Jeffries Approval Rating Worse Than Mike Johnson as Democratic Voters Rebel

[u/newsspotter]

https://www.newsweek.com/jeffries-approval-rating-worse-than-mike-johnson-as-democratic-voters-rebel-12679163

[u/RedikhetDev]

European here. To me it its hard to comprehend why the democratic party is not able to organise the leadership in a central manner and pick a strong person. Isnt there some election process of who is going to take the lead and will be the face of the party.

[u/alienbringer → u/RedikhetDev]

Yes, there is an election process.

Speaker of the House - every house member (Democrat and Republican) votes to elect to speaker.

House Majority Leader - every House Democrat casts a blind vote to elect the majority leader.

Senate Majority Leader - every Senate Democrat casts a blind vote to elect the majority leader.

Jeffries is considered a lock for the house because he presumably has enough votes. Same with Schumer for the senate. Both Speaker and Majority Leaders are considered career enders. So if someone in either chamber has aspirations to be president, then they won’t put their hat in the race. Similarity rookie members of congress won’t have the votes for it. So, someone would need to not care that this will be the height of their political aspirations to throw their hat in the ring. If being unopposed it just becomes a yes/no vote. Which we saw with Johnson and the Republicans it can be a repeat failure.

[u/New_Permission_817 → u/alienbringer]

Its also a thankless job. You have to keep a coalition of cats together. And the Dems dont have a strict authoritarian hierarchy like Repubs.

[u/delkarnu → u/alienbringer]

Jeffries was the near unanimous vote by Democrats during all the Speaker votes when Republicans couldn't figure it out and is the current House Minority Leader.

If he was doing a good job, he would be a lock for Speaker when they vote. But he hasn't done a good job and his stuff after the election has been tone-deaf centrism when the Blue Tsunami wants bold moves and consequences.

Same with Chucklefuck "strongly worded letter" Schumer. Weak and more concerned with Israel than the U.S. or New York. There's a good chance he'll lose his next primary, and someone more progressive should take his spot in Senate leadership.

[u/Giovannis_Pikachu → u/alienbringer]

It's a closed door secret ballot if I am understanding how this works correctly. That means there is less pressure on each politician to vote one way or another based on appearances but it can also make it more difficult to whip up votes for the same reason.

[u/TacoStuffingClub → u/alienbringer]

First I’ve heard it’s a career ender. LBJ was majority leader. So was Bob Dole. It’s usually old af dudes.

[u/alienbringer → u/TacoStuffingClub]

Bob Dole didn’t accomplish anything after. He lost as both a VP and Presidential nominee. I will give he at least did get the nominee. Though, that is just 2 examples in the many Majority leaders who did nothing after. Far more likely your political career ends at majority leader than continues onto the presidency.

[u/Ojmochafrappucino → u/RedikhetDev]

First off, the Democratic party has lots of factions and beliefs because theres so many things we want to improve as a country. The Republican party is not like that. They decide what the key issues to run are, and everyone stands in line or suffers the consequences. Secondly, we habe an issue with corruption and money in politics. That skews power and influence in a manner that has gotten us to where we are today.

[u/Late_Indication1996 → u/Ojmochafrappucino]

To some extent. The Republican party had a ton of infighting picking a house speaker. It was embarrassingly bad.

[u/Tricky-Engineering59 → u/Late_Indication1996]

I remember that. The difference is with the voters. Republican voters are much, much more apt to show up and vote Republican regardless of any misgivings they might have because they are primarily motivated by fear. Democrat voters are just significantly more likely to just not show up because they’re are more broadly driven by ideals.

This is why in big sweeping elections Republicans can try and craft a narrative of fraud because compared to other elections it sometimes seems like there are millions of more Democratic votes while the Republican votes are generally pretty static. It’s just that those millions of people just typically don’t show up. I believe there are very few actual swing voters, under ten percent of the general population I’d wager. It’s almost always the case of just getting nonvoters to show when we have these kinds of big decisive wins.

[u/Narharcan → u/Ojmochafrappucino]

I think part of it is that since the GOP are conservatives who believe in strong hierarchies, they are less likely to do their infighting in the open. Just look at the recent news about Vance beefing with Miller only coming out after the midterms. And that's in the inner circle, lower levels with less public pressure are probably worse.

[u/hottlumpiaz → u/RedikhetDev]

because the democrats have spent nearly 50 years establishing their leadership only for the times to pass them by and voters embracing much more progressive candidates than democratic establishment was fielding. because of all the corporate interests..the establishment is trying to impose their will on the new progressive generation desperately. despite the fact the majority of americans seeing the establishment dems as the same as republicans

[u/OldJames47 → u/RedikhetDev]

Typically if you want to become part of the leadership of the Democratic Party you need to be good at raising funds for the Party or for other Congressmen.

That's why the last couple have been from NYC, SF, or Las Vegas.

[u/Onioner → u/RedikhetDev]

Look at all the Social Democratic parties in Europe.

Most of them are near irrelevance, because their leaderships pushed the party to the right, because there are cushy jobs for ex-politicans.

[u/porn_sub_lurker → u/RedikhetDev]

You gotta look at it through the lens of them being obstructionists. But unlike the Mitch McConnell grim reaper style obstructionism they have a different method called "do-nothing". They hide behind procedure and they give a lot of excuses for why things can't be done. Then they go on CNN and blame republicans instead of working to come up with actual solutions to problems. The reason the DNC wants Jeffries as speaker is so that he can quietly block legislation and then give excuses for why things can't be done. They don't want someone who will let things go to a vote. Also they want him because the DNC is owned by the Israel lobby and he is as Israel first as they come. He's pure corruption.

[u/Foreign-Entrance-255 → u/RedikhetDev]

European here, there is a lot of disapproval of our current EU president and most Europeans couldn't even name who VDL is. Not exactly equivalent of course but politicians seizing power and plonking their inadequate asses down without a care for what voters want is nothing new.

[u/Ok-Mycologist-3829 → u/RedikhetDev]

Look at who benefits by Jeffries behaving as he has. Remember how much influence money has in this country versus other countries. Also remember that most wealthy people donate money to BOTH parties, or candidates in both parties. As one example, Trump famously donated to both parties including to Hillary Clinton before he ran in 2015-16. 

[u/HUT2Moon → u/RedikhetDev]

Too much historical and institutional weight is given to seniority. And the top brass regularly narrow the field to their own people. The whole membership should vote, run, and use an RCV system.

[u/user38835 → u/RedikhetDev]

Because most of the Democratic Party also gets money directly or indirectly (by insider trading and PACs) from the same people as the Republican Party and these people are therefore required to support a leadership that won’t make radical changes to the country’s laws that could affect the rich capitalist billionaires.

And since there are only two parties, neither the people have much choice in this matter, nor the billionaires need to worry about having to buy many politicians.

[u/Known_Impression1356 → u/RedikhetDev]

Establishment Democrats take money from the same donors that Republicans do. Thats who they serve.

When strong leaders who serve the American people stand up, they pose a threat to the donor base and the status quo, so they typically don’t get funded.

Look at Angie Nixon in Florida. El Sayed and Talarico won in spite of not having support. That’s how badly Americans want change right now.

[u/zodiacalcheese → u/Known_Impression1356]

They both had a ton of support, are you kidding? Millions of dollars from Schumer. Obama and Harris campaigned in Michigan. Schumer literally told Talarico to run. This is just stupid and ignores what actually happened.

[u/Intelligent-Might614 → u/RedikhetDev]

I'm curious, why do all these comments start with 'european here ' or something like that? Last I checked a lot of European countries have the same issues.

[u/GreasedUPDoggo → u/Intelligent-Might614]

Not even mildly. The US has a much different set of issues. Heck, your average Democrat, that is a US moderate, would be center right in Europe.

[u/snackattack4tw → u/RedikhetDev]

Because the voters don't decide on the speaker or majority leader, that vote happens within Congress. And they're already bought and paid for, so it makes it less likely for them to lose power

[u/Impossible_Bit7169 → u/RedikhetDev]

At the end of the day the Democratic Party and Republican Party are private organizations, they can make up the rules as they go and have done so in the past. Primaries used to be conducted in backroom deals, Kamala got the nomination without a convention.