The progressive group Indivisible called for Democratic lawmakers on Wednesday to replace Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) as Democratic leader after the party secured control of both chambers of Congress in Tuesday’s midterm elections.

“Yesterday, voters made it very clear that they want a new generation of Democratic fighters,” the group wrote in a social media post. “We need a leader in the Senate who is capable of leading that fight. It’s time for Senate Democrats to choose new leadership.”

The group cited the Democratic leader’s faltering approval ratings in its Wednesday statement. An NBC News poll conducted at the end of October found only 13 percent of registered voters viewed Schumer’s leadership positively.

“The American people did not elect Democrats by historic margins just to bend the knee and go back to business as usual,” Indivisible said in its statement. “Senate Democrats need to listen to the voters and turn the page on status quo politics.”

The paid opposition running the Democrats will not falter in their supporting of their Republican donors’ causes.

  • Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Contact your representatives and tell them to keep Jeffries and Schumer out of party leadership roles. We’re done with meaningless decorum and excuses for doing nothing.

      • Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Good work! Democracy doesn’t begin and end at the ballot polls so it’s good to see others doing more to move the needle.

  • Suavevillain@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    10 hours ago

    It is really for the best in a change of leadership unless people really want to down the line repeat the cycle that got us here.

  • NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Schumer belongs in an old folks home along with Trump. They can play cards and talk about how much they support Israeli genocide there and smile as they watch people on YouTube kick a baby. They don’t belong in politics anymore.

  • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    11 hours ago

    We should send a message by telling him to retire completely. If he refuses, impeach him. If that fails, escalate. If scaring doesn’t work, then physical confrontation is completely reasonable.

    Neoliberals are conservatives. The only things conservatives respect are fear and violence. We need to use these tools to remove all of them from the party or they will send us right back into fascism.

    • daannii@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I’m not sure what grounds for impeachment there are.

      I don’t like him either but can’t impeach for being pro Israel and anti democracy.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Yeah I think impeachment gets dicey around what could qualify or not. Their actions don’t actually have to be criminal. What falls under harmful to the public trust becomes more of an opinion than a set rule. Like, does taking money for your campaigns from donors tied to supportimg our country starting wars across an ocean with people that in no way benefits the public? Someone could probably make that argument, that saying we should continue sending missiles to a country that has been continuously proven to use them to kill children/innocents/and needed infrastructure for humanity to survive… I would say is harmful to the public trust… But I’m sure others wouldn’t.

  • Jaysyn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    92
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Neither Schumer nor Jeffries should be in leadership positions. They are quite literally part of the problem.

    • TipRing@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Jefferies literally just met with Kushner before the election. Now, I don’t fault anyone for trying to deal with the White House, someone has to if they want to bring costs down, but doing so before knowing the strength of his own position is either foolish or telling.

  • Manjushri@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Schumer is a effectively a moderate Republican. He has publicly and repeatedly (for nearly 2 decades) said he uses an imaginary couple named Joe and Eileen Bailey, and what they would think if they were real, to decide how to vote in the Senate.

    The world was first introduced to the Baileys in Schumer’s 2007 book, Positively American: Winning Back the Middle-Class Majority One Family at a Time. According to Oliver, Schumer mentions the swing-voting, middle-class couple an astonishing 265 times in just 264 pages.

    “I have conversations with them… one of my staffers once said I had imaginary friends to the press, got me in some trouble,” Schumer says in a clip Oliver played.

    Schumer describes the couple as Reagan-era Republicans — socially liberal but fiscally conservative. He’s offered up intricate details about their fictional lives: their love of Kung Pao chicken, Joe’s habit of singing the national anthem at Islanders games, and Eileen’s father’s chilling run-in with prostate cancer.

    Note, the Kung Pao chicken, Islanders games, and prostate cancer are all imaginary! Rather than talking with actual voters, Schumer just makes up imaginary voters pretends to talk to them! Why is this delusional man even in a position of leadership? He literally talks to imaginary ‘Reagan Republicans’ to decide how to vote. He does not even belong in Congress, let alone in a leadership role.

    Edit: For anyone who would like to laugh and or cry about this, here is a youtube link to Jon Oliver’s segment about Schumer and his imaginary friends.

    • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Yeah that motherfucker should be removed from office period! Won’t even talk to his voters, just uses this bullshit to make excuses for being a shit Democrat not working for the people but the fucking super rich.

    • athairmor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      16 hours ago

      The guy is running a local LLM in his septuagenerian head. It’s trained on models that are 40 years old and that represent people that would be in their 80s now. smh

  • Kirp123@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    229
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Both Schumer and Jeffries need to go. Jeffries went on TV not long ago and said he doesn’t support dismantling ICE or passing Medicare for All.

  • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    98
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    The reality: Democrats lost to Trump in 2012 2016 and 2024.

    What Schumer and Jeffries explicitly say they want: To go back to the way things were in 2024 (roll back all of Trump’s policies).

    Likely result of doing so: Democrats continue to lose to Republicans.

    Obvious conclusion: Democrats need to push an actual policy that gives people am economic reason to vote for them and makes the donor class uncomfortable. “A Return to Normalcy” is a losing strategy.

    Trump’s incompetence has granted us a reprieve, but the next fascist we elect may be younger, smarter, more capable. We can not fuck this up.

    • CosmicTurtle0 [he/him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Trump has always suffered from incompetence. Trump v1, we saw this in spades.

      During Biden, GOP/alt-right used the four years to consolidate power, find further vulnerabilities, and capitalize on them under Trump v2. GOP fucking wrote what they were going to do and then they fucking did it.

      The DNC suffers from wanting to appeal to centralists, the largest bloc of voters that can actually swing an election. They know that progressives and anyone left of the DNC will vote dem because of the fucking two party system.

      If progressives want change, NOW is the time to capitalize! Now is the time to support progressive candidates, set up election committees so when the primaries come up in 1.5 years, they will be front and center.

      The reason the DNC doesn’t pander to progressives is that we don’t give them a reason to. We start too late. We hem and haw through the primaries, bitching and moaning that we don’t have Jon Stewart. The number of progressives that are breathing a sigh of relief yesterday was palpable. Yes, celebrate the win, but we didn’t “win”. We have an opposition that we can influence more than the other candidate.

      We need to fucking take these new politicians to task.

      And, at the same time, find even more progressive candidates and encourage them to run. I want more candidates Chris Gallant. We need more Zohran Mamdanis. We need more Allison Montgomerys.

      We need more Gen Zs.

      I’m fucking tired of the DNC going to progressive candidates and saying they need to stand down because they won’t win. I want progressives to throw the DNC the middle finger and say, “You go left or we’re leaving YOU.” I want the DNC to be the third party.

      So yes, take the victory lap everyone. But start looking for progressives NOW to run in two years.

      Don’t wait two months before primaries.

      • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        The problem with progressive candidates is that they stand largely alone, with constant ankle-biting from other Democrats. No fucking wonder Progressive positions aren’t popular in practice (despite being popular in theory), because the entire fucking DNC is always talking down progessive policies and labelling it radical. They don’t fight for shit and the public never hears strong, consistent arguments for progressive policies.

        We have enough trouble fighting uphill in this media environement, we can’t afford to have the party splintered on messaging key issues.

        Centrist dems think their job is just to take the most popular positions that already exist, at the same time as they’re forbidden from upsetting the donor class. That leaves us with culture war issues that favor Republicans and divide us instead of economic issues that favor Democrats (ie the dreaded populism) that can unite us.

        • Yuccagnocchiyaki@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Not even just ankle biting. The DNC FUNDED MULTIPLE MAGA CANDIDATES TO BEAT PROGRESSIVES.

          They did this many times and, because of what MAGA is, it should be considered treason. They actively helped anti-american and treasonous activity to “increase electability”

          They are just as traitorous as any MAGA and are not on our side. Fuck the DNC

    • FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      12 hours ago

      TBF Trump’s incompetence was a selling point to his supporters in the Russian and Chinese intelligence agencies.

  • MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    19 hours ago

    If they mess up coming out of this midterm win, I will be astounded if they are able to take the presidency. Dems will never have another chance like this to really demonstrate a new vision. I hope they don’t fumble it.

    • farmgineer@nord.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Japan only has a few years where the LDP was not in power. The opposition faceplanted so hard, they never got any meaningful power back. The pulled out the footguns for the last lower house election (though to be fair, they called it earlier than expected) and basically destroyed the center-left.

      I’m hoping that a similar thing doesn’t happen in the US, but with Schumer and Jeffries there, I am not hopeful.

    • hemmes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Honestly, it’s still up to us. It’s us, as constituents, that won the midterms.

      We need to demonstrate the new vision. Our congressmen are there to represent what we want, they’re not there to come up with stuff we may want to see happen.

      That means you have to write them and tell them exactly what you want to see. It’s not just about winning a vote, make sure they hear what you have to say.

      • MountingSuspicion@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Though I understand the underlying sentiment, and I recognize that politics isn’t a once every two years thing, I disagree that it should somehow be on us on.

        I would love an engaged electorate, but realistically people campaigned on a specific platform. We pay them to read the bills and ideally vote in accordance with what they said their values are. It’s completely unrealistic to push that back on the constituents. Often even congresspeople don’t have time to read an entire bill before they vote on it. Do I understand all the intricacies of every omnibus bill? No. I give them my hard earned money so they have the time and staff to. If I have to be on the phone all the time reminding them that they promised no more wars just so they remember to stop Trump from bombing Iran then they have failed to do their job.

        Does that mean we shouldn’t call and express our opinions? No, of course not. But the entire point of having representatives in a representative democracy is so that your average person doesn’t have to sit down and understand the ins and outs of every policy. It’s really not their job to, and especially in America it’s unrealistic to act like people will. Party leadership should be the ones capable of looking around, seeing the direction the wind is blowing, and coming up with a unified vision that addresses the issues of the people that voted for the party.

        Also, however much I support contacting your congressperson, and have done so often myself, I’ve never once had it have any affect whatsoever. I still do it, but that’s not a reliable way to get policies you want to happen. The only real reliable way is to vote in someone who was going to champion that anyway.

        • hemmes@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 hours ago

          I have to disagree.

          Congressmen are there to represent you. Most congressmen themselves say that they encourage constituents to reach out and express their concerns and ideas. That is the point of the structure. The average Joe doesn’t need to understand the details of the bill, you’re right, that’s what the representatives are for.

          However, they’re there to represent the constituents, the bills that get put on the table get put there based on what the representatives hear from their constituents, and then it’s their job to sort through it for us. If you have a minority opinion on something or want something done different that no one else is talking about, it’s going to be difficult for you to realize your concerns in any bill that’s passed. But if you get more people to express their concerns to the representatives, the louder your concerns will get with them. And if they don’t share your concerns, that’s where constituents need to spread the word themselves. That’s how this all works.

      • DagwoodIII@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        18 hours ago

        You didn’t win the election.

        The people who voted for Trump three times and switched are the ones who won it.

        We have to give them what they want; lower prices and affordability.

        Focus on them, because we’ve got to get them locked in for the next twenty years.