Chuck Schumer has come under fire in recent years for not being progressive enough. There may be merit to that argument. However, there is greater merit to the argument that he’s an old war horse who has been around for quite some time, and before we set him out to pasture, or talk about doing so, it would behoove us to all focus on the only thing that matters to Democrats or this country: Getting rid of Donald Trump. That said, here’s what AOC has in mind, ostensibly. Axios:
Top Democrats tell “Axios on HBO” they expect Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez may eventually primary one of the two New York senators — Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer in 2022, or Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in 2024.
Why it matters: AOC has instantly become one of the party’s most coveted endorsers (up there with Clintons and Obamas) — and has recently made common cause with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a pairing that could take off. AHarris poll for “Axios on HBO” shows socialism is soaring in popularity, especially with women ages 18 to 54 (55%) and younger Americans.
We don’t live in normal times. My objection is not to AOC having bigger dreams. My objection is solely to giving Trump any ammunition the next time he decides to take a shot at Chuck Schumer. For now until the 2020 election, the only thing any Democrat should be thinking about is unity and defeating Trump — or we’re not going to have a country left, and party politics and purity considerations will be rendered moot.
It’s her race to run if she wants it. But my immediate thoughts.
1. Would she have less power as a Senator? If the House stays blue and the Senate stays red…or at least below a sixty vote majority…it’s possible that she’d be able to accomplish far less. But a lot of her political power right now is populism, so it’s not clear to me whether it would matter.
2. Would the Senate be a good fit for her? There are norms and traditions that the Senators fiercely defend, and a lot of those are contrary to her style. She is a great fit for the more raucous house environment…I’m not sure she’d thrive in an environment where she would be expected to speak of her fellow Senators respectfully all of the time.
3. Could she even win? Her favorability rating is…by the way…about exactly what Donald Trump’s is. She scores sky high with Dems, and at the bottom with Republicans. But her independent numbers are dismal, and overall she hovers between a 55% and 60% disapproval overall. I’m not saying this is justified…but it’s what it is. I don’t know that someone with a favorability rating that far in the gutter wins a statewide race in New York. But it’s her right to run if she wants.
I think she needs to stay at her job and learn it better. No one questions that she’s got a career in politics. If she tries to move too fast too soon, she may live to regret it as so many do. I have seen this show before.
Short and sweet. I agree 100%.
I have a monomania with regards to politics right now. Just dump Trump. Then after that’s achieved, we can all move on to much greater things. But first things first.
I know, I feel the same.
WAY too early to think about that for AOC and probably only because she can’t run for President yet. I’d be much happier with her staying in the House and eventually becoming Speaker. Do recall that we have a lot of rebuilding to do within the Dems in a post-Trump era.
I don’t see her being Speaker for a long time. I think there are many other qualified representatives and she should just dig in and do her best in the job she’s in. That has always been a recipe for success, I have observed. Do the job you’re in well, and somebody will notice.
Well, I DID say “eventually”, Ursula. And I agree that, rockstar status aside, she’s still got a lot of dues to pay yet.
If I may be indulged for a second, I am getting sick unto death of people on our side indulging in the search for a savior. The righties did that nearly 40 years, which got us where we are now. Many of us claim to be better than them. Not going that road would help prove it. With that said, I’ve every reason to believe AOC is dedicated to learning the job first before going up the chain.
She needs to do the “work your way up in leadership” thing first or she’ll just be another Timmy Ryan, getting ahead of himself. I think the best candidates in the freshman for future speaker are Katie Hill (who already has a leadership position and a committee co-chair position), Katie Porter, Joe Neguse, Lauren Underwood and Ayanna Pressley. All were well-prepared to be in Congress and have been impressive. I don’t see anything about “AOC” that indicates she’s be a good speaker or an even remotely qualified presidential candidate. Maybe in the future, but not now. And she needs to sever ALL ties with The Young Turks/The Justice Democrats/Brand New Congress folks.
Absolutely not on that last part.. burning bridges is the work of fanatics, not people who actually build coalitions. AOC needs them going forward as much as she needs the rest.
The Young Turks/Justice “Democrats”/Brand New Congress are ALL about burning bridges, burning things to the ground alienating allies and lording it over everyone else on the left as not being sufficiently pure. They’re the worst of the worst, and why a lot of the dissension and conflict on the left happens.
“AOC” herself has not been blameless and has a lot to learn. Her tweet about “it’s our time now” and people not in total agreement with her being relegated to the “cheap seats” was a revealing blunder, as was her tweet about the supposedly empty hearing of the financial committee that allegedly only she cared enough to attend, particularly since I’m seeing a lot of phony anger being ginned up now about congresspeople not attending hearings (just yesterday about this 9/11 hearing supposedly no one attended) which plays into the right’s anti-government narrative.
In fact, the hearing “AOC” tweeted about was the one where Katie Porter so famously took apart Kathy Kraninger of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, offering her a copy of the textbook Porter wrote when Kraninger could not say how to calculate APR; Ayanna Pressley did some brilliant questioning too. (Also chair Maxine Waters shut down some yahoo Republican who was babbling on and on about financial regulation being “socialism”). I watched that one; AOC wasn’t being honest. People come and go from hearings, and often multiple subcommittees are meeting at the same time. it doesn’t mean people aren’t working.
I think “AOC” has potential, but not as long as she’s in the “Justice Democrats” bubble whose goal is not to build bridges but to “take over.” That seldom works out well, as the so-called “Freedom Caucus” showed us.
The smart ones will grow up. The not-so-smart ones will burn out.
This is why I take a wait-and-see attitude toward people with zero record of activism or political engagement — this includes Pete Buttigieg, whose popularity among some Democrats baffles me. I mean, yes, he seems smart and adorable and articulate, but he has done literally nothing that would qualify him to be the youngest president in U.S. history. I have friends and acquaintance in their 20s who have a decade more relevant experience than he has.
It’s nice to have that kind of a luxury. I’m not certain we do. Makes me think of this guy I worked with a few days a long time ago. He just got out of college with an accounting degree. But everywhere he went, they wanted six months experience minimum, which is how he landed in the same furniture factory I did. He might have had the skills but no one was willing to give him the chance.
Mayor Pete has far relevant experience than the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. That is more than enough for me to justify my support for him in the primaries. I’ll line up behind whoever the winner is but my personal choice is as good as made.
I would prefer AOC pay attention to her NEW day job, learn from the best (Pelosi), learn how to function in DC (she just got there), and stop “playing to her base” ie progressives. Dems are far too excited over the shiny new toy in the old toybox. I’m looking for experienced leadership as well as charisma but if I have to choose I’ll take experience at this point.
I couldn’t have said it better myself. Thank you, SuzC. BTW, did you get the newsletter today? I thought that it was your newsletter that bounced back as undeliverable. It’s a minor thing, just let me know if you’re having problems with that.
I see no reason to say Pelosi is the best. She didn’t get anything done when Obama was in the white house and the Dems had a majority in the Senate. Which they promptly lost due to Obama rolling out Obamacare ahead of the elections then the screw up with the registration website. All Pelosi did was get the Democrats to support a Democratic President, tough job. No good laws passed or bad laws repealed. Now she’s dithering on Impeachment and looks like a weak loser to the American people. The whole Democratic establishment has driven the party down and down and down. We need new blood.
You’re out of touch with the polls and the American people. Most Democrats think she’s doing an terrific job of navigating Donald Trump. In fact, I don’t see how anyone could be doing it better. It’s not as easy as it looks. Attacks on the “Democratic establishment” are what’s driving the part “down and dow and down,” this fictitious idea that some sexy new individual with a lot of flaming words could come in and create magic. Getting stuff done in D.C. is a slog. And you seem to be totally forgetting an individual named Mitch McConnell.
I might also point out that, assuming she successfully primaries Chuck Schumer and wins the general (two fairly big steps), she won’t replace Chuck Schumer (as Senate Democratic Leader.) Some senior old geezer will likely do that. I realize that is not done by direct inheritance, so to speak, but we might just want to think about who that would be. We have worked hard more than once in recent years to get someone who “couldn’t be any worse” replaced by someone worse. Schumer doesn’t even fall into that category – we all know people who would be worse.
Pattie Murray, Debbie Stabenow and Maria Cantwell all have high seniority and would make interesting choices.
And yes, I’m pulling up women Senators names on purpose. They have the skills…the experience…the seniority. It’s time for a woman in leadership, whether we are a minority or majority.
IMO, that is one of several options that she should consider. However, as many complaints as I have against the Party leadership currently, I don’t think this is a good time to be giving the Trump-GOP ammunition.
I actually meant to use Congresswoman Ocasio- Cortez’s name rather than “she”. My fallback is I had a stroke last year ! ?
You don’t have to apologize for anything here, Leo. And I agree totally, that’s my premise, too. Don’t give the GOP any ammo.
Chuck Schumer has been useless- He makes comments from the sidelines- he does nothing- I hope AOC takes him out. At least Gillibrand works- I am still angry about the way she took out a Senator who was one of our most effective- but at least she is still working. Chuck is just a commenter, nothing more.
I don’t like Gillibrand The Al Franken debacle did nothing to sweeten my perception. Quite the opposite.
I have a different take. I’m weary of the people who keep saddling her with blame for what Franken did to HIMSELF, just because she was appointed to be spokesperson for the 32 Senators who were urging him to resign — because of her strong record of advocacy for women who were abused, assaulted or harassed. And those Senators included every other one running for president except Klobuchar who said she sat on the sidelines because it was her state. In fact, Gillibrand was heroic in putting herself out in front on this.
“Take out”? She replaced Hillary Clinton, who retired.
I think AOC is terrific but she’s not even a year into her job in the House. Also, NY State is not NYC as in overwhelmingly blue & even NYC has some red areas. We think of NY State as blue but it’s not CA and it’s not that long ago they’ve had Republicans in Senate seats or the Governor’s mansion. From where I sit AOC is doing a pretty good job with her committee work and she’s smart as a whip and savvy too. My worry is that she might be spending a bit too much time looking ahead & if she’s given indications that she’s already looking at a senate run in few years it’s going to backfire on her. She should tamp down any such talk and do so right away. No, she shouldn’t “wait her turn” by serving fifteen or twenty years in the House, but she also shouldn’t rush to jump to a higher level.
I get the argument that people like AOC are there in part because folks are sick and tired of business as usual. However that doesn’t obviate the need for deep learning of said business as usual because if you’re going to fix the system you need to know and understand just how complicated it is and how the parts all fit together – or don’t as they are supposed to and on the latter part it goes a lot deeper than hard core partisanship. IOW you don’t just tear the whole damned thing down willy nilly. we’re seeing the effects of Trump doing that with the Executive Branch and it will be years before the full extend of the damage there is known. AOC and people like her can be our future, but first she and others need to learn the present and what works (sometimes shit DOES get done) and what doesn’t. Then and only then can big structural changes be proposed and pushed though.
I’ve long loved Senator Warren, who was touted as a Presidential candidate from the time she got to the Senate. Not by a lot of people but more than a few. Senator Warren already had some understanding of part of the system when she arrived in the Senate, but I believe realized there was much more to learn. Now, when she proposes structural change she’s got a comprehensive approach (IOW about more than her original area of expertise in consumer finance/banking) and well thought out programs to address all the areas where she wants to implement structural change. AOC would be wise to look at Senator Warren’s DC career, and as I said concentrate on the job she currently has while simultaneously squelching any talk of trying to take down Schumer much as I dislike the guy and complain about his piss poor performance as our leader in the Senate.
Exactly.
I am a voting NYer and I detest Schumer. He is a DO NOTHING senator who really only serves one small constituency in New York State. Black and Brown NYers are invisible in Schumer’s “world.” Old War Horse? When has Schumer ever fought a good fight for MOST NYers of all ethnicities? NEVER. Name an issue he has championed? You can’t. I have never votedfor him, and I never will. AOC will get my vote. This choice is SO easy.
I’d say one major win in Schumer’s column was overseeing winning…I think…fifteen Senate seats in 2006 and 2008, which gave us the exactly-zero-seat margin we needed to pass the ACA.
My point was more along the lines of an old quote from Star Trek, “Only a fool starts a fight when the house is on fire.” Right now, the house is on fire and we can worry about Schumer’s replacement, or anything else we want, after we take care of the only business at hand that matters: Get rid of Trump.
Schumer is like Pelosi, Timid and non productive. We need leaders not hand wringers. More power to AOC and by 2022 we’ll already know the results of who’s president and if it’s still Trump it will be even more important to get AOC in Schumer’s seat.
Anyone who could call Pelosi “timid” doesn’t pay very close attention to politics. You may disagree with her decisions, but she’s certain not “timid.” She also got nearly three times more votes in her last election than “AOC” — who, despite a gusher of adulatory press, was unable to increase the weak turnout in her apathetic district. Pelosi, in a similarly safe blue district, had extremely high turnout. She’s a political genius; “AOC” is an inexperienced person with no track record yet. Given that, this assumption that she is the natural heir to Schumer is a bit of a reach. NY is full of ambitious, promising Democrats who have done a lot more than “AOC”, and if she gets anemic turnout in her own very blue district, I’m dubious that she could win the entire state.
We have never seen the likes of AOC before — a freshman Congresswoman who’s got more Twitter followers than the Speaker of the House, and who is famous only for being fiercely progressive. If AOC runs against Chuck “Milquetoast” Schumer, I will absolutely donate to her campaign, and my only regret would be that I don’t live in New York, so I wouldn’t be able to vote for her as well. I’m very much looking forward to the day that I’ll be able to vote for her for President, though.
Yes, we HAVEN’T seen someone more focused on celebrity and Twitter followers than effective governing. The jury is still out on whether she will be an effective congressperson, like Katie Porter or Katie Hill or Lauren Underwood or Joe Neguse or Jahana Hayes or Rashida Tlaib or Ayanna Pressley, all brilliant new additions to Congress.
AOC is as dumb as a box or rocks.
Why does it matter…
It doesn’t and neither does Axios and their asking themselves stupid questions.
My thoughts upon reading this, was that this is very low on the list of priorities. It will be a great day when this becomes a major consideration. Right now, we have real work to do.
I don’t think AOC is dumb, but I think this question is not “ripe” shall we say?