AOC or Ro Khana. Bernie in the Senate
Add my call to the pile. These two have no business wimping out in the battle to remove the tick named trump from America.
I was fully ready to be a doomer about the dems being feckless before all the results came in, then thing folks are missing is that what just occurred happened in the face of a billionaire spending half a billion dollars trying to buy an election and it didn’t come close to working.
I’m not saying it’s all over but the shouting but that’s a dramatic shift and actually undercuts the power of massive campaign donations. Politicians will now have to consider that when both designing their campaigns and accepting donations.
What just happened proves that spending the most money doesn’t win elections anymore at least not like it once did. Missi-fucking-ssippi has a black democratic senator in the face of all the spending done by the wealthy and big business. That’s a paradigm shift
Bernie and AOC as their respective chamber leaders should be a non-negotiable
I slam that neither of them should be the leaders, and need a pair like Sanders and AOC, try that this time instead of these weaksauce guys.
Aww, but who will soak the rich and throw the working class under the bus?
Whoever replaces them, if they even bother with the theatre.
After seeing them frame going after their supposed political enemies for the illegal bad shit they’ve done as childish and unnecessary so soon after they were voted in I wouldn’t be shocked if they simply didn’t even address this.
AOC is the only right answer here. She’s the only one of the lot with a set of balls.
These guys are middle of the road feckless, milquetoasts. We need more dynamic voices.
Strangely, as of 4:08 Eastern time, the New York Times is asserting:
Representative Katherine M. Clark of Massachusetts, the No. 2 House Democrat, is set to become the majority leader in January, after her party won control of the chamber.
Ms. Clark, 63, a quiet, progressive power player in Congress, would make history as the first woman to hold that role…
“Set to become” with zero further substance on how that change came about, then backing away from that with indefinite “would” and not the definite “will.”
And for as grand as they make this woman sound – she’s a genuinely effective whip, for example, and has a trans daughter – she is clearly every bit as establishment Dem as Jeffries. “She’s left of Jeffries!” NYT keeps saying, and I’m over here thinking it would be hard to get a spark plug shim between them.
To be blunt, the whole article is coming across as desperate editorializing, wanting to sway readers with suggestion under the guise of informing with facts.
I no longer expect more from NYT after what I’ve seen with their Epstein coverage (great on facts, but desperate to negate any suggestion of his blackmail activities, for example) but jesus fucking christ, NYT, do better.
The billionaires are thrashing in their loss.
Archive link – there are known problems with the site, but it has the content. Use at your own discretion.
EDITED to correct misidentification of majority leader as Speaker of the House
Are you confusing speaker and majority leader with each other? But yea both boring, status quo weaklings.
I am, and you’re quite right. I looked it up. Thanks for the correction, I learned something new.
Hard to imagine the dem establishment letting this happen but it’s nice to read news like this for a change. Progress ebbs and flows and the last few days the conversations seem so much more healthy for us all.
When Dems are in power, we have the luxury of pushing back against the establishment wing of the party. When the GOP is in power, we need to focus our energy of getting them out, even if that means working with less-than-ideal Dems until we can shift focus back to our internal disagreements.
This is why it isn’t helpful to be defeatist about both-sidesism during general elections. We all know the Democratic Party isn’t perfect. But little by little, we can shift the overton window to the left.
That’s all I have to say about it. Obviously that part is behind us for now. Looking ahead, it’ll finally be time to roll our sleeves up and get to work on the issues that matter.
“You guys better do what we say or we’ll vote for you again.” is a heck of a threat there little buddy. How do you expect to actually ‘push back’ against the establishment wing of the party?
Take your unhelpful intentional misinterpretations and propaganda somewhere else there, little buddy.
Answer the question. The DNC has and will again simply stop people from running in the democratic primaries. There is no law to stop them from just refusing entry to the party or revoking the party affiliation.
So primaries do not work for this. As history shows. So how, exactly, are you going to threaten someone if the party says they’re the only blue candidate?
What if the DNC just stops having primaries? There’s no law that says they have to have primaries, or have to have public primaries. It’s all convention.
Abdul El-Sayed won his primary then became Senator. Primaries work, focus your energy on getting people to vote in them. DNC isn’t getting rid of primaries, that’s a completely baseless claim.
Yes, a completely baseless claim from the party that didn’t have a presidential primary.
It’s a fair point. We don’t have much leverage in a two party system. Letters to reps aren’t going to cut it, protesting against the “good” guys just as hard as we did against the fascists is basically the only option at this point.
Primaries. Vote for who the party doesn’t want. It’s actually really simple.
Voting in primaries is for voting with your feelings. Voting in the generals is for voting with your head. Basically vote in primaries if you don’t like how the dems did and vote blue no matter who in the generals.
I’m saying that we need to properly pressure them instead of expecting them to save us willingly. Waiting for the next round of primaries isn’t enough, they simply won’t make the needed choices if they don’t have to.
Well that’s entirely the point then, isn’t it? Tell them that if they don’t do their job properly, then they’ll be fired. I don’t get why that’s such a crazy hard to understand concept, but whatever makes it so hard to understand is probably what got people like Trump into office in the first place
We’re doing the work right now. Climb onboard or get out of the way. We have a long way to go without dragging any deadweight behind us
No, it’s not a fair point. You seem to either not fully understand what voting is or how elections work. The ‘leverage’ is that if they don’t do what we want them to do, they lose their jobs. I wish there were more severe consequences to abandoning the voters, but we don’t have those yet and the only way to get there is to vote
…You can’t do that if you ‘vote blue no matter who.’
You’re being down voted by people that cheerfully vote for politicians they know don’t represent them. To be fair, they’re still going through waves of ecstasy over voting in “bad” over “worse,” and that really is probably pretty good harm reduction, if Schumer and Jeffries don’t just give Trump everything he wants in the name of “bipartisanship” and an alignment of donors.
Do you address people as “little buddy” in real life? Do you find it motivates them to consider your views with an open mind?
Open mind? That’s a myth that liberals tell themselves to feel better about their locked down conclusions they’ll fit the facts around.
You still didn’t answer. The question. How do we pressure them?
I’m keeping a record of everything my elected officials do right, and everything that they do wrong. And every time I call them, I tell them that we’re keeping track of whether they’re listening to their constituents, we will organize accordingly when they’re up for re-election.
It sounds like an empty threat, but for those of us who actually care, we’re making shit happen.
In my district, we just got rid of an establishment dem representative, and got our first progressive representative in decades.
We can, and are, moving the needle left.
And when the DNC just stops allowing people to run as democrats if they don’t accept AIPAC? The DNC has pulled funding from candidates before for progressive ideology.
Then we run as our own party. But until that point, the way to most effectively move the needle to the left is to shift an already-existing dominant party to the left.
I hope we eventually overthrow the two party system entirely, that’s the dream.
Booo bad faith argument booooo
What a takeaway to get out of all this. I’m sure you’re being totally-not-disingenuous, so I’ll treat it with the utmost gravity it deserves.
Shifts weight onto one ass cheek and let’s out a great big fart.
God, that felt good.
Feel free to tell me an alternative solution.
It’s hard to imagine in normal condition but if we put pressure on them, contact our senators and representative we might be able to achieve that. I already contacted mine, please contact yours.
This is so Democrats don’t vote for them to lead the party. They are not fit for current landscape and are not what people want. Even ignoring their “centrist” positions, they aren’t even skilled for those positions. They showed us this past 2 years. I forgot the name but I think he was assistant to Jeffries, he was so much better at speaking.
Edit: looking up, maybe it was Joe Neguse
Edit2: yeah that was him: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/84taa_D99sQ so much better speaker than Jeffries
They’ve shown it their entire political careers, afaict.
If they do than Americans need to take the gloves off, dox their asses and protest at every place they seek rest/peace until they resign.
Tbh, I’d obviously rather they were gone, but I think we’d survive them being in leadership for the next two years. The Dems aren’t likely to get much legislation through with Trump in the Whitehouse anyway, and they should be focused on Epstein & corruption investigations, getting us out of Iran, and inflation relief. In 2 years, Schumer will 100% lose his seat, Jeffries likely the same, and we can push even more DSA candidates into office and also take the white house back. That’s when the Dems will really have a mandate and things like medicare for all, a wealth tax, housing and infrastructure investments, etc are all on the table. At that point, it is non-negotiable that both of them are out of leadership and ideally congress. I wonder if the liberal “centrist” Dems would compromise on Schiff or Raskin for speaker.
Media has a vested interest in sowing division on the left. I don’t think they’ve decided to be journalists all of a sudden. Still, this gets the word out and we can use that.
I don’t think any of the boomer networks or major newspapers are running these stories. Just the smaller pandering outlets that are over represented on Lemmy and similar online spaces.
They need to be removed any way they possibly can.
They’re compromised AIPAC dems.
Dems need to understand if they cause a red wave next election they will ALL be on the chopping block. Hiding from flock cameras and the American gestapo
I signed the petition then sent emails AND called both my senators stating AIPAC as primary concern.
I praised Merkley for not being in their pocket and gave shit to Wyden for being a tool of Apartheid encouraging both to seek better leadership.
Everyone in leadership is compromised by AIPAC, Amazon, Meta, Tesla, and so on.
- Israel was formed by USA and is doing its job well (that job being dominate the Middle East) so that’s a no-brainer. It’s a symbiotic relationship, they’re like our 51st state. D or R… are not really “compromised” in my opinion, but Israel has a lot of leverage with US foreign policy, more than any other nation.
- Corporations are in firm and undeniable control of all US leadership, as is to be expected when “corporations are people” and “dollars are free speech”. There’s no other possible result.
To change either relationship would require fundamental reconstruction of our “donor” funded elections and reversal of 70 years of US foreign policy. As long as we (“we” being the USA) want to dominate the middle east, Israel will remain maximally influential.
You can replace Schumer and Jeffries, but their replacements will also be pro-Israel and pro-billionaire.
Everyone in leadership is an compromised by AIPAC, Amazon, Meta, Tesla, and so on.
Everyone currently in leadership is compromised. But we just voted in new blood who isn’t, and there are also more established congresspeople who aren’t compromised by corporations or AIPAC/Zionist influence.
You can replace Schumer and Jeffries, but their replacements will also be pro-Israel and pro-billionaire.
This is speculation and it is unhelpful. Right now, we have a window of time to pressure our congresspeople to replace Schumer and Jeffries with people who have proven themselves to fight against billionaires and Zionists. Is it an uphill fight? Yeah, but the outcome has not been decided yet, let’s not accept defeat without trying.
Guillotines it is, then.
May as well do nothing! Who’s with me!?!
I’m not certain they wouldn’t like that :(
Driving them out into the street and horse whipping them would be my preference, but we can start with replacing them.
I would definitely like to see Van Hollen replace Schumer. AOC for Speaker but can she do that and run a presidential campaign? The country would be able to see her executive experience at display. I just don’t know there are enough progressive supporters in both the Senate and House for this to become a reality.
There are plenty of pissed off liberals that want to give Jeffries the boot just based on his stated opposition to holding Trump accountable. I don’t know about Schumer, but there’s absolutely no way that Jeffries remains the House Leader with him so misaligned to basically every priority of every wing of the party.
- him scheming with Kushner. Fuckin’ traitor
AIPAC slaves, all of them
Whores
I’d like for AOC to primary Schumer, personally. She isn’t ready for President yet.
I think she is, but I don’t think she’d convince enough people she is. She needs a higher office than congress to convince people, ideally one with executive experience, like governor. It’s too bad that she won’t have a chance to run for NY governor before 2030. And, she has no real ties to any other state, so she can’t go to her second home state and run there.
Calls for Representative Hakeem Jeffries and Senator Chuck Schumer to step down from their leadership positions are growing as the dust from Tuesday’s midterm election settles. The calls—coming from inside and outside of Congress—cite a lack of vision, an unwillingness to go after Trump, the continued acceptance of corporate PAC money, and an extreme deference to the Israeli government.
There are lots of questions circulating about Schumer’s future in Senate leadership. Minnesota Senator-elect Peggy Flanagan declared on election night that it’s “time for new leadership” in the Senate.
There should be a law that replaces/kicks out a politician automatically if they sit in the same spot for more than two years yapping about the same things, but does none of them. I guess we would be without a government then.
That’s literally what primaries are for. But only 10% of americans vote in those.
And only half the people bothered to show up this week.
I noticed the same in my county, in Pennsylvania.
I mean an actual written law, not just elections. I get what the primaries are for, but we can’t force people to vote, but a law will make them do work. Because otherwise they’re out of a job.
but we can’t force people to vote,
We totally could, compulsory voting works i Australia.
Sounds like authoritarianism to me.
We could do compulsory voting without making you choose literally anything on the ballot. If you want to protest vote, you could literally turn in an empty ballot (and honestly that’s what everyone should be doing who genuinely wants to protest vote).
It just will never work. It will have bad results. People naturally don’t like being told what to do. This is actually very stupid and authoritarian, too. If we are going full authoritarian, then I personally would rather prevent so many people from voting.
It just will never work. It will have bad results.
You don’t have any proof to back this up, you’re just being a doomer.
People naturally don’t like being told what to do.
Sooo… like I said, they can turn in an empty ballot…
This is actually very stupid and authoritarian, too.
It’s not, it would be authoritarian to force people to cast a vote for candidates on the ballot. Being allowed to write in candidates or turn in a blank ballot gives you the same amount of freedom to make your voice heard.
If we are going full authoritarian
We’re not
then I personally would rather prevent so many people from voting.
The data shows that the more people that vote, the better the elections tend to go for progressive candidates and policies.
You should do some more reading then because it’s not. It’s for preventing systemic apathy.
"As voting is compulsory, electors are given a number of ways to cast their vote at an election, including postal voting, pre-poll voting, absent voting, voting at Australian overseas missions and voting at mobile teams at hospitals and nursing homes and in remote localities, as well as ordinary voting at a polling place in their electorate.
Because of the secrecy of the ballot, it is not possible to determine whether a person has completed their ballot paper prior to placing it in the ballot box. It is therefore not possible to determine whether all electors have met their legislated duty to vote. It is, however, possible to determine that an elector has attended a polling place or mobile polling team (or applied for a postal vote, pre-poll vote or absent vote) and been issued with a ballot paper."
https://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/publications/voting/
If you’re that desperate to prove you’re the purest Anarchist you can just turn in an empty ballot. Or it’s a $20 fine for noncompliance. Or you could, you know, participate in democracy. Authoritarians generally don’t like it when people vote.
“Participate in democracy” by force. Read that a couple of times and see how it sounds. Lmao.
deleted by creator
Still sounds like authoritarianism to me. If we are going full authoritarians, then I’d rather prevent so many people from voting.
Don’t. You won’t be happy with the election results, they’re not a pool of Democrats. Lemmy world doesn’t exist outside of Lemmy
By every observable metric, the more people who turn out for elections, the more progressive the elections go.
Sure compulsory elections would also bring out all the ignorant bigots, but by and large, they tend to show up to vote more often than progressives do already.
Because otherwise they’re out of a job.
Ya that’s why they’ll never write such a law.
The people should write the law.
Which people?
lol. I’m done. Have a good day.
Good I was sick of you being deliberately obtuse.
Or did you genuinely not see that glaring hole in your logic until I pointed it out with a mere 2 words?
Talking to you gives me “gen z thinks they invented the wheel” vibes.
There are some rules, you can vote them out. This is what primaries are for.
