Republicans will be more than happy to see Democrats fighting over their leadership, instead of unifying

[bigtree]

...changing Dem leadership is nothing more than reshuffling the same deck of cards in the middle of the game.

WE don't elect the people who lead the respective chambers of Congress; the Dem membership makes that choice. That makes all of this silliness about replacing Schumer such a foolish and dishonest pursuit.

Neither elected Democrats, or the republicans they oppose are going to move an inch in response to Schumer leaving his position. And republicans will be more than happy to have Democrats more focused on fighting their own leadership (fucking AGAIN) than on fighting them.

For that matter, it will make no never mind to republicans for Democrats to fight with each other in the minority in perpetuity. Whoever thought up this campaign has zero to offer the party on the other side of that self-immolating act; other than some new face starting in that role from ground zero, with few connections and less experiential knowledge.

More importantly, you've just blown up your party in front of the nation, and your replacement is not operating from a position of strength as this scheme pretends; they're just a dubious leader of a deliberately broken party.

Did people learn NOTHING from the suicidal demands that our historically successful incumbent president withdraw, without even a clue how we'd proceed from that point? Did these people even consider that they might push this to a crescendo of recrimination and just simply fail to advance anyone? That's essentially where we are now.

You know, I made the same arguments until I was blue in the face the last time we tried this stupidity, and, predictably, you couldn't find most of the people who pushed that travesty at campaign time because they were still out there trashing the party claiming our 'messaging' wasn't perfect enough for them, and doing nothing but trashing the nominee at every sign their scheme was a tragic failure.

Now, it appears they're back for more of this unprecedented political genius that's, again, more concerned with subtracting members from our party than adding them.

They're keyed in on the leader that all of the Dems presently in office voted for to represent THEIR consensus opinions in legislative debate. They're strangely obscuring the source of that leadership - likely because of the absurdity and heresy of just opposing the entire Dem membership who placed him in that role.

What an absolute crock of shit. FAFO.

[Skittles]

1. I don't give a FUCK what repukes think

and hopefully most voters will feel the same in November

[bigtree]

2. I get that

...but you completely missed MY point and replaced it with your own projection.

SOMEONE may well think it's fine and dandy to risk arguing in the minority in perpetuity. Fuck, no one has made a move to explain what the aftermath will look like. Just this zeal to tear down, exactly the same destructive energy we saw in the presidential race.

Pure genius, I tell you. Yeah, republicans will be just fine with us in the minority, divided and fighting over sophistry about the role of our leaders. They're just fine without Kamala Harris or Joe Biden in the presidency, as well.

We should be more circumspect and conduct ourselves on more than just these absurd recriminations against leaders in our party who have already produced for us when they have the numbers to make legislative progress.

Cute, though supposing it doesn't matter that republicans laughed at us all the way to the presidency while we bickered over essentially successful pols who were infinitely more qualified and able than the opposition.

All we needed to do was unify, but some genius found a way to divide us. Yeah, republicans reveled in that like it or not, attentive to that fact, or not.

[Skittles]

3. I THINK DEMS NEED NEW LEADERSHIP

I AM SICK OF THE SAME OLD SAME OLD.

[bigtree]

4. I'M FED UP WITH PEOPLE TEARING OUR LEADERS DOWN

...AND ACTING AS IF THEY'RE BLAMELESS WHEN THAT STUPIDITY CAUSES US TO ULTIMATEY LOSE.

When are those people going to take responsibility for their political malpractice?

[Skittles]

6. A LOT OF US CALL IT LIKE WE SEE IT

in any other job with "results" like the last election a lot of the leadership would be LONG GONE

DONE HERE

[bigtree]

8. do what you want

...the people who convinced Biden to step aside NEVER accounted for the loss that resulted.

Dems GAINED seats in Congress, a record number of flips, even though we fell short. Did you forget the razor slim margin?

Who was responsible for turning voters away from Democrats?

Legislators who had already fought and WON elections against republicans, or the political geniuses who spent that election trashing Democrats on 'Gaza' or claiming we didn't know how to talk to working people; and on and on?

It's STILL happening, and there's STILL no accounting for the denigrating effect it has on the party and in the minds of voters.

SUPPORT isn't this backbiting navelgazing effort to change the leadership MONTHS before we vote.

WHO normalized this stupidity in the minds of Democrats? It's insidiously self-defeating.

[Orrex]

27. Calling voters stupid and irresponsible is a great way to get them to to polls.

Keep doing that, and keep frothing about malpractice while you're at it.

I'm sure it'll bring a blue tsunami in November.

[SocialDemocrat61]

31. Some voters do self identify LOL

https://youtube.com/shorts/3xfDjPcBfJ0?si=RCNvgUhCKfnoixZH

[dem4decades]

30. So what do you like about Schumer's leadership?

[bigtree]

36. he was an effective legislative leader in the majority

...like every other Democrat in that role.

That's why Democrats ALWAYS produce progressive legislative change, and produce a strong growing economy as they focus on the people.

Schumer is essentially the same type of Senate leader that's fought republicans for decades and decades. He leads by the consensus of his membership, like every other leader before him did since the days of party bosses ended decades ago.

I don't have unrealistic opinions about the Dem leadership, because I'm clear-eyed about who put them in that role, and fully aware that pols who insist on bringing their personal agenda to the job aren't really able to reconcile differences between often disparate interests and concerns from diverse regions of the nation.

I think most people criticizing him don't understand the role of the Democratic leader and think he has some magic stick that he can just wave around and move the intractable republican majority to vote for Democratic initiatives.

It's sophistry, or it's just a misunderstanding of the dynamic of a minority party, or even a slim majority, and the role leaders play in organizing the membership to unite on legislation.

'Liking' Schumer isn't the point at all here. It's the collective consensus of the Dem membership that drives the process, not one individual; not in our successes or our failures. Schumer's term hasn't ben an exception to any of that.

And remember, EVERY legislative advancement Biden made went through his Senate during his term as leader. Look at his career timeline, especially in the period we're discussing, and acknowledge the work he's done and the progress he's overseen.

Look at the timeline. It's so much more than the caricature that critics present with one line posts telling him to quit.

Career Timeline of Chuck Schumer: Major Achievements and Milestones
https://populartimelines.com/timeline/Chuck-Schumer/career-achievements

What's not to like in all that?

[msongs]

5. dems can deal with that after the election not slug it out in advance IMO

[creeksneakers2]

12. What, specifically are you looking for?

[mzmolly]

33. Let's wait until the Republicans are out of power

before we start in-fighting please.

[Ferrets are Cool]

39. Me too

[SocialDemocrat61]

7. Plus it all feeds into the corporate media's

“Dems in disarray” narrative.

[Historic NY]

9. There isn't going to be fighting...

they are going to be told to stand down. ...

[stopdiggin]

10. which more or less flies in the face - of the incessant hue and cry that we are currently

subjected to .. ? When exactly is this 'stand down' going to take place?

[stopdiggin]

11. these people haven't REALLY been 'party' supporters - for a long, long time

if we're going to truly honest about it.

"Give me what I want .. or I'm taking my ball and going home .. "
Over .. and over .. and over ......

[luv2fly]

14. Who are "these people" you refer to?

Fellow DUers? Senate Democrats?

Since you're being truly honest and all...

[Skittles]

15. interesting, isn't it?

apparently we are all supposed to be cheerleaders

[mzmolly]

34. The timing seems a bit off.

The Republican cluster-f is apparent, even to many former Republicans. What’s with the urgency to replace Democrats? Jesus, we have bigger things to worry about.

[stopdiggin]

45. those that (repeatedly) tell us that "they cannot vote for" - a Democrat, or a party

that does not deliver ____ XYZ? (insert here your favorite purity test, threshold or parameter .. )
They're not that difficult to find. Being as they are never particularly shy of voicing either their discontent, or their benchmark(s) for support.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[betsuni]

17. Winning elections isn't so important for those who think both sides are the same. Taking over the Democratic Party

and starting a political revolution to transform the country into a fantasy utopia is the goal. Democrats are the true roadblock to the revolution, they are convinced, based on things that aren't true, myths and conspiracies and BS.

Accusing Democrats of corruption, taking bribes, immorality (genocide for example), ignoring the working class and on and on and on is "constructive criticism" and asking for some evidence of such crimes offends them.

When the lies are debunked the name-calling begins: cheerleaders, posse, swarm, echo chamber, accusations of thinking the party is always right like a cult, etc.

The leader has said it out loud more than once: "This campaign was never about electing a president of the United States, as enormously important as that was. This campaign was about transforming America."

For the American people it can be the difference between life and death right now, here in the reality based world.

[mzmolly]

43. "For the American people it can be the difference between life and death right now, here in the reality based world."

Well said! Not to mention, the world is suffering the consequences.

[creeksneakers2]

13. They party bashers have cost us elections and when they do they don't regret it one bit.

[luv2fly]

16. Who are "they [sic] party bashers" you reference?

Those who bristle at being told how to think?

Those who wish for change?

[SocialDemocrat61]

18. Jill Stein voters

Those who spend more time and effort bashing Schumer, Jeffries and so-called 'establishment' dems than they do criticizing Trump and Republicans. Those who claim both parties are the same. Those who still say Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris were the 'lesser of two evils'. Those who blame Barak Obama for Roe being overturned rather than Trump and Bush. And anyone who proudly declares that they vote 3rd party.

[luv2fly]

21. In the context of the OP, I suspect that's inaccurate. n/t

[SocialDemocrat61]

22. Why?

How is it inaccurate because of context?

[mzmolly]

49. Those who don't understand how change happens

Last edited Sun Mar 22, 2026, 03:04 PM - Edit history (1)

& help Republicans win, in the name of progressive values.

Not only did we not enable more progressive values in the last election, we set ourselves back decades.

[Maru Kitteh]

56. You mean those like Barack Obama? Who

Famously waited his turn, accepting the wisdom and experience of his elders as inherently superior? Unquestioning and obsequious, heralding the status quo so as not to help Republicans?

[mzmolly]

60. What?

[dpibel]

62. 7 years in the state senate and half a US Senate term?

That's "waited his turn"?

For whom did he stand down? Are you saying he really wanted to run while he was still a state senator, but famously waited because it was John Kerry's term?

I'm just curious what you're trying to say here.

And, no. This is not an attack on Barack Obama. It is a simple question directly to you about what you are claiming.

[betsuni]

59. Incremental change and compromise as a sin -- but Social Security, Medicare, ACA, all progress -- incremental.

If one's ideology insists true progress can only be made all-or-nothing style with revolution, what to do?

Just revise history, pretend FDR and LBJ were democratic socialists and the only way to make progress (Medicare for All or nothing) again is to get rid of those yucky capitalist liberal Democrats who are doing government the best they can while Republicans try to destroy it.

Obama and Biden getting important progressive legislature passed in the two years they had small majorities, 50-50 senate, Liebermans (Thank you, Harry Reid) and Manchins (Thank you, Chuck Schumer)? Progressive successes of blue states? Keep saying the system is broken, doesn't work, can't work, everyone's corrupt, rigged, all is lost, and accuse Democrats of "taking" bad money in every sentence.

[bigtree]

66. such a good point

When President Franklin Roosevelt and the U.S. Congress created Social Security in 1935, they did not formally exclude any Black Americans because of their race, but they did create a significant racial disparity by restricting eligibility to service and manufacturing workers.

In 1930, 65 percent of Black Americans worked as domestic or farmworkers. In other words, because the program did not cover those occupations, only about one-third of Black workers qualified for Social Security. While Black workers represented 11 percent of the workforce, they represented 23 percent of all workers who were not covered.

There is considerable debate over why this was. Some researchers say it was the racism of the Southern congressmen whom President Roosevelt relied on to push his program through Congress. Others say it simply wasn’t feasible to collect payroll taxes from domestic and farm workers at the time because so many of them were still paid in cash. (For more details, head on over to this SSA Bulletin article.)

But President Roosevelt believed Social Security needed to be universal. Just three years after the program was created, he announced plans to expand it. World War II changed those plans, so it wasn’t until 1950 that Congress extended coverage to domestic and farm workers.

https://freefacts.org/resources/events-in-context-social-securitys-racial-legacy

[creeksneakers2]

53. Nobody is forcing them to do anything

Although they love to pretend to be victims and say things like that. If one can pretend to be a victim one can pretend to be heroic.

Wishing isn't doing.

I'm talking about the folks who call themselves "progressives." Its not about making the world better. Its about how they want to feel about themselves.

[617Blue]

20. I think the GOP is just fine with an appeaser like Schumer in leadership

They would be petrified of a Leader Murphy or Warren

[bigtree]

24. what did he 'appease' on during the historic legislative advancements during Biden's term?

...I remember all of the drag on the party was coming from Manchin and Sinema in committee and sometimes in floor votes.

That's what this solidly progressive Senator had to deal with as he presided over historic, progressive legislative changes in the Senate that Biden signed into law.

That's the fucking history, not this self-serving campaign against him at the point Democratic voters refused to equip him and the party with enough members to do anything more than say 'no' to republicans and perform for critics on teevee.

The party members elected him, and he's consistently represented the consensus that THEY agree on. He has zero power to advance his own personal agenda on his own initiative.

The party has always operated by consensus, long since the ancient days of party bosses and other backroom, anti-Democratic bullying that used to substitute for what people voted for.

And get this right, if you don't get anything else. The party isn't made up of a majority of Warrens and Murphys. It just isn't.

The Democratic party is a coalition of disparate interests and concerns from myriad regions of the nation who hold often diverse views about how to proceed legislatively, and work to reconcile those differences as best they can into legislative action or law.

The leaders they elect aren't dictators, they're organizers of that membership's votes on legislative initiatives. THAT is why they ALWAYS produce a centrist-minded, moderate leader who can bring together all sides, often engineering compromises which represent progressive progress.

Maybe not the slam dunk people demand, but realistic advancements that take advantage of where the membership can agree.

THAT effort isn't going to be effectively served by leaders who are leaning to one extreme of the political makeup of the Democratic membership; not to mention the solid conservatism of the republican party.

That dynamic isn't the invention of Schumer, who would be more than fine with scheduling votes on stridently progressive legislation if he had a majority like when, say, Lyndon Johnson enjoyed when his Democratic Congress advanced the Civil Rights bills.

Even at that, Schumer presided over historic legislative advancements with TWO quasi-Dems who bent over backwards to republicans.

Pols from either the liberal wing of the party or the conservative wing aren't going to be as effective at bringing senators together on legislation as the centrists have been in these tight majorities we've been getting in the past few decades which aren't enough to overcome filibusters in the Senate.

No stridently progressive pol is going to be able to effectively influence stridently conservative Dems under pressure from constituents in 'red' states to bend on bills as effectively as the moderates THEY regularly choose to represent them, and vice versa.

So much of this completely ignores the actual makeup of the collective Dem membership and assumes that our coalition is as progressive as Warren and Murphy.

It's just not, and this is a tragic flaw in this pushback on a Senate Dem leader who hails from a majority progressive town who is decidedly more progressive than that collective membership. It's his ability to moderate his own views and represent the consensus of the party which enabvled him to make the legislative progress we saw out of a Senate majority that regularly had to have the VP preside to break tie votes.

Most of the critics complaints are fiction, and supposing a Warren or Murphy would be effective leaders of a mostly moderate membership is fantasy, imo.

[stopdiggin]

46. "petrified of a Leader like .." You can't seriously BELIEVE ....?

That is SO outside the bounds of political reality! (not to mention ANYTHING we have seen in this current climate .. )

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[betsuni]

23. Right-wing can relax, attacking the Democratic Party is being done for them.

2016: Establishment Goldman Sachs Wall Street

2024: GAZA GAZA GAZA GAZA GAZA GAZA GAZA

Now: AIPAC AIPAC AIPAC AIPAC AIPAC AIPAC AIPAC AIPAC AIPAC AIPAC AIPAC AIPAC

[bigtree]

28. the pattern was set in the last presidential election.

...evidently normalized in the minds of some.

Correct that republicans benefit most from that deliberate divisiveness.

[betsuni]

37. Republicans couldn't have so successfully demonized government and Democrats without all the help.

[stopdiggin]

50. nailed it. what is 100% predictable - is there will be SOMETHING to be 'outraged and disappointed' about in the

cycles that follow ... As sure as the sun rises ...

[Emile]

25. Long Live That Mess We Call Democracy

[Orrex]

26. Republicans are happy to watch fawning cheerleaders attack their fellow Democrats

They love it, in fact, because it distracts from the real problem, that leadership is unfocused, lacking in clear direction, fails to connect with voters, is slow to react to Trump's endless onslaught of chaos and criminality, and is tepid and tentative when it does so.

[lees1975]

29. Sorry, but Democrats do a great job of sabotaging the best election chances they have with conciliatory leaders

who are just watching out for their own interests.

What wins elections is boldness, some risk taking, and commitment to stick with a cause and see it through, not negotiate away our position and power. We need to stop thinking about what Republicans might think, and focus on the threat to Democracy, and not doing that is weakness.

[bigtree]

42. it's not about what republicans think, but you should care that they're smirking from the WH

...and their majority in Congress as some essentially do their dirty work tearing down our leaders for them.

After all, the entire gripe about the leaders is that they're not 'messaging' well enough.

Seems strange to publicly complain about that as if dragging your own party leaders is some sort of messaging genius, and actual opposition to republicans.

[Scrivener7]

32. I guess "Schumer is doing great and you're stupid and a bad Democrat

if you disagree" is the new "Garland's got this and you're stupid and a bad Democrat if you disagree."

Whatever.

[demmiblue]

67. Spot on!

[MineralMan]

35. Exactly, and very well said!

[displacedvermoter]

38. What are we talking about here, and why?

[bigtree]

41. a resurgence of shitstirring over the Dem leadership

...probably just media baiting, but had enough of an impact here that I'm weighing in with my own views.

here:

Democratic senators quietly explore post-midterm leadership change

According to the Wall Street Journal, frustration with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has reached a point where some Democrats are considering asking him to step aside after the midterm elections. Senator Chris Murphy reportedly told progressive activists in February that informal vote counts were being conducted to gauge support for his removal, though he later said he did not recall mentioning a tally. The discussions reflect a serious undercurrent of dissent within the caucus during a politically sensitive period.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/democrats-weigh-ousting-schumer-after-midterms/gm-GM0999F6C3

...there were a couple of these that just surfaced, conveniently, months before we go to the polls to (ostensibly) oust republicans.

[displacedvermoter]

47. Democrats in Disarray

As someone else noted.

[dpibel]

63. This you?

My reading of your OP contains this: "WE don't elect the people who lead the respective chambers of Congress; the Dem membership makes that choice. That makes all of this silliness about replacing Schumer such a foolish and dishonest pursuit."

What you've just posted here is a statement that "the Dem membership" is talking about a change of leadership.

Were you in favor of that when you started this thread, but now you've changed your mind?

[demmiblue]

44. It basically boils down to: "Someone disagreed with me on the internet."

[stopdiggin]

51. while doing a pretty darned good job of coherently laying out their OWN points and opinion ...

(for all the world to see. and either agree or disagree.)

Care to join?

[Sympthsical]

40. Oh. Is it "Now Is Not The Time!" Bingo season already?

We've been playing this game as long as I've been an adult.

I have a lot of gray hair now.

Stop. Apologizing. For. Power.

FFS. What about the last decade has screamed, "We are killing it, y'all!"

[stopdiggin]

52. while the insistant (and oh so VOCAL) opposition has gained us .. ? (FFS)

Oh, that's right ...
Because Hilary was .. way to 'Wall Street democrat' .. and not really 'likeable' ...

Jeeezus .. ! How many times .... ?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Sympthsical]

57. Maritime advice from people who always steer full speed into the ice field

Has worn thin. I just won't be lectured anymore from the "All the choices made leading into 2024 were magic!" brigade - which is where the bulk of this stuff comes from. Every decision is the most amazing decision any leadership made in the history of ever.

We are always in an election cycle with the way our politics and media work. So the "Now is not the time!" people feel like their argument is evergreen.

My argument is "Give people something to vote for."

New leadership, new direction could be that. If we choose to seize the opportunity instead of doing the same shit with the same gerontocracy that feels like it's been in place as long as I've been alive.

What does it say for the health of the party that our best electoral prospects in the past decade have been, "Wait for Trump to fuck up spectacularly - then we move in!"

2018. 2020 where Covid undid Trump. And then he's still. fucking. here. Republicans hold all the levers of power.

And somehow, "Tch, leadership is fine," is an actual argument people are making?

Is there a suicide pact no one told me about?

[stopdiggin]

58. equally delusional - are those that continue to insist that we're going to win back

the middle (and, yes, Trump voters) - with further iterations of Bernie, Ilhan Omar, and David Hogg.

Good luck with that. It's been working so well for us thus far!

And, yes of course - Hilary Clinton! What a minefield (ice field)! What a disaster averted there!

[Phoenix61]

48. I guess it depends on who you want to get to the polls.

Schumer has appeal with his age bracket who will veto Dem whether he's leader or not. Younger people see him as weak and ineffective. Doesn't matter if that's true or not. It's hard to argue he isn't when he has the spark of a dead battery. His apparent insistence on not recognizing that doesn't help. He may be a great legislator but people want a leader and he simply isn't.

[bigtree]

61. this is the holy grail

...as in it's always sought and never found.

Most Americans don't cast their vote for who they want to see as the Senate majority leader, except, in that effort, they want to see their own party represented there.

But they don't have an actual avenue to do that, they don't vote on the Speaker, the members do and they're from all over the country and not exactly collectively, unquestionably progressive.

There's no clear line to that ambition for them other than to get someone's constituents to unseat them, in this case New Yorkers, and blow up a perfectly good progressive vote in the vain hope that, 1) you'll get the person you want in the position, and 2) that it wil make a dime's worth of difference in moving anything more than it would have under the one we have now.

This is a really hazy proposition, which may well move someone to get up off of their ignorance about the choice between a party that ALWAYS focuses on and produces for the people, and a party that's trying to either own or end us.

But why are they so keyed in on that when there's such an existential crisis right in front of them that threatens everything the say they want?

The dubious lure of blowing up the party leadership to appeal to political neophytes seems... fraught.

[Phoenix61]

68. Except they see Jeffries and Schumer as the face of the Dem party

And neither comes across as strong, as someone who will fight for them. Thinking people vote on which party passes what is what got us in this mess. It should work but it obviously doesn't. People vote based on their feelings and social media drives those feelings. Newsome, Pritzger, AOC all get it. Why the hell can't Schumer and Jeffries get it?

[bigtree]

69. like I said

...whatever they believe, they are really on the wrong track if they believe the fight right now is over who is going to be the Senate leader.

And I don't even want to discuss Jeffries except to say that the effort to knock down the first black Dem leader in the House who inherited a minority party is really something to this 65-year old black man who has endured people complaining they don't like the way he talks or expresses himself; most of them having no clue at all what he's been saying or doing.

If they're positing that he's merely the 'leader' of the party, they profoundly misunderstand the role of the Dem leadership and are casting them as autocrats, more than the conciliators and compromisers the job calls for in advancing legislation through what have been narrow majorities for decades now.

I fail to see the wisdom of catering to a dubious vote that can't be bothered to understand how government works; misrepresenting what Democrats collectively do for the country; misrepresenting what Schumer has done in his terms as leader, both in and out of the majority; and elevating the Dem leaders to a fictional status that hasn't existed since the party 'bosses' died out decades ago.

Best not to play into those neophyte fantasies about the structure of the Senate Dems political leadership and what their function is in their respective houses, because, you're never going to fulfill their expectations that managing the political process is as easy as casting someone from the Apprentice, and it would be the height of folly to acquiesce to that foolishness..

[SSJVegeta]

54. Well if they're going to do it i prefer now as opposed to

... right after we win back the gavels

It'd be nice to have that mess out of the way well before hand.

[walkingman]

55. As much as we like or dislike our political leaders, they are elected by their constituants

and peers after they enter Congress. But the most important thing that all people leaning left can do is realize...

THE BEATINGS WILL CONTINUE UNTIL WE ELECT MORE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES THAN THE GOP.

That will take unity...we can then choose our majority leaders.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

64. It's become obvious to me

some people enjoy playing victim, fantasizing about a Utopia where they get exactly what they want, when they want it, and have no idea how US government works in real life.

And of course raging at the old, milquetoast boogeypeople who are keeping them from their imagined perfect existence.

Not the MAGAt GOP, oh no.

Democrats don't fight hard enough! If only they did, they'd magically have a majority!

But since they don't fight hard enough and do everything demanded of them at any and every particular moment in time, they're not getting my vote! Or any donations! Primary! Primary!

And I'll bitch and whine just as hard against Democrats when the MAGAt Republican majority continues for infinity! Because reasons!

Meh, they don't care.

[bigtree]

65. anyone who knows me here

...knows that this has been my refrain since the WH massacre the summer before we voted.

I said that we would lose and I made it clear in no uncertain terms.

Amazing how little accountability there is for that decision, to the point where it's a subject to be exploited by the media, and by others who think politics is about stamping your feet and walking away when you don't get your way; instead of building coalitions among people who can agree on most things.

That's the fantastical idea behind a strongman leader; as if anyone actually wants one senator from wherever telling them what to do; or as if someone wearing one strident ideology or the other on their sleeve could ever effectively manage our diverse coalition of elected Democrats, much less get their votes to represent them in the leadership.

[Orrex]

70. "The candidates didn't fail to resonate with voters; the voters failed to resonate with the candidates."

"If the voters weren't so mean, then the leadership would do more than write strongly worded letters."

The increasingly tired gaslighting mantra.


Now, before you scold me for failing to put forth a strategy for our well-funded and well-placed leadership to use, here are a few, as a basic minimum:

Block or at least vote no on every funding bill
Block or at least vote no on every appointee
Block or at least vote no on every procedural issue

In short, they should do nothing that furthers der Fuhrer's agenda in any way.

Further, hammer home the point that he's a child rapist
Hammer home the point that he's a convicted felon
Refer to him that way every time he's mentioned in the press
That is, instead of saying "Trump" or "President Trump," say "convicted felon Donald Trump"
Frame every answer about Trump's policies in terms of his effort to distract from his guilt

and so on

None of these is difficult or unrealistic, and each of them would resonate strongly with those pesky voters who just can't shut up and be satisfied with strongly-worded letters and blank checks for Netanyahu.


But sure. The unimpressed voters are the problem.

[betsuni]

71. Jeffries stands up to Trump, says to shut his mouth before someone gets killed (strongly worded fighting spirit)

but the time to meet the moment with strongly worded fighting spirit the way Democrats have been yelled at to do is apparently over.

Comments are that it's too late, oh we are tired of the tough talk and it's just going through the motions. Oh it's a show, too little too late. Oh what a dumb thing to say. Oh bad communication.

And just like that, the goal posts change. Once again, Democrats do what people say they want and the second they do it it's wrong.

[Orrex]

72. You know, you're right.

Current Democratic leadership is the best of all possible teams, above mortal criticism, skilled at messaging, readily able to connect with voters, and presenting a strong, unwavering opposition to Trump's non-stop stampede of lawlessness and chaos.

They should change nothing at all. They should continue as they've been doing, and we'll be sure to see a 100-Democrat Senate come November.


And golly, won't the doubters be sorry then!