American Politics

[xi0]

The unmitigated cope of centrist liberals trying to lay claim to the victory and diminish progressive efforts all over the country, meanwhile these kinds of midterm results are ALWAYS a referendum on the sitting president and his party first and foremost. Just absolutely hilarious and predictable.

 

[Raven]

White Americans only fix is Islam

 

[M3J]

BLUE TSUNAMI!!

Dems better not screw this up though.

 

[James Rye]

BLUE TSUNAMI!!

Dems better not screw this up though.

If they could get rid of Jeffries and Schumer, that would be great.
I doubt they will though.

 

[shionoro]

What they really need to do is listen to Bernie and draft very popoular legislature that Trump then either has to veto and hurt himself or push through and give dems some of the credit.

The other integral thing is that everyone with an office has to really entrench himself via citizen services and other kinds of outreach, especially in areas that will probably swap back to red.

 

[xi0]

If they could get rid of Jeffries and Schumer, that would be great.
I doubt they will though.

Not happening, the establishment puppets have been lying since election night, sweeping for both of them and trying to credit them for all of the wins.

I understood Zohran being against primarying Jeffries back before the election cycle began but sort of have to question it now. These people aren't going to get it until they're kicked to the curb. You'd think with how poll-focused they want to be in their argumentation for everything they'd acknowledge that Schumer and Jeffries would have the lowest approval rating of any politician in DC if it wasn't for Trump himself. But no, they'll just ignore it and swear by how essential they are, etc.

 

[SharkBait]

If they could get rid of Jeffries and Schumer, that would be great.
I doubt they will though.

Difficult to make a case to avoid giving them leadership positions with the blue tsunami achieved under their watch, though. They logically performed amazingly.

 

[xi0]

Difficult to make a case to avoid giving them leadership positions with the blue tsunami achieved under their watch, though. They logically performed amazingly.

Their leadership is what gave us 2024 though...

This is the same kind of thing as giving credit to a President for the economy 1.5 years into their first term, it usually has very little to do with them. Trump entered into a cataclysmically unpopular and unwinnable war, is definitionally a lame duck anyway. The midterms were almost certainly going Blue regardless, the reason it was as much of a bloodbath as it was is because of how disastrous Trump;s second term has been so far as well as grass-roots left-populism actually winning in key places and gaining a foothold within the party. To pretend like it's some sort of master stroke by people like Schumer or Jeffries is just silly.


Then you have bad-faith morons like this idiot parroting the same nonsensical talking points about Schumer as if the same people who want him out aren't calling for Bernie Sanders to take his place. "He's Jewish"....how reductive and cynical can you possibly be?

--- Double Post Merged, Yesterday at 12:59 PM, Original Post Date: Yesterday at 12:51 PM ---

Also worth point out that Schumer and the DNC completely ignored Nixon in FL, Davis in LA, and Colom in MS, 3 southern Senate seats that were entirely winnable. Perhaps the latter might still win but it'll have fuck all to do with Schumer.

 

[SharkBait]

Their leadership is what gave us 2024 though...

This is the same kind of thing as giving credit to a President for the economy 1.5 years into their first term, it usually has very little to do with them. Trump entered into a cataclysmically unpopular and unwinnable war, is definitionally a lame duck anyway. The midterms were almost certainly going Blue regardless, the reason it was as much of a bloodbath as it was is because of how disastrous Trump;s second term has been so far as well as grass-roots left-populism actually winning in key places and gaining a foothold within the party. To pretend like it's some sort of master stroke by people like Schumer or Jeffries is just silly.


Then you have bad-faith morons like this idiot parroting the same nonsensical talking points about Schumer as if the same people who want him out aren't calling for Bernie Sanders to take his place. "He's Jewish"....how reductive and cynical can you possibly be?

--- Double Post Merged, Yesterday at 12:59 PM, Original Post Date: Yesterday at 12:51 PM ---

Also worth point out that Schumer and the DNC completely ignored Nixon in FL, Davis in LA, and Colom in MS, 3 southern Senate seats that were entirely winnable. Perhaps the latter might still win but it'll have fuck all to do with Schumer.

I would want younger people than schumer but we we hear the politicians in interviews incumbents senators whenever the Schumer question is brought up prize "experience" "deal making" "results"

7+ flips including the decades long prize of Texas and Maine and Alaska would be hard to tell them they did a disasterous fireable job even more when many races this election showed that just throwing money as support didn't save the Republicans, who outspent Democrats all over.

 

[shionoro]

Personally, while I would also rather see someone else, i would not put it beyond Schumer to understand that he needs to pursue medicare for all now and that his party became more progressive.

Schumer will most probably not pursue things like ending the filibuster, changing the electoral college or changing rules of the surpreme court. But I am sceptical whether there is someone willing and capable of doing that to replace Schumer.

What I find far more likely is that a lot of Dems will openly tell Schumer that they will only vote for him of he changes policy to a more progressives, more combative way to do politics. If Schumer completely fails to adress that, he will not have a majority and then someone else will step up. But he likely will be capable of adapting and this will be a more desirable result than putting in someone who is not able to navigate the senate just because Schumer is not ambitious enough.

I do definitely not think that Schumer is without his qualities, he was able to get a lot of stuff through a senate with a thinnest possible majority in the Biden era. With 56 dems in the senate, he might be able to get things through the 60 vote threshhold even under Trump, which would be a good way moving into the general election.

I do agree tho that the general election should be a referendum and generally changing the rules of the american institutions and if dems are successful, someone else than Schumer should oversee that.

 

[SharkBait]

I think Colom makes a interesting valid point, why are the house and Senate democratic majority leaders from the same borough of New York? At least when Pelosi was around she represented California.

Also it doesn't help against the narrative of Democrats being for coastal liberals/elites.

 

[shionoro]

Definitely. The new influx of dems should also mean that the old establishment slowly gives up power and lets them take over.

Someone like Mamdani or Talarico shows how you can both be a pragmatic politician (so to speak, an actual centrists) while pushing ambitious (for texas, in talarico's case) politics.

 

[xi0]

I would want younger people than schumer but we we hear the politicians in interviews incumbents senators whenever the Schumer question is brought up prize "experience" "deal making" "results"

7+ flips including the decades long prize of Texas and Maine and Alaska would be hard to tell them they did a disasterous fireable job even more when many races this election showed that just throwing money as support didn't save the Republicans, who outspent Democrats all over.

There's plenty of incumbents and senior senators who have not endorse Schumer as leader. Even AES' senior Senator Slotkin has said she thinks someone else needs to be in the leadership role. AES has supported Van Hollen for the role and I would fully endorse that.

You can though, for how terrible 2024 went and how consequential this second Trump term has been so far.

--- Double Post Merged, Yesterday at 10:36 PM, Original Post Date: Yesterday at 10:35 PM ---

Schumer will most probably not pursue things like ending the filibuster, changing the electoral college or changing rules of the surpreme court. But I am sceptical whether there is someone willing and capable of doing that to replace Schumer.

Who are you more skeptical of doing that - Schumer or anyone else who would take his place? The answer is probably obvious so it's clear what should happen.

 

[shionoro]

Who are you more skeptical of doing that - Schumer or anyone else who would take his place? The answer is probably obvious so it's clear what should happen.

It is not that obvious to me. I am all for someone replacing him if they find a better option, but so far, it does not seem that way. Van Hollen said no, for whichever reason. And I doubt Slotkin is better than Schumer. Klobuchar? I would love to see Bernie Sanders and I would trust him to pull it off, but he already went for another position.

There are two things Schumer is really, REALLY good at, and that is getting the necessary votes and getting the people he likes to run. That is still going to be very useful. Democrats have a lot more leeway now, but especially now it might be important to be able to get these 4 republican votes in order to vetoproof a law proposal. He was able to stop the reps from scrapping Obamacare after all by getting McCains vote.

I would definitely rather see a kinda lame but solid Schumer tenure until the general finally replaces him than seeing a candidate who has less of a grasp of the senate overplay their hand and hurt the chances for making the general a referendum on changing american institutions. I think Schumer can be pushed into a more desirable direction and until a serious challenger steps up, I think it is a better bet than just trying to damage him just because he is not what most Americans desire.

 

[SharkBait]

It is not that obvious to me. I am all for someone replacing him if they find a better option, but so far, it does not seem that way. Van Hollen said no, for whichever reason. And I doubt Slotkin is better than Schumer. Klobuchar? I would love to see Bernie Sanders and I would trust him to pull it off, but he already went for another position.

Yeah that's the other issues, replace him for who? No one appeared to have stood up or even if they do would even gave majority support.

We're not going to end up going crazy like it did on the Republican house side where they couldn't vote for a majority leader for a month

 

[M3J]

If they could get rid of Jeffries and Schumer, that would be great.
I doubt they will though.

Who'd want to be speaker though, at the least? I heard that it's not an ideal job for progressives, at the very least, as they wouldn't be able to focus on legislature, but I haven't really fact checked that.

Definitely. The new influx of dems should also mean that the old establishment slowly gives up power and lets them take over.

Someone like Mamdani or Talarico shows how you can both be a pragmatic politician (so to speak, an actual centrists) while pushing ambitious (for texas, in talarico's case) politics.

Mamdani has not been pragmatic or centrist, he's been further left, which is why he won. If anything, he may have become more pragmatic after becoming mayor, but he didn't run pragmatically.