About ten years ago, I was watching a TV interview with Schumer. He referred to something or other as being "namby pamby."

It's a phrase I've heard, but never use myself.

At the time, I didn't hate him, but didn't actually like him.

But when the words "namby pamby" came from his mouth, I realized what it was about him that I didn't like.

She was an excellent minority leader, excellent leader all around Schumer and even Jefferies just don’t seem to be rising to the occasion

No more strongly worded letters or memos. There is too much at stake.

Without this, you would have brawls. I've been involved in a few. Nothing gets done and people get hurt.

The minority party focuses on maintaining the filibuster and preventing bad bills from passing. If things turn into a "fight", guess what? You could lose the filibuster and the bad bill passes. If it is a reconcilation bill, it is not subject to the filibuster, so this means that there is horsetrading done to remove the worst parts of the bill.

Why do you think ICE has not been funded? The Democrats would not fund DHS if it included ICE. Eventually Trump caved to the Democrats and TSA got paid again.

...now how about fucking getting back to campaigning against republicans instead of campaigning against the leader of the party that's crushing republicans in nearly every election?

How about giving the party and leaders in power credit for the political momentum since there is only ONE party in power that is providing that opposition and fighting for the people.

How about presenting the party and our leaders honestly, instead of this navelgazing backbiting nonsense that pretends we're not slamming republicans to the point they're breaking apart?

Why is this effort void of ANY of THAT fight against republicans that it pretends to want?

Making the perfect the enemy of the good is a losing proposition. The imperfect Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are still better than every republican in congress.

That being said, there is a whole big middle ground between the purity kooks, for whom everyone is terrible all the time, and those who espouse what your interlocutor believes, which is essentially that Democratic leaders, particularly those he favors, are infallible, should not be criticized, are above criticism and that even the gentlest critiques are akin to being disloyal to the party. And also that their political appointees are above any criticism, as is their belief when it comes to Garland. That’s also an extreme position as well, IMO. Neither do us any good.

In my opinion, that is a self-defeating approach.
It's not "navelgazing backbiting" to hold the leaders of our political Party to higher standards and to question their actions and motives and to demand more from them than the status quo.

I would also take exception with the analysis that Democrats are doing better in elections because of Chuck Schumer's leadership. You are going to have to prove that to me with facts.
Because right now, as far as I can tell and as far as polling has revealed so far, Democrats are mostly winning because people are voting against Republicans more than for Democrats.

That's not my opinion, that is according to the most recent polling.

We cannot win on a "we hate Trump" campaign and expect that to carry us. It just won't.

I don't doubt that Schumer is a good person and has the best intentions but his perspective feels stuck in the 80s or 90s when it still felt like bipartisanship was a thing but the Republican Party is a fascist cult only loyal to Mango Mussolini.
I believe that unwavering push for bipartisanship at any cost was a factor in Democratic turnout in 2024 and in past recent elections in which more people didn't vote than voted.

I'm totally down with Schumer IF he will show a material push for a more aggressive approach and stops gate keeping by making it twice as hard for Progressive candidates like Mamdani or AOC or Frost like candidates to get official DNC support and endorsements from Party leaders (and I don't mean just a written endorsement two days before the election).

My concern for our Party is that some, including many in leadership roles, seem more welcoming to Republicans to come to the Party than they do for Progressives or Democratic Socialists especially.
People do not want more of the same. They want real change and a completely different approach to how we see and deal with Republicans.

But unless he can demonstrate that willingness to change, if a primary candidate, potentially AOC, can convince people she can deliver that, then more people are going to vote for her as they should.
I will always vote for a Democrat but that doesn't mean that if a primary candidate presented a better case that I'm not going to vote for them over an incumbent that has not shown that willingness to be better.
(Perfect example of that is the failure to pass a bill making Roe v Wade the actual law of the land when they controlled the House, Senate and WH)

Sorry for being so long winded but I'm trying very hard to make the point that it's not about not supporting Democrats, it's about supporting Democrats that will fight to make real, material changes and hold Republicans accountable for everything they have done over the last 10 years.

can move into leadership.
Come.on Chuck, love your country more them your job and ego.

The senators elect their leader. They will elect a senior senator.

Here is the Democratic leadership. It will be likely be someone from this list.


In 2027, new leadership will be elected again. Durbin won't be there. If they don't elect Schumer, looks like it will be Klobacher, Booker or Warren. Minority/majority leader is a very procedural position. Whip is a very important job.

...and the loss of that experienced and connected pol will be immediately and tragically noticed and experienced by New Yorkers.

None of the people who think he's some kind of Senate king in the Dem leadership that they're deposing will be affected by that loss. They don't care.

yes, Gillibrand would be the senior senator from New York. But that wouldn’t put her in leadership. Being senior senator from a state is more of a ceremonial title.

...great pol.

I know a lot of folks think Schumer is 'weak' and all of the other diatribes that people project, but he's one of the people that built the 'liberal' wing of the party and provided the Senate bulwark that shaped Democratic opposition to the modern republican party.

I don't know that Gillibrand is prepared to organize as broad a coalition of support, or more importantly, has the depth and breadth of experience crafting legislation out of the slim majorities they've been saddled with.

Principled obstinacy is a valuable attribute, but it doesn't usually move legislation. That's the kind of leader the Senate Dems will look for, and they will be just as accommodating of the consensus of the Dem caucus as every other Dem leader, and limited by the same political equations that Schumer has faced.

I doubt his leadership replacement will come from NY, so, much of that influence and connection to the Senate leadership is likely severed with him gone. What a shame that the Gaza folks that stirred up most of this opposition to Schumer are still protesting him and the Democrats, instead of Trump. i doubt they're taking any responsibility for the Senate leadership after Schumer (which they have zero control over except to blow up the Democratic leadership).

What a curiously counterproductive effort.

Btw, I'd expect Chuck to resign before he's voted out by the ne'er-do-wells.

I’d like to see Chris Murphy, unless he’s got other plans…

...dated.



I bought this in my teens. I saw through the androgyny as a put-on, but the lp was shit.

Hopefully, he’ll retire at the end of his current term.

some people CANNOT give up power

Whether by choice, or by losing the primary to AOC.

...I'd guess he'll also bow out of the leadership after the midterms.

...because he's just not.

He’s a decent man and public servant, but I’d rather see him stepping down from his seat rather than end up in a nasty primary fight with AOC. I really hope he steps down from leadership after the midterms. He’s not the right person for the job right now. He worked well with Biden as president because they spent most of their careers in a totally different era.

If he does step down, it will be an open primary and several others will likely throw their hat in. I wouldn’t be surprised if Hochul does too. There are plenty of others…

...while his and Biden's 'era' was marked by historic, progressive legislative progress.

The new leaders will oversee an era of restoring all of those accomplishments to the level they were before so many of these same critics refused to show up and vote for a Democratic majority in an epic counterproductive protest; refused to show up to preserve and protect them .

If we're successful in the midterms, they will be governing in a political period that will certainly hope to match that past record of progressive progress that Biden and Schumer helped usher in; can only hope to advance the nation as far as those two leaders' generation did when they were in power.

&list=RD7hx4gdlfamo&start_radio=1

'You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run'

We need a wartime consigliere. With maybe a Luca Brasi on his staff.