They can’t stay, and it will be up to the congressional democrats to see this and act.

Schumer and Jeffries keep winning because their constituents aren't going to vote for a Republican, and now someone from the Magat party, since Republicans have been expunged.

I have a question for you MM, would Chuck beat AOC in a primary? I live next door to New York, but my opinion is that she would smoke him.

I suspect that Schumer would win, though.

Don’t fear progressives. They just might be what we need.

Aside from courage, intelligence, integrity, charisma, drive, popular appeal and media savvy?

As can I. I would never suggest otherwise.

And fact of the matter is every single Democrat in office right now could be replaced by a clone that agrees with you 100% of the time and it wouldn't change things one bit because we'd still be in the minority and Republicans would still be in complete control of the federal government.

If ever there was a man not meant for this moment, it is Chuck Schumer:

Link to tweet

While they tear up democracy and turn America into Russia.

You think they're the bestest and most awesomenest ever.

More people disagree with you and want the minority party to act like a proper opposition party at a time where the country needs it the most.

If they're not up to it(they're not), they need to let those who are, lead us forward.

How they are chosen is simply some facts. Did I get something wrong?

"Looking forward" to your next thread about this tomorrow.

Now that I have written about how Congressional leadership is selected, I don't have anything else to offer on this.

said they should step down and be replaced? Asking for a friend. 😉

Do you? If so, please share what you know.

That's why I asked. In fact, I know of no democratic elected officials officials who have said so. In NYC, Jeffries was going to be primaried but both AOC and Mayor Mamdani denounced it.

Frankly, my goal for this post was to provide some details about the process of choosing congressional leadership. As far as I know, there is no way around that process that would enable any group to remove anyone from leadership. Unless the voters and Congress members do it, the leaders are who they are at this time.

It's interesting that several people appear to have misunderstood the information in my OP. I have asked them to point out what I wrote that was incorrect.

And I do find it interesting the Mamdani and AOC did not support Jeffries being primaried since they would know the actual responsibilities of a legislative caucus leader better than most.

...but, that was back in November. I believe there has been one other Representative since then, but I can't remember her name.

Anyway they, being House members, aren't exactly going to gain any traction barking at Senators about who they select as a leader.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/10/schumer-is-no-longer-effective-dems-outraged-over-shutdown-deal-00644253

Interesting to know. But as you said, as Representatives they really can't do anything about the Senate.

The Nazis might have won the war and Europe would be nothing like it is now.

Trump who is head of government like Chamberlain and Churchill were.

You can't make cowards who make $174,000 regardless into brave fighters.

Schumer or Jeffries don't become President if democrats get majorities in Congress. The role and responsibility of the leader of a party caucus is very different in our government than in those with a parliamentary system.

Just wait till the Republicans essentially outlaw the Democratic party and imprison the party members like so many one party countries... That is the price of making excuses.

I’m respecting reality.

So I guess we shouldn't say anything critical about him, because it's just not up to us! None of us voted for him - as far as I know - and he is still popular with his base.

Oh well. Guess it's back to doing and saying nothing, folks.

This is . . . some logic that exists.

We just don't all vote for every Senator or Representative. The people in their state or district do. Nor do we vote for the caucus leaders, that's up to the members of those caucuses.

I promise you, nothing I do has any bearing on a presidential election. My state is blue until the heat death of the universe.

(Which I am fine with)

New York is deep blue too. But no democratic can win without the electoral votes from California and New York

Because only people whose votes that matter have any say-so in affairs.

So I guess we should zip up and let swing voters hash it out.

Although I suspect the argument is really "You don't matter. Signed, the Committee of Human Shields for Power," which is all any of this stuff ever amounts to. But watching the logic, such as it is, at work and the consequences if you ever follow stray thoughts to their conclusion can be diverting for a spell.

This?

do have more influence. That's why the electoral college should be abolished. But if every democratic voters stayed home in New York and California, it would have an impact.

So, Trump is not the subject of this thread at all. We all oppose Donald J. Trump.

Apples/Oranges.

Which, hey, some people certainly like more than others.

But the nice thing about submissive postures is that they are not yet mandatory.

So, as a former Catholic, you will have to pardon my allergy to the group genuflection being advertised.

Our side hasn't shown the ability to do that.

Huh. Weird.

More beatings, I should think.

But even while some continue to criticize our Democrats and hope for the revolution to come sweep them away with the Republicans, everyday Americans are being forced to endure the daily horrors of life under Republican rule and they are voting the MAGA fascists out every chance they get because they are experiencing firsthand the STARK difference between the two parties.

Isn’t that the way representative democracy supposed to work?

I posted the details of that. Apparently, both men are doing OK in their caucuses and their state and district. They seem quite popular in both areas.

That is how it is supposed to work, and how it apparently does work.

Did I get something wrong about that?

Know what's best for them, THAT should never change.

That's what is established in the Constitution. We are a republic made up of 50 states. Our system of government is designed to be fair to all 50 states and for each of them to be represented in Congress.

Further, each state is divided into counties and congressional districts. It elects its own state government, which is more or less based on the Constitution, as well.

It's an imperfect system, but there is no perfect system for governing a nation as large and diverse as ours. It works fairly well, except when it doesn't. Right now, it's not working all that well, and one party has skirted around the edges of the system to distort things. We may need an election or two to get things better aligned.

That is something we can all participate in, state by state and community by community. There are no shortcuts to having a stable democratic republic. It's hard work and requires constant attention.

Now is NOT the time to fight and divide. We have many fights ahead, that's a fact!

If party leadership is helping America to fall off a cliff, then something needs to be done about it.

Whatever would we do without it?

Did I make mistakes in explaining the system?

Schumer not being primaried and winning an overwhelmingly Democratic State is not a sign of awesome Senate leadership skills or that everyone agrees with him all of the time.

A better sign of awesome leadership skills is meeting the moment. I regretfully observe he often fails at that task. There must be better Senators willing to to use the leadership role to meet the moment; they deserve a chance. If none exist then we are doomed.

There's a reason for that, too.

He currently is not meeting the moment and should be replaced. I would like to see him primaried next time he is up for re-election, too.

See? This is not hard!

I wonder sea lioning though. Sea lions are awesome.

Giving Democrats the benefit of the doubt and assuming they're not too stupid/corrupt/complicit to know what they're doing? Oh no no no, it just isn't done. Anger over thinking. Them vs Us. Taking strengths (like how the Democratic Party is a big tent or its policies) and turning it into a weakness to divide and destroy (vague purity tests everyone fails).

The ONLY things that really matter in America are money and the people that have it.

from special interests distances them from the very people they are supposed to represent.


Thank you for your post.

If House and Senate Democrats don't reelect them to their leadership positions, others will take their places.

Constituents from other states could tell their Representatives and Senators to elect new leaders. That's the power non-New Yorkers can employ to get new leadership.

I am a New York voter and if Schumer is the Democrat, I'll vote for him but if someone else is the Democratic nominee they'll get my vote. I'd rather have Schumer in the Senate than his last opponent, Joe Pinion.

Incidentally, I don't live in Jeffries district so I can't vote for him. The curiosity is that George Conway is vying for a Democratic seat in Congress from my district. Even though he's a former Republican, if he's the Democratic nominee, he'll get my vote.

To be clear, I'm more than disappointed in both Schumer and Jeffries but they're who we've got.

I always vote for the Democrat because these days, even a mediocre Democrat is better than any Republican.

the worst democrat on his worst day is still better than the best republican on his best day.

It doesn't always work for everyone , though.

Jeffries is unpopular, but Schumer is deeply unpopular (like, almost twice the "unfavorable" numbers as Trump)

Whether that would be enough to get Senate Democrats to overthrow him, I don't know. But historically, Minority Leaders aren't the most liked people.

In early 2024, then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had just about the same numbers as Schumer does now.

It seems that vilification for "NOT FIGHTING!" kind of comes with the job and the limits of power it has.

He wins his elections with huge margins. He wins his position in the Senate easily. So, he can't be that unfavorable where it matters.

Now, if you live somewhere other than NY or you're a dedicated I don't know, "progressive," he might not be favorable in your own mind.

Such ratings in polls are not all that useful, I think.

It means that the majority of party members do not approve of the job Schumer or Jeffries are doing. There is a disconnect between the party leaders and its constituents. They may be elected as members of the House or Senate by the voters of their district and state, but we all get to have opinions on who should lead our party in the House and Senate. It’s how our leaders may better serve us and also how we may learn we are mistaken.
Your argument is. 1. Local voters want them elected. 2. Their colleagues elected them. 3. Therefore, national polls of Democratic Party members are not useful.
There is no discernible argument there unless I’m missing the obviousness of some implied premises. Premise one is only useful for arguing whether they should represent their community in the house or senate. Premise 2 is only useful if you assign something bordering on infallibility to congressional voting bodies. It really is the sole premise of your argument. Your conclusion then would apply in all cases no matter how ineffectual or incompetent the leaders showed themselves to be. It seems a little presumptuous that things are how they should be if you’re popular with your district and are elected as party leader. Of course this doesn’t mean that the polls should solely guide decisions either, but they are useful in understanding our constituency perceives things. This is not to say you haven’t made good points in this conversation, I just don’t believe this is one of them.

or in their home state and district?

but really don’t matter. It’s like doing a poll in Italy about the Prime Minister of the UK.

Schumer is in until 28 but he could be removed as leader...and he should be. I think Jeffries may lose the primary. There is great anger against both of them.