How Can Schumer and Jeffries Be Our Congressional Leaders?

[MineralMan]

I've seen several OPs here about how badly we need to replace those two men as our party's Congressional Leadership. That got me wondering how they got those positions at all, given their unpopularity with some Democrats.

Well, Chuck Schumer has been one of the Senators from New York since 1999, winning statewide elections there by up to a 70% majority. He is in his fifth 6-year senate term. Then, in 2017, he was elected as chair of the Senat Democratic Caucus. He has been the Senate Majority or Minority leader since 2017.

Hakeem Jeffries - He has been the NY 8th District Congressman since 2013. He was elected as the House Democratic Caucus Chair in 2019. He became the Democratic House Leader in 2022.

So, both of our Democratic congressional leaders represent the state of New York. They were elected to their offices by voters in that state. They seem popular in New York. I don't vote in New York, so I've never voted for them. Both were elected to their congressional leadership positions by other Democrats in their houses of Congress. I'm not a member of Congress, so I had no vote for those positions, either.

Some people have called out for their replacement in leadership. That would have to be done either by members of Congress voting them out of their positions. As far as I know, no members of Congress are members of DU. So, we don't get a say in that.

The other route to removing them from their leadership positions would be for them not to be elected to Congress at all. That would have to happen in elections in New York state. There's one for the House this November, so New York voters could remove him from office at that time. The trouble there is that Jeffries won in the last election with a 75% majority. Schumer won statewide with a 70% majority. So, that seems unlikely to happen, as well. As I said, I don't vote in New York. No doubt some DUers do, though. Maybe they could try, if that's their goal.

The bottom line here is that both men are popular with their constituencies and in their Democratic caucuses, in Congress. I don't get a vote on that, and neither does anyone else on DU.

So, we have the leadership we have. I may not agree 100% with everything those leaders do, but I support them in their leadership. I assume they know what they're doing better than I do, anyhow.

I don't see any change on the horizon, either. So, I'll continue to work in my own state to elect Democrats to Congress and to my state legislature. That seems to me to be my best opportunity to influence what happens next.

[Abstractartist]

1. Nope

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

[MineralMan]

5. I kind of don't think that's going to happen.

[gab13by13]

2. You answered your own questions,

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.

[MineralMan]

4. I don't follow NY politics, so I can't say.

I suspect that Schumer would win, though.

[CivicGrief]

59. She beats him handily in polls.

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

[Prairie Gates]

3. Abolish ICE

[Autumn]

6. Crack that whip. We might not get a vote but we sure as fuck get to have an opinion.

To quote an asshole. Or better yet, my favorite Governor

"Thank you for your attention to this matter."

[MineralMan]

7. Of course you can have an opinion.

As can I. I would never suggest otherwise.

[Autumn]

8. Oh of course.

[W_HAMILTON]

52. Our time is finite and every minute you spend criticizing Democrats is a minute Republicans thank you for your service.

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.

[Scrivener7]

9. Lol! As I've said before, shit won't stir itself.

[Prairie Gates]

17. 200 response clout is a rush, doncha know?

[Autumn]

19. It takes a big paddle to get it stirred.

[BeyondGeography]

10. Good question

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

Link to tweet

?s=20

But we have rules and a whole culture built around those rules.

By golly, he has tenure!

So we must watch and wait until 2028 while Chuck Schumer continually gets dunked on by Republicans when he isn’t scoring own goals.

[DSandra]

15. Republicans are laughing at Democrats' commitment to rules and decorum

While they tear up democracy and turn America into Russia.

[awesomerwb1]

11. We get it

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.

[MineralMan]

12. What I think is irrelevant.

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

[awesomerwb1]

13. Indeed it is

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

[MineralMan]

22. I doubt there will be such a thread.

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

[SocialDemocrat61]

14. Has any democratic senator or representative

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

[MineralMan]

20. I don't know the answer to that question.

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

[SocialDemocrat61]

24. I don't know of any

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.

[MineralMan]

26. That's what I thought, too.

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.

[SocialDemocrat61]

29. Have they?

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.

[LudwigPastorius]

55. Dem. Reps Ro Khanna and Seth Moulton have called for Schumer to relinquish his position.

...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

[SocialDemocrat61]

58. Thanks

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

[DSandra]

16. Imagine if Britain kept Neville Chamberlain than replace him with Winston Churchill...

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

[SocialDemocrat61]

25. Which is why I support replacing

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

[DSandra]

39. I'm talking about Democratic Party leadership of course

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

[SocialDemocrat61]

42. But we don't have a parliamentary system

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.

[DSandra]

49. Your just making excuses, like the OP

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.

[SocialDemocrat61]

50. No

I’m respecting reality.

[Sympthsical]

18. Trump's popular with MAGA

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.

[SocialDemocrat61]

31. But we all do vote for President of the U.S.

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.

[Sympthsical]

53. I live in California.

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)

[SocialDemocrat61]

57. I live in New York

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

[Sympthsical]

62. Then we really have no say

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?

"I don't get a vote on that, and neither does anyone else on DU. So, we have the leadership we have. I may not agree 100% with everything those leaders do, but I support them in their leadership. I assume they know what they're doing better than I do, anyhow."

Is submission. It's undemocratic. It's an abdication of civic responsibility to be frankly honest.

I get that there are people in this world who would welcome authoritarian impulses as long as it wore the right color t-shirt, and their real objection is that it's just not them making their enemies kneel at the moment. And that's . . . whatever it is.

But this deference to the hierarchy has been our mode of operating for my entire life. Literally at least 40 years.

How's it working out so far? The country in a great place with all that deference?

People are actually campaigning for "Keep doing what we've been doing!" And then wonder why voters under 50 are like, "Are they fucking serious? Jesus fucking Christ, how bad does it have to fucking get before it registers with you people?"

The fact we are where we are and still asking that question is . . . real special. But hey. Age is inevitable. Wisdom is not.

[SocialDemocrat61]

66. Unfortunately voters in swing states

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.

[MineralMan]

36. This is DU. We are all Democrats here.

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

Apples/Oranges.

[Sympthsical]

54. You're promoting submissive voicelessness to power

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

[MineralMan]

60. I'm doing no such thing.

[Sympthsical]

63. Oh yes, you are.

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.

[W_HAMILTON]

56. Trump is also in office because people vote for him regardless of the criticism.

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

[Sympthsical]

64. Is morale not improving?

Huh. Weird.

More beatings, I should think.

[W_HAMILTON]

65. Judging from the incessant criticism of Democrats, nope.

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.

[Walleye]

21. Two guys from Brooklyn, we do get to vote for the guys who vote for them as leaders.

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

[MineralMan]

23. That's exactly how it works.

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?

[Walleye]

27. That is true and correct

[bluestarone]

28. Like you say, i will always believe the citizens in THEIR District

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

[MineralMan]

32. Yes. That is the basis of our entire system of government.

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.

[bluestarone]

37. Yea, just saying division will kill us, that's what rethugs are hoping.

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

[DSandra]

40. But that's because of party leadership's failure to meet the moment, not miscellaneus squabbles

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

[Gore1FL]

30. Ah, the daily gaslighting thread.

Whatever would we do without it?

[MineralMan]

33. What was incorrect in my OP?

Did I make mistakes in explaining the system?

[Gore1FL]

69. The facts were fine. The logic, illogical.

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.

[MineralMan]

71. How did he become minority leader.

There's a reason for that, too.

[Gore1FL]

73. Yes. There was, at least.

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!

[Scrivener7]

41. AND sea lioning! Efficiency!

[mr715]

67. What is sea lioning?

[betsuni]

34. A factual explanation about Democratic leadership needs a trigger warning.

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).

[MineralMan]

35. A tip of my hat to you.

[DJ Synikus Makisimus]

38. Two words: Wall Street

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

[Bobstandard]

43. Here's where it falls apart

I assume they know what they're doing better than I do, anyhow

Schumer has lived in the DC bubble for over a quarter century. He’s been an elected official for over 40 years. His net worth is estimated to be $60 to $70 millions, most of that made while in office.

Schumer may know what he’s doing but he doesn’t know how you’re doing. He’s been a member of a genteel monied men’s club for so long he has little to no idea what life is like for the average person. In short, he’s so out of touch with the real wold that he doesn’t seem to grasp the urgency of this moment.

I suspect that Schumer is so caught up in the rhythm of business of Capitol Hill that he’s actually less well informed about what’s going on with constituents—and especially their reality based anxieties—than the OP is. Many of us spend an hour or more a day cruising the internet getting news and opinion from a wide variety of sources. I’m pretty sure Schumer doesn’t. I’d be surprised if he can even navigate Instagram or Tik-tok so it’s unlikely he’s ever experienced the hate and vitriol aimed at us libtards. Staffers may tell him or share the ccasional meme but is that enough?

[Autumn]

48. Absslutely This is exactly right. That long in office and making as much money as they make

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


Thank you for your post.

[PJMcK]

44. There's a process to remove them as leaders without them losing their seats

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.

[SocialDemocrat61]

45. My grandfather use to say

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

[murielm99]

46. I appreciate your rational, factual posts.

[MineralMan]

47. Thank you. I try to do that.

It doesn't always work for everyone , though.

[LudwigPastorius]

51. If you look at polls of "favorability" ratings,...

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.

[MineralMan]

61. I'm not really sure what such ratings mean at that level.

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.

[Ilikepurple]

75. Party leaders in the House and Senate matter to all Americans, or surely party members

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.

[SocialDemocrat61]

68. Are those national polls

or in their home state and district?

[LudwigPastorius]

74. I'm looking at aggregations of national polls.

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/favorability/political-leaders

I'm pretty sure they are popular in their districts, or else they wouldn't be in Congress.

[SocialDemocrat61]

76. National polls are interesting

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

[Demsrule86]

70. There is a primary opponent for Jeffries...now

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.

[SocialDemocrat61]

72. A few months old and the campaign hasn't started yet

https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2025/10/private-poll-shows-hakeem-jeffries-50-point-lead-over-chi-osse-hypothetical-congressional-primary/408870/

Oh wait, nevermind. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/05/nyregion/chi-osse-hakeem-jeffries-primary.html

[Orrex]

77. They are indeed the leadership that we're stuck with.