Schumer, who has steered Senate Democrats since 2017, became liberals’ favorite punching bag this cycle, an avatar of everything wrong with a listless Democratic Party. The ubiquitous New Yorker was, detractors said, too prone to seek compromise, too wary of committing to fights with President Donald Trump and his administration, too likely to cram so many messages onto an agenda that none of them landed. For a party that still remains unlikely to truly find its footing until it has a presidential nominee, Schumer was a convenient scapegoat for a coalition party in the minority.
“No one loves Chuck Schumer,” one victorious campaign consultant said this week. “But he’s the only guy who wants the job. At least right now.”
In the run up to the election, a handful of Senators—Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, Brian Schaatz of Hawaii, Cory Booker of New Jersey—were seen as potential contenders to replace Schumer as majority leader. But in the days that followed, none raised their hand.
The math is just on Schumer’s side. While Sens.-elect Adam Hamilton of Kansas, Troy Jackson of Maine, and Abdul El-Sayed of Michigan all said on the campaign trail that they would not back Schumer, that’s not a sizable enough bloc to end his continued leadership. Other incoming Senators like Juliana Stratton of Illinois, Peggy Flanagan of Minnesota, Chris Pappas of New Hampshire, and James Talarico of Texas have sidestepped the Schumer question for months.
Schumer only needs a bare majority of his caucus to move from minority leader to majority leader—not a majority of the voting chamber as is needed to become House Speaker. And other members of the caucus are longtime Schumer allies. Many owe him favors related to his running Senate Democrats’ campaign arm with a vise-like grip for the last two decades. Raising billions for party candidates—either directly or indirectly through campaign committees and an aligned super PAC—gives him plenty of chits to call in.
God, not Schumer. That’s like replacing the Coke Cola of Republicans with the Diet Coke that is Schumer.
This article is a psyop
Correct- it is written by Time magazine. The owner of which loves Trump. Even put him as Time’s “Person of the Year” in 2024. This is just to try and dissuade the pressure against current leadership.
FWIW, person of the year is not necessarily an honor. It’s not the greatest person, or the person that achieved the most. Rather, it’s the person (etc) that has had the most influence on the world for that year. Hitler famously won the title in 1938, for many of the things he’s best known for. Not coincidentally, Trump was nominated for many of the same reasons. I would be hard pressed to name someone who changed the world (good or bad) more than Trump.
Whether Time has an agenda (yeah, probably) has nothing to do with him being named Person of the Year.
All US news is a psyop, mouthpieces of the billionaires who actually decide what’s going to happen, decades in advance (except for flukes, but they know how to shape public opinion around those, too).
Psyop for what? This might be the most truthful political reporting the Times has published in years. Who wants Schumer?
I meant downplaying the existence of a challenger, trying to tamp down the feeling of popular revolt
Who is the challenger? No one will commit to a challenge because Schumer already has the votes from other neoliberal conservative Dems. Standing up to him would mean being excluded from committee assignments and cosigners. It could be a career ending move because Schumer is a vindictive cockroach, just like all other conservatives.
This is a good example of how there is no peaceful solution to an infestation of conservatives. They must be properly dealt with to get rid of them.
I think the term psyop is a bit extreme. It’s more corporate/establishment Dem propaganda to me. It’s truthful in saying that people want a change but it also says there’s no chance of that and that Schumer is going to be coronated because of his fund raising abilities.
The fundraising claims I’m seeing peddled are dubious.
We were just learning this year back in July and August that the DNC itself was being massively outspent and in debt, its fundraising records horrible.
Moreover whoever is in a leadership role will naturally be big fundraisers. That’s not really exclusive to Schumer; it’s more exclusive to the position. He’s literally one of the least-popular US Senators in the country. I’m pretty sure Van Hollen could do just as well in all reality. The Senate Majority PAC would basically exist in his absence. Leaving aside the fact that he can still fund-raise as a US Senator, even if not in a leadership role, if it really is about him.
I wouldn’t count chickens yet. A lot of people said there was no chance Biden would step down too.
The DNC is not the fund controlled by Schumer. The DNC was being outspent by other Democratic funds, such as the DSCC.
True but if Schumer’s fundraising impact was that considerable then he could’ve laterally helped the DNC or DSCC to offset their lossses. Just as Schumer’s PAC can support other candidates, they can support other Democratic PACs and the DNC. If he’s not, then that could suggest he’s leveraging it for his own political agenda, which we all should know by now isn’t a good one.
Either way the fundraising isn’t tied to him; Van Hollen in the driver’s seat could just as easily raise funds, if not more so.
Moreover we must wonder what back-door deals are being made in order to gain those kinds of funds.
That is, AIPAC is an enormous fundraiser, too — but at what cost?