There was also a ‘leak’ about the House Minority Leader earlier this week,

I guess I missed it.

I don't know who the majority of the caucus would vote for, but I think Chris van Hollen might be good at the job. He's smart and creative and reacts to the circumstances. I also think he has demeanor that can herd the cats.

I want them to keep Chris Murphy right where he is - screaming from the rooftops that we have a democracy to save.

On behalf of Jeffries and Schumer, and those against them. I don’t think it’s as as easy as simply labeling this fight as liberal wing vs centrist either. Take Minnesota for example. Angie Craig has won several endorsements from various progressive LGBTQ orgs and unions as well as Pete Buttigieg, Tammy Baldwin and several other senators, though she has also received AIPAC’s endorsement. She’s considered the more moderate candidate, but probably also the more ‘establishment’ candidate in this case.

Craig’s opponent Flanagan has advocated to abolish ICE and has received the endorsement of several such as Bernie sanders and Elizabeth Warren, as well as Chris Murphy and outgoing Minnesota senator Tina smith. Craig also voted for that stupid ‘we appreciate ice’ resolution. I think that race is a good gauge of where the party is at especially after ICE’s actions in that state. Democrats are heavily favored to win the election there but it’s clear schumer’s grip on power depends on that primary among a few others.

...I'll bet they don't have enough support, but will just keep up the backbiting like they're doing more to advance party priorities than just turning the playschool steering wheel on the play station.

not BS

Last edited Sun Mar 22, 2026, 05:00 PM - Edit history (1)

When we're the majority: "We don't need infighting at this time."

When we're the minority: "We don't need infighting at this time."


It's not petty infighting for its own sake; it's people utterly and justifiably fed up with sluggish and ineffectual leadership, notwithstanding the daily scolding by the cheerleaders and gatekeepers.

weak leadership at this time. But that's what we have and it needs to be fixed. Immediately if not sooner.

and Schumer has been unwilling or unable to adapt. We need a new leader. One who understands the gravity of the situation. One who will fight and call out the Republicans loudly and in strong precise language whenever they do Trump's and the fascists' bidding.

We need a leader with a strategy. Rolling over and surrendering to the Republicans is not a strategy.

Schumer is of a different era. He doesn't understand the gravity of the current moment and never will.

improvement over Schumer. I'm sure there are other good candidates as well. The Democrats are not lacking in talent, they just need to give their most talented individuals greater power.

But there are lots of other good options.

We need someone who is willing to put up a fight. Schumer has served and done a good job, but at *this* moment in history, he is not stepping up to the plate, and we cannot afford to have democrats feeling like we have ineffectual, feckless leadership who think making a not very inspiring statement once a while in front of the cameras is going to cut it.

And Hakeem Jeffries needs to be the next one out.

What magic would they have done to have any different result?

nope

It feels like he is running a strategy from 1996 when Clinton was president rather than 2026.

Who is offering to step up and be the new whipping boy in place of Schumer? And how will their leadership substantially -- as opposed to performatively -- differ from Schumer's? Because more fiery speeches won't tide people over for long once they realize that they aren't being accompanied by different tactics, and fact of the matter is there isn't much that can be done that Schumer hasn't already been doing.

He was dealt a shit hand by the voters and now is taking more shit from them because there's little that can be done with the little power they've given him.

I'm guessing not because he knows what I said is true.

Instead, he's railing against leadership because he wants to run for president and know it's an easy go-to to get support -- case in point, you wanting him in leadership.

Zero chance he would volunteer to be leader as long as the 2028 presidential primaries are coming up. You can pretty much guarantee that any new leadership would be someone with no hopes of higher office and would be "milquetoast" like Schumer -- and would be turned on almost immediately.

But at any rate, Schumer is not the first nor will he be the last Democratic Senate leader. It is bizarre that the "nothing can be done" contingent spends so much energy insisting that he is the only possible person for the job when clearly that is ridiculous.

that doesn't involve a magic spell or clicking your heels together three times with your fingers crossed and your eyes closed????!!

I’d love to believe this. But this sounds like a few grumbles being blown up. If we do somehow gain seats in the Senate, I’m betting that the Dem makeup will be about the same or potentially more centrist which favors Schumer.

...do it now.

....people pushing this are going to find out that the problem isn't Schumer, if there is actually a problem with the vast majority of Americans rejecting republicans on every level.

They're going to begin to realize that not only is Schumer a dependable individual vote, he didn't nominate and elect himself leader - and that his role isn't so much to perform for his critics, but to organize and represent the consensus of a diverse membership into unified votes.

None of the people balking from the left, for instance, are likely to be able to gain the confidence of a membership rife with moderates; not even to gain enough of their votes to obtain the leadership, much less coalesce on legislation.

They will just vote in another moderate. We don't make that choice, they do.

People just yell at Schumer and Jeffries because they can't countenance confronting the people who put them in those positions of leadership.

It's a feint, really, pretending there's some different formula that can be achieved by reshuffling the same deck of cards; absurdly, in the middle of the game.

It's ignorance or foolishness or both; but it's a certainty that it's sophistry pretending Schumer is to blame for what the membership or republicans have done, ir that some new leader is going to do more than perform differently, with exactly the same results Schumer would have achieved, and more than likely producijng an inexperienced, unconnected less that the experienced connected pol has done since he presided over ALL Biden's historic legislative accomplishments in the majority.

Remember those? It's as if people can't bring themselves to even mention those accomplishments he presided over in the Senate, fought for and achieved with two turncoats in a slim majority, and it's a weird as hell omission; likely self-serving to this stupidity.

Preach!

I never criticized him, I just said, it's time.

when our Senate Leader and House Leader are from the same state.

Sorry, but true

You'll be told to stifle and tow the party line.... someone's party line at least.

Good thing we are the "big tent" party.

🙄

Not "tow" - it means something completely different, and in this context that matters.

I voice type and didn't pick up on it. Just did a quick search to learn the difference and I appreciate you pointing that out. Not going to edit it though since you've already clarified my intent. 👍

He’s the leader we get because AIPAC backs candidates in both parties. It’s their insurance policy. Schumer voted FOR the Iraq war for fucking sake.

But the wrath always pointed at Chuck.

Whover wants to step up and throw their hat in the ring to replace Schumer first needs to have the votes of their Democratic Senate colleagues and also needs to be willing to deal directly with the con artist on every issue. So far I haven't heard any Democratic Senator hint that they want that job.

in His Bid to Replace Schumer as Senate Leader"?

Wasn't Chris Murphy the source of the "Fight Club" story last year? Is Tina Smith still a member of the "club" even though she's standing down this year?

Democrats in office understand the actual job and the skill set involved. Once the 120th Congress convenes in January 2027, the Democrats will elect their legislative leaders. I trust them to make the choice.

It reads very much like a hit piece put out by Murphy to try to slide into the leadership role when we take the majority instead of actually having to lead through the tough times while in the minority.

But his lack of strong leadership skill in a time of crisis is the main reason I want to see someone else as Speaker.

I suspect that is the case here.

If Senate Democrats want to replace Chuck Schumer, all they have to do is vote in someone new in the next term. It's not like anyone else makes that choice. The Senate leadership is selected by election by the party's Senators. Simple.

This kind of speculation is nothing more than that - speculation.

Oh, well. Tomorrow there will be a new thread that ends in :report.

For hearts and minds.

But when we actually get someone who speaks with Frank outrage and disgust for the fascists/Nazis, many of us react in horror: “This is not who we ARE! We can’t LOWER ourselves!! Just because they are shameful and disgusting doesn’t mean that WE have to be. Get him/her OUT!! IMMEDIATELY!!! And you know WHAT!!? I heard that he touched a woman’s breast 40 years ago. He’s an ANIMAL. Or, “I heard she once had “relations” with a married man who wasn’t her husband!!! HARLOT!!”

Yep. You can quote me when it happens

is, "the report," I wonder why.

Wave a magic wand, spin around three times and make it so, Captain.