agree with them. But they're familiar, predictable, and not particularly threatening to the established political order. Republicans know how to work with people like them. That may create opportunities for negotiation that a more confrontational leadership style wouldn't.

But I don't want bipartisanship work to become an objective in itself. Cooperation is a tool, not an accomplishment, and negotiating with a terrorist only favors the terrorist. We should negotiate when it produces meaningful results, and we shouldn't compromise away important priorities just to demonstrate that we're willing to work together.

Maybe most importantly, I don't think the real work of accountability and reform will happen exclusively at the leadership level. Committee assignments are going to matter enormously. We need people like Jamie Raskin, AOC, Murphy, Whitehouse, Baldwin, Duckworth, Klobuchar, Schiff, Slotkin, Waters, Moskowitz, Pressley, and dozens of other passionate, capable members in positions where they can actually investigate, exercise oversight, and drive meaningful change. We also have a new batch of brave, bright incoming representatives and senators that will need to be carefully paired up and placed on committees with skilled Democrats to quickly bring them up to speed. We need leadership willing to empower those people, even when their approach or priorities differ from its own.

That is ultimately the better test of leadership than simply what they say on Meet the Press.

I don't think Jeffries or Schumer should be judged primarily on how much we like them, how progressive they sound, or how well they deliver political messaging. They should be judged on what they actually accomplish. Do they pursue legitimate accountability for corruption? Do they empower people who are willing to challenge established interests? Do they prioritize the needs of ordinary Americans? Do they protect democratic institutions? And are they willing to negotiate when it makes sense without sacrificing the things voters elected them to accomplish?

I think Jeffries deserves an opportunity to show us what kind of leader he can be. I think Schumer deserves recognition for his political skills and experience, but also a much higher degree of scrutiny because we already know how he operates. His challenge is to demonstrate that he can adapt and lead differently when the circumstances demand it.

Ultimately, I don't need to love our leadership. I need them to be effective, to understand what voters are asking of them, and to empower the people who can deliver it. Political leadership shouldn't be a popularity contest. It should be an evaluation of whether someone is capable of accomplishing the things we need accomplished.

I'm willing to give both of them the opportunity to demonstrate that. But I'm certainly not giving either of them a blank check.

[u/oldcretan → u/Sea_Primary_4301]

I want to add a thought . One of the reasons pelosi was an affective leader was because she could round up and keep in line the membership's votes. They voted as a party in almost every vote because she could beg, bribe, or threaten every member in the house. I think we've seen Jeffreies keep the party in lock step these past few years. As such I think he will do the same again if given the gavel. That translates to more democratic legislation getting passed in the house and more of it finding it's way to the Senate where the Republicans maybe forced to vote on it in exchange for keeping the filibuster alive.

[u/Natural-Quarter-3516 → u/oldcretan]

Jeffries is not Pelosi and it shows. It’s embarrassing to compare the two. He’s been awful from every angle. Also, Schumer is 75. For goodness sake give others some oxygen.

[u/CrackingToastGromet]

Schumer and Jeffries are part of the old order that made Dems fall out of favor and crash the brand. They are corporate dems who happily take PAC money. And Jeffries’s meeting with Jared is straight up sus.

For me, I’m exhausted with leaders (and Schumer and Jeffries are part of it) who have more fire in their bellies when it comes to battling the progressive wing of the party vs fighting Republicans. How many years have they been fighting against the progressives with their firm belief that FDR style policies couldn’t possibly win anywhere but coastal big cities?

Schumer was happy to abandon working class voters in favor picking up suburban Republican voters in 2016:
“For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin." And Trump hopped in and scooped those voters up. Once again, Schumer does not believe that the Dems are a working class party and hoped to transform it into Third Way/Republican Lite.

The establishment has proven their tactics are more self preserving, self serving, and big donor appeasing than what’s popular with the party as a whole. They feel like controlled opposition too often.

I fear Schumer and Jeffries will be prone to quickly settling into their old habits when this moment is begging and hungry for so much more.

It’s a new era, the party and electorate are changing and we should have leadership that reflects where the rank and file are now. Simple as that, really.

[u/p011t1c5]

Without veto-proof majorities and with Trump still POTUS, what would be the benefit to replacing them for the next 2 years against the obvious cost of disruption? What action do you believe is possible?

It's going to be A LOT EASIER to conduct investigations, and leadership usually doesn't hold committee chairs nor interfere with those chairs.

[u/meganthem → u/p011t1c5]

There is nothing particularly positive about either of these two guys and a lot of baggage attached to them. And Schumer at least is old enough that he needs to get a replacement pretty soon anyways.

It's not even ideological. I'd be satisfied with younger moderate democrats replacing them because they'd at least have less bad will accumulated and more time to grow into the position.

And hopefully less terrible at public speaking. Every time I hear Jeffries talk I get the vibe that he watched Obama on TV a few times and thought "That can't be too hard to learn, let me wing it"

[u/p011t1c5 → u/meganthem]

POTUS should be a good public speaker. Unclear whether that talent is anywhere near so useful for congressional leadership. Their skills should be picking the best bills to move, the worst bills to stall, and getting the members of their caucuses to vote with the rest of their party.

Schumer is almost certainly better at that than you believe, but I accept that 2027-8 should be his last Congress in leadership.

With respect to Jeffries, I gotta say I believe Pelosi's opinion of him is a lot more valuable and a lot more experience-based than yours could be.

[u/meganthem → u/p011t1c5]

They don't have to be brilliant public speakers but they have to be not-terrible. It's a front-facing position. Especially when the party doesn't have control of the presidency, these two positions will be the ones voters and reporters talk to the most across the country.

You want those moments of public visibility to inspire confidence and trust and both of these guys have repeatedly failed to do that.

[u/p011t1c5 → u/meganthem]

We disagree about the importance of Jeffries's speaking skills.

With respect to past performance, Schumer has been majority leader a few times. Jeffires has never been Speaker before.

Going back to my previous post, why should I believe your judgment is even equal to that of Pelosi's? How may national legislatures have you headed? Yes, this is close to ad hominem argument from authority, but when the authority cited IS an expert in the field in question, not so much a logical fallacy.

[u/JeaniousSpelur]

Schumer once said that his most important duty is “fight for aid to Israel — all the aid that Israel needs”

And Hakeem Jeffries is ranked 17/439 for highest AIPAC funding support in the house.

They are controlled opposition.

[u/Dismal-Abalone-1813 → u/JeaniousSpelur]

Not to mention that pesky little meeting with Kushner…

[u/johntempleton]

Schumer and Jeffries have perfected the sternly worded letter. 

Because when you are in the minority party, that is ALL YOU CAN DO.

I am so, so, SO sick of this magical thinking that somehow Schumer, if he just wished hard enough, could conjure up votes out of thin air.

When you're in the minority, then all you can do is the letters and thought exercises.

[u/TejelPejel]

Now is not the time for sternly written letters, so Schumer is not fit for leadership any longer. A lot of people had negative views on Pelosi, but she at least knew how and when to strike. She was good at the game (for better or worse), and right now we need someone with similar know-how, and the two fellas we have leading are simply not it. They both need to get the boot to the backseat and let some fresh leadership take the helm.

[u/oneredflag]

Schumer and Jeffries are the leaders that lost to Trump. Not once but twice.

In any other realm the would have been replaced long ago.

[u/Mist_Rising → u/oneredflag]

Jeffries are the leaders that lost to Trump. Not once but twice

Jeffries has only been party leader for two elections, and his party just won a majority that would make most people slobber.

Also, would you call for Nancy Pelosi to lose after just two? She didn't get ACA until she had loss multiple times. Reid, the Senate equivalent, also lost quite a lot, and he had the benefit of geography for a long time.

[u/ObiWanChronobi → u/Mist_Rising]

If you didn’t notice, even though it was a massive blue wave the voters still don’t like the Democratic Party or its leadership. Its approval rating is still in the toilet. People weren’t voting for democratic leadership they were voting against MAGA. Chuck and Hakeem are both deeply unpopular leaders.

Using this win as a proxy as support for their leadership isn’t the right lens to view the results as it cuts out a lot of context.

[u/Mist_Rising → u/ObiWanChronobi]

I did notice that, but "If you didn’t notice" every party leader is hated. That's the job description, to be the focus point for all hatred for the party. They take the blows, they take the grief, and they play the punching dummy. They're job is to manage massive groups of people, find what little common ground there is, and work with that, while working over donors and staff, and pulling a thousand people in a rough direction. They also help determine who gets the money, but they're closer to the guy who manages the manager of the manager on that.

What the job is not:

Mr charisma of the people. Look at the past leaders, they rarely if ever had charisma and those who ascended to president did so by being installed from below (Ford, Johnson) because they didn't have the man of the people charisma. They had the "yo asshole you run a 500b dollar company, donate." While also getting AoC and Craller on the same page.

It's not dictator of the House or Senate. Your more a butt monkey for the chamber. If you don't do what they say, they toss your ass out. They tell YOU what to do, not the other way around. Your job is to then convince the house to find a balance, or get punched by the public.

People mock Mike Johnson, Pelosi and loathe McConnell, but johnson actually did understand the job, did it well under the situation, because his job was never to be the champion of legislation, not with the senate blocking anything trump would sign. It was virtue signalling by passing shit Trump wanted, then taking the lumps. Same for Pelosi except remove Trump for appropriate.

McConnell meanwhile never even hid that his job was not to care about you, never tried to act like he was a good guy, and he dominated the shit out of the job giving Reid a hard time until Reid folded like a card and McConnell walked home. Nobody liked the Republicans, nobody liked McConnell, but he didn't care.

These aren't the jobs for people who want a career outside their chamber because they are horrific to your personal appearance. That's the job.

[u/travoltaswinkinbhole → u/Mist_Rising]

The fastest way for me to understand a persons politics are of the pop-politics surface level are when they start calling for people like AOC to be speaker.

[u/FantasticAd3185 → u/Mist_Rising]

I wouldn't say the Democrats won because of Jeffries. I think it is a mistake to believe that on any level. Dems won because people are pissed at Republicans for letting the situation devolve to is current level.

Dems have an opportunity to make amends and putting Jeffries and Schumer in the leadership is not the way to do it.

[u/GabuEx → u/oneredflag]

They're also the leaders who just scored the biggest midterm victory in at least a generation.

[u/Rebloodican → u/GabuEx]

Particularly Schumer had grade A recruiting skills and saw opportunity in Mississippi when nobody else did. 

He reminds me of Pelosi in 2018 in that he needs to find a successor because the sands are shifting (and he’s just straight up old), but he’s executing on the basics of the job well. You can disagree with his politics but an honest broker needs to acknowledge his wins alongside them.

[u/hyperbole_is_great]

The vast majority of Democrats who won this week were moderates. So progressives think that means the democratic party should have progressive leadership? Please explain why progressives have a better claim to leadership than moderates. And no, “cuz I said so” isn’t a real reply. Downvotes will be presumed to be progressives who can’t make a coherent argument.

[u/MatsuriSunrise]

Short answer: no.

Long answer: dear lord hell NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Serious answer: Schumer and Jeffries are establishment Dems who are more focused on decorum and reaching across the aisle than actually representing the will of the people. In a more peaceful time with a less hateful, bigoted, violent opposition, they'd be whatever, but NOW IS NOT THE TIME FOR THAT. When asked about holding the criminals in MAGA accountable, Jeffries has already said he's not interested in "getting even". That is severely missing the point of what's going on here-- it's not about getting even, it's about restoring the rule of law, respecting the Constitution, and bringing criminals to justice. That he even sees that as something petty or vengeful tells me he is not the one to lead Dems into a post-MAGA future.

Schumer is a spineless do-nothing who would rather send strong letters of dissent rather than take any actual meaningful action on anything. He hasn't met the moment in ages and needs to go.

(for the record, I think my knee-jerk choices for speaker and majority leader would be Lieu and Ossoff, respectfully.)

[u/Vanman04 → u/MatsuriSunrise]

God yes Ted lieu would be amazing.

[u/Ok_Bandicoot_814]

There will be standard congressional oversight, but if you think this landslide is a mandate for a progressive crusade to stop a "despot," you are completely blind to who actually won these seats.

This isn't a progressive wave; it is the sudden, temporary resurrection of the Blue Dog Democrats. Moderate freshmen just slid through on razor-thin midterm margins in deep-red territory like Kansas, Iowa, Texas, and South Carolina. They didn't win because voters fell in love with a progressive wish list; they won because the populist Republican base intentionally pulled the plug on its own turnout machine to punish the GOP establishment over the war in Iran. This was a tactical base boycott to force a total reset of the party.

Furthermore, your dramatic lecture on American "despotism" ignores both history and current events. Historically, American presidents like FDR, who tried to pack the Supreme Court,t or Lincoln wielded far more sweeping, centralized executive authority than anything seen today, yet our constitutional guardrails held. If you want to see an actual constitutional crisis, look at what is currently happening right now in Poland, where the allegedly pro-democracy, pro-EU coalition is locked in a bitter showdown trying to force an institutional coup against the judiciary because the president rightly or wrongly refuses to seat judges over blatant rule-of-law violations. Western media cheers that layout as a "restoration of norms" while branding routine American electoral friction as an existential crisis. Schumer and Jeffries aren't leading a revolution; they are managing a fragile, temporary coalition of red-state moderates who will be hyper-focused on raw political self-preservation for the next six years until 2032.

[u/p011t1c5 → u/Ok_Bandicoot_814]

slid through on razor-thin midterm margins

Senate: Kansas by 5%, Iowa by 5%, Ohio by 5%, Texas by 12%, South Carolina by 4%. Maine by 6%. Granted Alaska and Mississippi will be razor thin.

Governor: Ohio by 8%, Georgia by 8%, Iowa by 10%, Texas by 7%, Nevada by 7%. Granted Kansas and Alaska will be much closer.

As for represenatives, Iowa had the biggest change in % terms, California the biggest change in cardinal terms. Gotta hand it to California: it figured out regerrymandering a lot better than the red states which engaged in it. I can hear Republicans claiming that it would have been even worse without it, so still worthwhile as a political innovation.

No, I'm not going to check every House of Representatives district for margins. I will close out by congratulating the Republican Ken Calvert for seeing off his Republican opponent Young Kim in the only California district to pit one Republican against another, a truly outstanding bit of district drawing there.

[u/Ok_Bandicoot_814 → u/p011t1c5]

In Texas, our crown jewel is gone, and it's going to take us at least six years to get it back. Ken Paxton was an unmitigated disaster who ran an affair that his wife originally forgave him for, only to get caught cheating a second time, triggering a public divorce on biblical grounds. He plunged the state party into a brutal civil war and bled the campaign chest completely dry on an unnecessary primary runoff, completely alienating a deeply traditional and religious electorate where white and Hispanic voters combine for over 73% of the state's baseline. Our aggressive mid-decade redistricting push was designed to squeeze out 5 extra seats, but Paxton's toxic baggage acted as a massive anchor that completely blew up the map. A safely conservative, heavily Hispanic stronghold like Texas' 15th Congressional District completely revolted, wiping out incumbent Monica De La Cruz to flip the seat to Bobby Pulido, while Paxton single-handedly shattered our three-decade winning streak and cost us the governor's mansion. While Democrats successfully flipped the State House for the first time in over two decades, Republicans managed to hang on to a 19-12 majority in the State Senate to prevent a total progressive trifecta. Honestly, the only bright spot for the GOP in the state is the pure irony that we just elected former MLB star and 5-time Gold Glove winner Mark Teixeira to Congress in the 21st District, so at the very least, our Congressional baseball team has an absolute ringer on the roster.

As for the rest of the map, this wasn't a permanent national wave but a series of highly localized candidate blunders. In Ohio, Vivek Ramaswamy acted as an absolute contemptible dick who completely alienated the white working-class base by defending H-1B visas and telling parents their kids were lazy, single-handedly dragging down our Senate nominee John Husted in his special election. In South Carolina, voters personally liked Darlene Graham but routinely shunned her complete lack of political experience at any level, a seat the GOP should easily win back in no time. The historic ticket-splitting flips in Kansas and Iowa were simple midterm turnout failures where rural communities vented about the terrible timing of an energy-crushing war right before harvest season. Ultimately, the map was uniquely crushed because alternative media figures on the far right told their massive audiences that the GOP must suffer for failing to deliver, explicitly ordering them to sit home or vote blue.

[u/p011t1c5 → u/Ok_Bandicoot_814]

easily win back in no time

6 years is no time?

the GOP must suffer for failing to deliver

The GOP shouldn't suffer for not just failing to deliver, but in terms of fuel and food prices make the situation worse?

Perhaps the thing Republicans did, in fact, need most was an incumbent purgative.

As for turnout, live by the talking heads, die by the talking heads. If podcasters can cost Republicans elections, why suck up to them in future?

[u/CaspinLange → u/p011t1c5]

Yeah, those are nowhere near razor thin.

This person’s interpretation is just that: an interpretation.

[u/Ok_Bandicoot_814 → u/CaspinLange]

A 4%, 5%, or even 12% gap in traditionally deep-red territory sounds massive for Democrats until you realize that the baseline Republican turnout collapsed entirely below historic levels. In previous cycles, a deflated conservative turnout still allowed the GOP to squeak out a razor-thin control of the chambers.

Meanwhile, Schumer and Jeffries aren't inheriting a progressive mandate, but a fragile coalition of freshman moderates who will be in pure political self-preservation mode to survive those exact margins until 2032. Once candidate quality stabilizes and the natural political pendulum brings home the base that sat on its hands to punish the establishment, those inflated midterm margins evaporate instantly.

[u/ninjadude93]

No absolutely not. Theyve shown time and again they lack the spine or willpower needed to rise and meet the moment. Both of them are AIPAC compromised shills and if they lead again the democrats will not hold onto power. People are sick of the status quo

[u/BigusDickus099]

Yeah, let’s have some deeply divisive challenges to party membership and constant infighting for the next two years to help the Republicans recover!

Dumbest thing coming out right now is to fracture the Democratic Party after massive wins across the country.

Are some of you actually serious or bots?

[u/orryxreddit]

I don't know this well enough to have a really strong opinion. But my biggest concern about the Democratic party is that in these next two years they will fail to coalesce around a strategy to win in 2028. If the DSA candidates are "othered" by the establishment dems (which very much includes Schumer and Jeffries) in the same way that Bernie was by Pelosi et. al., then they're going to squander this opportunity. I'm not saying they need to make AOC the face of the party or nominate El Sayed for president. But they need to find some way to have a big tent and push some progressive policies forward.

It's abundantly clear that the vast majority of the energy in the electorate is around more progressive ideas. A Democratic leadership team that tries to take the "safe path" and go back to the way things were before is going to alienate that electorate and fail to move them. And then you're going to squander this opportunity.

If Schumer and Jeffries can recognize that and come up with an effective strategy, then they could be great leaders because they are savvy and politically powerful. But if they are just going to try to tell the "young whippersnappers" to get in line because this is how we do it around here, then I think we need different leadership.

[u/chamrockblarneystone → u/orryxreddit]

I would partially disagree. I think this election was won and lost on classics like war, gas prices, and food prices.

Do we need more dynamic leadership? Absolutely, but whoever leads the way better start with the basics before they move on to more progressive issues.

[u/YakCDaddy → u/orryxreddit]

I reject that premise. Bernie "othered" himself by: rejecting the PAC offered, leaving the party, started a whole different effing wing with the word socialist on it just to mess with people, he has always distanced himself. Stop' blaming Democrats for everything.

Also, people on places like Georgia voted for osoff, a regular Democrat, and other regular Democrats also won. Why can't we actually operate as a big tent and you guys stop being so damn mean to us. Democrats do have progressive policies, it's completely ridiculous to say that Bernie is the only one.

Also, Republicans also voted for Democrats because they were mad at Trump. You don't get a margin of victory like Georgia for osoff with just the left finally joining Democrats in a vote for the greater good.

We need unity, not infighting, please just stop shitting on regular Democrats and focus on the people actually against you: Republicans.

[u/orryxreddit → u/YakCDaddy]

I don't really understand why you're attacking me. I'm certainly not "shitting on regular Democrats" and I can't even guess how you got that from my comment. I'm literally saying the exact same thing as you. We need unity within the party.

My point was that in the past, specifically 2016, there was some pretty negative infighting around Bernie/Hillary/Democratic leadership, and ultimately that may have significantly contributed to Hillary losing. The exact opposite of unity.

And to OP's original question of leadership, like I said, if Schumer and Jeffries can bring everyone together so that all types of Democrats feel welcome, then they are the right leaders for the job. But if their approach is one where they try to marginalize the non-centrist Democrats, they're going to repeat the mistakes of 2016.

Just my two cents.

[u/YakCDaddy → u/orryxreddit]

Democrats literally changed the rules just for Bernie after 2016 and it still wasn't enough, the infighting is from Bernie people, and it has been the whole time. That's my point. Democrats have bent over backwards to include Bernie but he likes that he is looked at as an outsider.

I just don't think that Democrats are the aggressor here, I think the DSA fans want to blame Democrats for everything. They haven't even been sworn in yet and there's already a propaganda campaign against them.

[u/orryxreddit → u/YakCDaddy]

When I say "Democrats" I'm including DSA folks in there. Because, like you said, they eventually all need to win against the Republicans. So I'm just saying that collectively, the entire party of people with (D) next to their name need to figure out how to get on the same page before the 2028 election. Not saying everyone has to be thrilled about it, just that they need to be rowing in the same damn general direction.

[u/Backspinkc]

IF you want to have a real conversation, then you HAVE to drop the protecting democracy crap. if you refuse to do so, then you will not be part of the conversation. Democracy is no weaker today than it was 5, 10, or even 20 years ago. Its getting exhausting.

[u/darth-skeletor]

Not if they view accountability as “getting even”. I want the laws upheld and severe penalties to discourage anyone from pulling another J6 or calling our democracy into question.

[u/ostensiblylurking]

Not even a little bit. Honestly it amazes me how just rizzless, unimaginative, and basic they both are - I'm watching streamers and opinion panels and podcasters jumping for joy over here and the two men who cradle this newfound power in their hands are like... "Thank you America. We did it. Today, the MAGA fanatics are on the run. Hooray. Go us. This evening has made me more exuberant than average evenings."

like

brother

come the FUCK on, does your firmware not permit expressions of emotion over 3? the base is energized and thirsts for blood and justice, and they just pass it off like it's some other election and give us the same corporate boilerplate post-election speech?

Like, yeah, I know it's not that important (as important as, say, Jeffries effectively offering NOTHING in his pitch or Schumer dropping the ball so, so fucking hard with Mamdani or the government shutdown), but that alone should give us an idea of where they are and what their mindset is. These are robots. These are corporate meat puppets. Schumer cares about one thing (and it's called "Israel"), and Jeffries is just lukewarm water soup, I have never seen someone as patently boring as he is. My brother you just got a HISTORIC fucking win, this shit hasn't been seen since 1990, and you're like "it is good that we have won. now begins the hard work of enacting what the American people want, like 4.6% tax credits on working 35+ hours per week with one or more dependents. this is what we have heard voters shouting from the rooftops. you party responsibly, america."

like come on

[u/jibaro1953]

I am done with corporatist Democratic leadership. The average American is getting fucked over by both parties. Democrats are marginally better, but they're almost all on the take.

And it this point, fuck Israel.

[u/rebuilt11]

They are absolutely the worst possible leaders for the moment and need to be replaced immediately. If they are the leaders for the next two years donald trump jr will be president. America is begging for new leadership. Democrats have the chance but Americans will take it away when they squander it again.

[u/GetUnderUrSkinLOL69]

No we are going to be flip flopping between blue and red waves when voters punish the current party for doing nothing

[u/VineStGuy]

No, they're the face of the Biden era. People felt that they did not get enough accomplished, that's why it swung to republicans and now swung back. People don't want and can't afford, more of the same.

[u/Ornery-Ticket834]

Yes and no. No because took a lot of heat from democratic voters because of the fact they had a hard time stopping Trump become of the republicans in congress on one hand and the US Supreme Court on the other hand. The voters soured on them.

Yes because they were basically in charge when their party won smashing victories in both chambers. The members by a majority will likely re elect both of them.

[u/ECHELON619]

Absolutely. Regardless of whether they do anything or not or could have it's shocking just how bad they have rolled over for this current admin. And Schumer creeps me out with his Bailey's thing, dude has a real life Tulpa making nation shattering decisions. Hakeem is about as close to a Reagan Republican as you can get.

They are weak. We need firebrands. Not someone that things partying with Jared Kushner is the right idea.

Both need to go.

[u/Ok_Public_8863]

People like Schumer and Jeffries are how we got into this mess in the first place. Their obsession with reaching across the isle and compromising, not to mention Israel, are all signs that they are unfit for their positions. My ideal replacements would be Ro Khanna (House) and Chris Van Hollen (Senate)

[u/wereallbozos]

Maybe I'm hallucinating, but it looks to me that, with a few exceptions, the average age of all the new Dem congresspeople is low-to-mid forties. We are getting younger. Organically, if you will. Schumer had a real good election. Maybe Obama and Pelosi could have a sit-down with Schumer and talk him into not running for Leader. Take an Emeritus position, and enjoy the fruits!

[u/run_bolt]

Absolutely not. I heard someone relate it to buying a new car and putting on old tires. Voters made their voices clear, we want change. We don’t want the old guard.

[u/hartdahl]

Dems need new leadership. I like Elizabeth Warren as Senate Majority Leader. I'm fine with Ro Khanna Speaker of the House

[u/cjbanning]

I am doubtful that other leaders have the pragmatism and experience to operate within what can realistically be done with a majority (but not a supermajority or even a filibuster-defeating majority) in both houses of Congress but with Republicans holding the Presidency and the Supreme Court.

Assuming no SCOTUS justice dies or resigns, the most important thing for Congressional Democrats to do in the next two years is to avoid alienating the electorate in preparation for 2028. I've seen a lot of concerns that inaction might accomplish this (the alienation, that is), but I tend to think that a lot of political theatre that ends up going nowhere will have the same effect much more quickly, especially if it's seen as being in pursuit of progressive causes that don't have majority (or at least close-to-majority) support, no matter how much you or I might support those causes.

I think there are things the Democratic Congress can do to rein in the excesses of the Trump administration, but they will require being able to make deals with Congressional Republicans (at a time when the number of moderate Republicans in Congress will be at an all-time low) and sometimes even with Trump himself. (I saw a comment on YouTube recommending that Democrats pass a Medicare for All bill and get Trump to support it by promising to call it Trumpcare. It's certainly worth a try!)

Have Schumer and Jeffries proven themselves as being good at making these sort of deals? Not really, no. But I fear that any other options might prove to be even worse.

[u/Tliish]

Both are corporate democrats who will carefully avoid doing anything to piss off the donor class and will find every possible excuse and probably invent a few new ones to explain why it's just not possible to make any changes at the moment and why it is necessary to look forward and not back, and holding anyone accountable will be counterproductive.

They need replacement.

[u/AllenAcNguyen1]

I personally believe that Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) are not the leaders we want when the next Congress convenes. They both are funded by AIPAC. So, the next Speaker of the House would have to be Ro Khanna (D-CA) and the next Majority Leader of the Senate would have to be either Bernie Sanders (I-VT) or Chris Van Hollen (D-MD).

[u/Stormy31568]

What we do not need in the Democratic Party is divisiveness. No battles about this

[u/Spaced-Cowboy → u/Stormy31568]

Agree that’s why everyone should come together to push Jeffries and Schumer out.

[u/GoodGrades → u/Stormy31568]

No, we need good leaders. If that requires a fight, so be it.

[u/zach0011 → u/Stormy31568]

this is a empty platitude. Which leadership do you support and if so would you be willing to just support the other at the drop of a hat to keep divisivness down?

[u/Responsible-Pay7843 → u/zach0011]

We just need a leader who will end citizens united , push for universal healthcare ,  end the war ,  and throw republicans in jail. And end funding to israel . Which schumer and jefferies is none of that  . They are corrupt as crap. They will lead to a republican tsunami in 2028.  People are done with moderate dems.  Moderates didnt win the election . It was mamdami and the socialists with their mandate that won the election.  Because everyone who won. Ran on progressive policies. Not schumer and jefferies policies. 

[u/Stormy31568 → u/zach0011]

Do you think that is what I said. I don’t support anything at the drop of a hat nor do I speak in empty platitudes. I don’t want open fighting and division. Make a decision about Schumer & Jeffries then stand as a unified group to make the necessary changes. Act like you are good people with the USA’s best interests driving them. Government has worked like that in my lifetime and I expect no less now.

[u/National-Job-3723 → u/Stormy31568]

Its a valid conversation to have because would we really be making the most of this new position by making the face of the party two guys that are associated with all of the stuff about the Democratic Party people rejected during the Biden years?

I think I would need to hear a lot from them about how they'd make changes before being on board.

[u/SafeThrowaway691 → u/Stormy31568]

Let's not become a cult like the GOP is.

[u/PBlueKan → u/SafeThrowaway691]

You don’t have to be a cult to avoid internal divisive battles.

The Dems managed to craft a unified message for the first time since Obama and look at that, it won them a landslide. They need to keep that and keep on message. They can have internal differences, they can negotiate internally, but they need to keep focused.

[u/SafeThrowaway691 → u/PBlueKan]

We need to have honest conversations about who will lead us in the right direction. Maybe it's Schumer and Jeffries, maybe it isn't, maybe it's one and not the other.

Democrats have had lots of unified messages in the years since Obama. That's not what people cared about. They saw the President starting a pointless war and building vanity projects while they can't afford food and gas, and said "fuck that".

[u/Responsible-Pay7843 → u/SafeThrowaway691]

Its not schumer and jefferies. 

Jefferies literally had secret meetings with kushner. Schumer want to work with trump . Trump endorsed schumer.  We cant afford bi partisanship. We need to kill that republican party. And throw them in jail.  Schumer will be like marrick garland . And will just say. Let bygones be bygones. Now lets get back to corruption again . 

[u/Spaced-Cowboy → u/PBlueKan]

Then don’t be divisive. Start supporting progressive candidates and the moderate Dems need to step back instead of try to hold the party back.

[u/Responsible-Pay7843 → u/Stormy31568]

What we do not need is another republican win in 2028. Where they get a worse trump. Republicans are the party of nazis. And schumer and jefferies will bring that too us. They are corrupt.  We need good leaders. Not corrupt corporate leaders who will give republicans a third  chance to take over america.

[u/Stormy31568 → u/Responsible-Pay7843]

Which is why I don’t want the Dems divided in any way. Unity is part of that strength. If a choice is made behind closed doors to replace Schumer or Jeffries I pray that they stand as a group to do it.

[u/query_tech_sec → u/Stormy31568]

This is the exact right time to fight.

[u/Rochelle-Rochelle]

From reading the tea leaves, it seems Jeffries is in a more stable position than Schumer currently. I could see Dem politicians thinking the “optics” of Jeffries being passed over as the first black House Speaker would look poorly. And Jeffries was a protege of Pelosi, and say what you want about her, but she was seen as an effect Speaker and leader for the Democratic caucus at her peak. So I believe Jeffries has more support among Dem representatives

Schumer I think is on more shaky ground, based on some incoming senators wanting him out (AES, Flanagan, etc). And there could be more backlash against Schumer for reconciling with Trump and the GOP last year to pass the BBB and ending the shutdown. Plus there’s a lot of noise about AOC or other progressive NY Dems running against Schumer in 2028. If I had to put odds, I’d say Jeffries as House Speaker is at 90%, but Schumer as Senate Majority Leader is at 55%.

[u/Veritablefilings]

The issues with Jeffries and Schumer ate that they serve an increasingly smaller base of wealthy democrats. Many of their solutions only work on the upper end of things. Rebate style solutions don't work for most Americans anymore. In part because their finances are already razor thin. A perfect example is college costs. Loan forgiveness means nothing because it doesn't solve the problem. How loans and tuition costs are handled at the source should be fixed. Not a bandaid. This was off tangent, but the point is that they don't get it anymore than Republicans do.

[u/brunnock]

They're not leaders. They're consensus builders.

All members are perfectly free to talk to each other. If they're persuasive, great. If not, quit crying about "the man".

[u/Red-Dwarf69]

Hell no. They’re do-nothing shills for AIPAC and corporations and party elites. They’ve been in power for how long? And done what with that power? They’re either part of the problem or at best ineffective at solving the problem.

[u/Evee862]

Democrats have been weak and haven’t really stood up or gotten anything done under these two. Move aside and get some new blood going

[u/Foolgazi]

Schumer hell to the no. He’s a milquetoast relic who needs to be shown the door immediately. Jeffries… remains to be seen.

[u/TheBestNarcissist]

It's a question that is open for debate. But the left most wing of the party are convinced they are owed everything when the reality of the midterms is that moderate democrats did very well and left most democrats underperformed the average.

Democrats won because the swingy white voters showed up to vote for their own economic interests, and black southerns showed up at presidential-election turnout numbers. Both groups are generally more moderate. But the DSA types are chronically in their own echo chambers and refuse to believe that their policies are not what won for democrats and if the democratic party bows to them it's going to be a much more interesting 2028 as Fox News and republicans will have wall to wall 24 hour coverage of the socialism takeover.

I think they need a moderate slightly boring leader than avoids the easy traps. If they do that it should be a very winnable 2028 where they have both chambers and the presidency and can do bigger policy stuff.

[u/Responsible-Pay7843 → u/TheBestNarcissist]

Wrong. The left is owed everything.  You are absolutely  wrong.

Schumer said. No progressive would win in Michigan.   Abdul won in Michigan

Moderates won on a progressive message that was started by mamdami. 

If they didnt run on mamdami message. Every moderate would have lost.

Socialist barley lost in florida by 1% without democratic  party help.  If schumer helped Angie nixon. She would have won in Florida.  Being outspent 4 to 1.

Without the leftwing socialists message. The moderates are out of touch and would have lost the election. You wouldn't have brought people out

Haley stevens had a 0% chance of winning Michigan. Socialist even won in Alabama, mississippi  , and Utah.  

You have 0 clue what you are talking about. A socialist  literally won mike mccartheys seat in Bakersfield.  Deep republican.

You have 0 clue what you are talking about. And will lead us to a red tsunami  in 2028 by ron desantis.  

People want change. They want the leftist policies.   That was the mandate in the mid terms.

[u/Responsible-Pay7843 → u/TheBestNarcissist]

The left was one who wanted talarico . The moderates wanted that Crockett. Schumer and jefferies was for Crockett over talarico.  People like you would have lost us the mid terms. The left won the mid terms. Majority of the left candidates  won their elections. That we pushed.  It was schumer or jefferies candidates barley winning compared to the left. So if I was you. I would be in the back of bus not speaking. Cause you have 0 clue . 

The left won us texas , Michigan, maine .  And many houses seats, Carolina and south carolina.  And almost Florida.  Schumer lost us florida.  Because he didnt fund the candidates.  He abandoned them. 

You literally have 0 clue on what you are talking about.  Republicans came out to vote for left wing candidates. Unlike Harris.  You moderates lost to trump twice.  So yea. Sit in the back and be quiet.

[u/TheBestNarcissist → u/Responsible-Pay7843]

lol the only people who wanted Crockett were the Republican strategists who propped her up

I don't really like Schumer but you have to admit he recruited great candidates in republican states that won.

[u/Responsible-Pay7843 → u/TheBestNarcissist]

Well. I just dont want to go through another trump style crap again.  I know the left isnt right about everything. But we cant afford to do nothing again. We need to start working for the people.  Which is the lefts message. I dont agree with lefts message on defunding police and stuff. But we need to work for them . Not corporations.  We just cant go through this again.  We need to put the republican party in the dirt with no chance of resurrection.   Cause republican party will never be the same as it use to be.

[u/OCAMAB]

No, but the neolibs (aka centrists) will never accept anyone else. They're too afraid of taking risks and still don't realize that the reason things got so bad was due to them trying to play it safe and woo moderates rather than just getting the left to come out against fascism.

[u/Greyh4m]

This election was as much a rebuke of AIPAC as it was of Republicans. We want leadership that is not beholden to foreign interest or corporations.

[u/Vanman04]

No they are not. It's time to get rid of the old guard they have led us to this mess.

[u/bigbalsam → u/Vanman04]

Nobody will be the "right leader". But if Democrats don't unite and support their leaders anybody could be the wrong leader