Support NeoGAF

[royalan]

The next time to primary Shumer is in 5 years

He was a GOP congressman in an increasingly blue turning state.

Shumer is a senator with no election for 6 years in a very blue state.

I am aware of this.

But Schumer is facing growing backlash from within his own party already.

Let's see if that hasn't changed a year from now.

 

[MightyKAC]

I do like that democratic voters are fed up with the jellyfish we have in office, but my fear here is that this ushers in a new era of professional protester candidates that only know how to organize marches and nothing about how to run a state.

There are a LOT of kooks on the left and up till now we've done a decent job of keeping them out of power....

 

[Catchpenny]

Schumer has nothing to worry about in the short term and likely nothing to worry about in the long term.

Pelosi may get a real challenger soon, though. Despite being pretty liberal, she represents one of the most left-wing districts in the nation. She's been the Democratic leader in the House for a long time now, and that requires pragmatism that isn't popular with an angry left at the moment.

 

[diablos991]

Let them divide themselves. Hopefully something better comes of it.

 

[boiled goose]

Democrats just need to show up at the polls so any more engagement is good. Politicians should represent their constituents. So constituents holding politicians accountable is only a good thing.

This is not tea party blanket obstructionism. This is opposition to Trump.

Schumer has nothing to worry about in the short term and likely nothing to worry about in the long term.

Pelosi may get a real challenger soon, though. Despite being pretty liberal, she represents one of the most left-wing districts in the nation. She's been the Democratic leader in the House for a long time now, and that requires pragmatism that isn't popular with an angry left at the moment.

Yeah "pragmatism". Getting bribed and being gop lite clearly worked for Democrats. Lost sc, President, house, Senate, local governors and legislatures. DESPITE having demographic and policy advantages.

What you call pragmatism I call clear incompetence. Pelosi, schmumer, and co all need to get thrown out.

 

[grumble]

I do like that democratic voters are fed up with the jellyfish we have in office, but my fear here is that this ushers in a new era of professional protester candidates that only know how to organize marches and nothing about how to run a state.

There are a LOT of kooks on the left and up till now we've done a decent job of keeping them out of power....

They will keep themselves out of power by being kooks. The American people seem much more sensitive to left wing lunacy than right wing lunacy. The downside of this is that the Democratic Party will be irrelevant.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

My point is this: I have seen very progressive people, among whom I count myself, many many times make the mistake of assuming that we are more numerous than we are and that more people support our wide list of concerns than actually do. I want us to be really really careful about honestly assessing what we think the "clearly popular" things the "democrats just need to do to win" are

I understand what you're saying here, but I think only working within the parameters of "what people already accept" isn't a winning strategy or a way to make meaningful long term changes. The favorability of unions used to be much higher decades ago than it is now, but that changed because the right wing broke them up and made long (bullshit) arguments about why they're bad. Right to work didn't get passed because the GOP took a steady, cautious approach because of public opinion, it passed because motivated partisans made sure to elect ideologically rigid people and made their (bullshit) arguments for why we need to make sure people get paid less.

This is why I'm really hopeful single-payer in California goes somewhere, especially if it expanded to be a west coast market. We need the strong partisans (in safe seats, or at least seats where they win by being strong partisans) to be a vanguard for what can be possible by rejecting right-wing economics. If single payer in California goes well, we can point at it as proof of concept to the rest of the country that might be skeptical. Even if something like it would fail in a referendum, having politicians pass it and show their constituents how good it is, we can show people why they should embrace left-wing populism.

 

[madstarr12]

Where the hell were these people when we needed them in the industrial Midwest? Hillary received LESS VOTES than JOHN KERRY in the presidential election of 2004 in MICHIGAN for example, they didn't show up when they were very much needed. They had better show up next time when they're needed...Like....Next year.

 

[boiled goose]

Where the hell were these people when we needed them in the industrial Midwest? Hillary received LESS VOTES than JOHN KERRY in the presidential election of 2004 in MICHIGAN for example, they didn't show up when they were very much needed. They had better show up next time when they're needed...Like....Next year.

Part of it is on them.
Part of it is it's hard to be engaged in politics when you're not really represented.

 

[Rentahamster]

Not try to redirect, mollify, assuage, ignore, downplay or bullshit their way out of addressing it.

This still keeps happening way too much.

 

[Rentahamster]

My point is this: I have seen very progressive people, among whom I count myself, many many times make the mistake of assuming that we are more numerous than we are and that more people support our wide list of concerns than actually do. I want us to be really really careful about honestly assessing what we think the "clearly popular" things the "democrats just need to do to win" are

If you frame the debate in labels, not as numerous as you think.

If you frame the debate in issues, more numerous than you think.

 

[thepotatoman]

Schumer has nothing to worry about in the short term and likely nothing to worry about in the long term.

Pelosi may get a real challenger soon, though. Despite being pretty liberal, she represents one of the most left-wing districts in the nation. She's been the Democratic leader in the House for a long time now, and that requires pragmatism that isn't popular with an angry left at the moment.

I still find it annoying that Democrat's are still running with what they annointed to leadership from the era where they were still rolling over for W. Bush and thought Hillary was the path to unprecedented victory, and were first elected to congress when Reagan was still president.

It's insane that Democrats didn't even pause to think that maybe in this new post Obama/Trump era it might be a good idea to readjust course. Not to go full Bernie, but to shake up their previously established and failed plans.

 

[Flying Toaster]

I still find it annoying that Democrat's are still running with what they annointed to leadership from the era where they were still rolling over for W. Bush and thought Hillary was the path to unprecedented victory, and were first elected to congress when Reagan was still president.

It's insane that Democrats didn't even pause to think that maybe in this new post Obama/Trump era it might be a good idea to readjust course. Not to go full Bernie, but to shake up their previously established and failed plans.

Eh... The party will need another rude awakening becore it starts to find its place.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

If you frame the debate in labels, not as numerous as you think.

If you frame the debate in issues, more numerous than you think.

This. Many modern day progressives by their very nature don't identify with a party (i.e., staunchly independent), but tend to caucus with democrats due to crossover where they land on issues. This needs to be leveraged more.

I thought the business as usual messaging on the Democrats side this election is at the end of the day what lost it for them. If they focused more on individual issues in their overall messaging better (i.e., the talking points and sound bites mass media tends to amplify), they would have won.

They ultimately focused too much on not being Trump in this area.

 

[JackDT]

In states Trump won by like 40 points? No way. We need those people.

 

[PHOENIXZERO]

It's already been made clear that there's a large portion of potential Democrat voters who will cut off the party's nose to spite its face. Not that the DNC of the last eight or so years hasn't handed the GOP so much on a silver platter while the party slits its own wrists at the state/local levels. I have zero hopes of anything turning around in the midterms even if Trump is cataclysmic disaster and somehow forces the GOP to grow a spine and force Putin's puppet out.

 

[Cyrano]

The problem, ironically enough, is basically that the current Democratic Senators and Congress are too moderate. Having them replaced with more progressive individuals can only be a good thing for democracy.

 

[benjipwns]

Hush, children

They call it the ‘I’ word.

Just a month into Donald Trump’s presidency, Democratic Party leaders are trying to rein in the talk of impeachment that’s animating the grass roots, the product of a restive base demanding deeper and more aggressive investigations into Trump’s ties to Russia.

Democratic officials in Republican-dominated Washington view the entire subject as a trap, a premature discussion that could backfire in spectacular fashion by making the party appear too overzealous in its opposition to Trump. Worse, they fear, it could harden Republican support for the president by handing his party significant fundraising and political ammunition when the chances of success for an early impeachment push are remote, at best.

Still, most congressional Democrats insist on drawing a line that stops far short of using the loaded term. Responding to Waters' impeachment chatter this month, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said, "When and if he breaks the law, that is when something like that would come up. But that's not the subject of today."

They believe that even if they did have enough evidence to start impeachment proceedings — which they don’t, since a number of investigations are still in their early stages, and Democrats can’t just impeach a president because they don’t like him — they wouldn’t have anywhere near enough votes as long as Trump-sympathetic Republicans control the majority.

Neither party leadership nor the campaign committees have circulated talking points or suggested ways to respond to impeachment questions that are starting to appear. But they are already aware of the potential electoral blowback to the party.

Senate Democratic leadership is for now content with the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee taking the lead

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Hush, children

"Democrats can’t just impeach a president because they don’t like him"

Do the Democrats even remember that they once had a President whose name was Bill Clinton and he got impeached because the Republicans didn't like him?

Oh wait, they must know who he is. He's the guy who was begging the Hillary campaign to pay attention to the Rust Belt, but they decided they didn't need the Rust Belt to win. And here we are.

The Democratic Party: Shooting itself in the foot since 2000.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

I think there's a decent chance of Trump getting impeached, and i dont think the democrats will be the one's filing the paperwork.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

I think there's a decent chance of Trump getting impeached, and i dont think the democrats will be the one's filing the paperwork.

I mean, they can't. It's going to take a Republican effort and leadership on the issue for it to go through. If Democrats try to start the process it'll get shut down immediately and they don't have the votes to do anything about it. Republican patriots, of which there are at least a few, are the only thing standing between us and the apocalypse.

 

[Lord Frieza]

I mean, they can't. It's going to take a Republican effort and leadership on the issue for it to go through. If Democrats try to start the process it'll get shut down immediately and they don't have the votes to do anything about it. Republican patriots, of which there are at least a few, are the only thing standing between us and the apocalypse.

There are no Republican patriots in the GOP, at least none elected. Some will talk a big game and all (Rubio, Graham, McCain), but they're neutered and will fall back in line when it comes voting time. Party above country, party above voters, and party over self (I mean, look at McCain for that last one, dude has been straight up been turned into a glorified bitch for his party, I don't know how the guy looks at his self in the mirror with putting a slug in his head after all the shit that's been piled on him).

 

[Rentahamster]

They ultimately focused too much on not being Trump in this area.

Yes.

The problem, ironically enough, is basically that the current Democratic Senators and Congress are too moderate. Having them replaced with more progressive individuals can only be a good thing for democracy.

Yes.

The Democratic Party: Shooting itself in the foot since 2000.

Yes.

I think there's a decent chance of Trump getting impeached, and i dont think the democrats will be the one's filing the paperwork.

No.

 

[thepotatoman]

The next time to primary Shumer is in 5 years

He was a GOP congressman.

Shumer is a senator with no election for 6 years in a very blue state.

They could theoretically do what the Tea Party did to Boehner.

Hush, children

Senate Democratic leadership is for now content with the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee taking the lead

What the hell? Why?

I can see calls for impeachment being too soon, but why the hell would they not call for an independent commission?

 

[hodayathink]

"Democrats can't just impeach a president because they don't like him"

Do the Democrats even remember that they once had a President whose name was Bill Clinton and he got impeached because the Republicans didn't like him?

Oh wait, they must know who he is. He's the guy who was begging the Hillary campaign to pay attention to the Rust Belt, but they decided they didn't need the Rust Belt to win. And here we are.

The Democratic Party: Shooting itself in the foot since 2000.

He was impeached because he lied under oath and they could prove it. What he lied about was so inconsequential as to have made the whole thing trumped up BS, but he did it, and it is a crime. We don't even have that much on Trump. At best right now they could maybe try to impeach him because of his businesses, but there's no way they can do that without Republican support, and there's no way they'd support that. Pushing for impeachment right now would almost be the definition of fighting for the sake of fighting instead of fighting for an actual purpose. Let the Russia investigations finish, then start talking about impeachment.