If you want to hear AOC talk for 1 hour and 40 minutes in a livestream recording about how a Democratic House Leader worked conventionally based on her experience, why it’s difficult to replace Jeffries, and answering some other questions, here you go.
She went over the fact Jeffries is running unopposed but the rest of the TLDW is:
The House Majority Leader has to spend their time herding 200+ legislative cats with the whip, and also be the public face for the caucus, leaving little time for advocacy, organizing and taking leadership roles on committees (which sounded like the main reason why AOC doesn’t want to volunteer herself)
The Majority Leader has to mobilize lots of financial resources for the next election and the DCCC (she said the DNC is the fundraising arm for presidential and state races, the DSCC for Senate races and DCCC for House, they are weirdly not integrated).
Many “campaigns” for House Leader start years in advance so that you can develop relations with individuals, regional subgroups and identity subgroups and class subgroups across the Democratic party spectrum.
The Democratic party has long let seniority be valued a lot higher than, in AOC’s opinion, needs to be.
The Majority Leader election is followed by the Whip then the Chairs and members of various House Committees. So there is a lot of horsetrading going on because many house reps have a particular committee they want a seat on. They will often voice to a speaker candidate, they will support their speakership, if that candidate will recommend the rep for the committee position. Some are more highly visible positions, some committees get way more bills than others, so there is fierce competition for some seats and others may feel shunned if put in a committee that feels irrelevant to them.
Any challenger would have to rally all this support, make hundreds of calls and hundreds of deals in the span of a few weeks. Which is why Schumer is easier to replace than Jeffries.
The Republicans took dozens of tries to elect a Speaker and landed on Mike Johnson who was very ineffective, and thus was really only able to get one major bill passed in two years. The Democrats don’t want to emulate that.
I feel like part of it, not being said, is that the rising stars might have future plans which don’t involve the House. AOC is already being floated to run for Senate or President in 2028. You might have a problem right now where the rising stars in the House may not want to put forth the effort to rise up House leadership positions because they see other positions opening up soon.
You’re right. Basically Democratic voters are asking for someone in the party to take one for the team in ousting Jeffries, itself an uphill battle but also even if they are successful, stymies their chance of advancing to the Senate or Presidential cabinet, or even some House positions for several years. And if they fail, they risk internal consequences of being labelled an outsider or splinter-party rebel. Not an easy thing for any of them to simply stick up their hand and volunteer for.
It might be triage. The centrist dems still have a slim margin in the House, and apparently leadership is threatening newcomers to stay in line. Basically, if they oppose him too openly he may make their jobs harder next session. It’s petty, but what can we do?
The senate is a winnable battle. That’s where we need to focus our energy.
Even if that is true, its our duty as the electorate to hold Jefferies and every other Blue MAGA mother fucker accountable, and to make their lives a living hell until they surrender to our will.
So protest every time they betray us. Let them know No Kings applies to democrats too. They don’t get a pass just because they offer us placating lipservice.
Additionally, continue contacting your representatives to voice your opinion on upcoming votes, and your displeasure when they let you down. Make notes of any congresspeople who vote against the interests of their constituents. Primary the hell out of anyone standing in the way of the things that need to happen.
There are ways to call a vote to the House floor without going through the Speaker, so the SML is the more important battle anyway. If we can get someone to replace Schumer, that will still be a huge success even if Jeffries becomes Speaker.
If Van Hollen wins the SML, which is seeming more and more likely, it’ll cancel out a lot of Jefferies’s limp-dick MAGA and Israel loyalty.
Jefferies supports the Iran war and ICE, and will tell the house to support them too. Van Hollen will take Jefferies’s approved budget for those items and wipe his ass with it before throwing it in the trash.
And the best part? It’ll highlight to the electorate the absolute trash that is Jefferies. Who knows, maybe they’ll vote for a new Speaker afterwards like the GOP did to get Mike Johnson.
After such a historic election turnaround, driven in no small part by African-American voters, do you really want to tell them that you don’t support the first Black House Speaker?
Yes, they supported Harris by 80% in 2024, but that is actually below their historic Democratic support levels, and in the Midterms they broke 90% for Democrats. source. That 10% margin clearly made a difference in both elections
I think Jeffries is in the bag, we’ll all have to find a way to make sure he doesnt shut out voices in the party he doesn’t want to hear. (Plus, Democrats have such a huge majority that they can stand 20 or 30 defectors and still have Jeffries be speaker).
I would focus your efforts on Schumer. Don’t ban me, but I do like him, and like how he’s represented NY. But he’s old, and needs to give way to younger leadership
On the other hand, I think many minorities have experienced what it feels like to work toward a goal, and have it pulled out from under them at the last minute, while watching others where that doesn’t seem to happen.
We wonder why Conservatives consistently vote against their own interests. This is due in large part to their leaders lying, and taking actions that contradict their words on the campaign trail. Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, we see behavior that, to the untrained eye, might look like Progressive leaders doing the exact same type of thing. Some might conclude that, no matter how much these progressives talk about inclusion, this progressive movement might not include people like them after all, when they see a key leader undone by “their own side”.
This movement might think this is all in service of a greater good, but you don’t control other people’s opinions, and what their opinions are of your motives. And they aren’t obligated to believe you, even if you turn out to be right. This could set your movement back years, if people you relied on to build that new majority think you don’t respect them, and abandon you in future elections.
Yeah I get it, that’s an important symbol. But is it really worth two more years of status quo leadership? Now, at the time when there’s both a means and a need for a bold push for progressive policy?
We’ve already had plenty of historic victories this election. And everyone who broke barriers isn’t focusing on their identity right now, they’re focusing on the work that needs to be done. Is Jeffries onboard with that, or is he only going to stand in the way? That’s the difference.
For what it’s worth, I’d support somebody like Wes Moore for the presidential primary in 2028. So let’s not make this about Jeffries’ identity. It’s about his policy, and his donors.
But yeah, if the speakership is already more or less set in stone, then I agree we need to focus on the battle we can win, and that’s the senate majority leader.
Jeffries hasn’t actually held the job yet. We are making assumptions about how he would lead. Assumptions based on some pretty good historical data, but assumptions nonetheless.
Schumer has already held the job (and lost it), so we have a better idea of what that would look like if we go there again.
We have Van Hollen standing up to potentially challenge Schumer.
Why hasn’t even a single Dem stood up in the house to challenge Jefferies? The petition to oppose him is 10x greater than the one to oppose Schumer.
If you want to hear AOC talk for 1 hour and 40 minutes in a livestream recording about how a Democratic House Leader worked conventionally based on her experience, why it’s difficult to replace Jeffries, and answering some other questions, here you go.
She went over the fact Jeffries is running unopposed but the rest of the TLDW is:
I feel like part of it, not being said, is that the rising stars might have future plans which don’t involve the House. AOC is already being floated to run for Senate or President in 2028. You might have a problem right now where the rising stars in the House may not want to put forth the effort to rise up House leadership positions because they see other positions opening up soon.
You’re right. Basically Democratic voters are asking for someone in the party to take one for the team in ousting Jeffries, itself an uphill battle but also even if they are successful, stymies their chance of advancing to the Senate or Presidential cabinet, or even some House positions for several years. And if they fail, they risk internal consequences of being labelled an outsider or splinter-party rebel. Not an easy thing for any of them to simply stick up their hand and volunteer for.
It might be triage. The centrist dems still have a slim margin in the House, and apparently leadership is threatening newcomers to stay in line. Basically, if they oppose him too openly he may make their jobs harder next session. It’s petty, but what can we do?
The senate is a winnable battle. That’s where we need to focus our energy.
Even if that is true, its our duty as the electorate to hold Jefferies and every other Blue MAGA mother fucker accountable, and to make their lives a living hell until they surrender to our will.
So protest every time they betray us. Let them know No Kings applies to democrats too. They don’t get a pass just because they offer us placating lipservice.
Additionally, continue contacting your representatives to voice your opinion on upcoming votes, and your displeasure when they let you down. Make notes of any congresspeople who vote against the interests of their constituents. Primary the hell out of anyone standing in the way of the things that need to happen.
There are ways to call a vote to the House floor without going through the Speaker, so the SML is the more important battle anyway. If we can get someone to replace Schumer, that will still be a huge success even if Jeffries becomes Speaker.
If Van Hollen wins the SML, which is seeming more and more likely, it’ll cancel out a lot of Jefferies’s limp-dick MAGA and Israel loyalty.
Jefferies supports the Iran war and ICE, and will tell the house to support them too. Van Hollen will take Jefferies’s approved budget for those items and wipe his ass with it before throwing it in the trash.
And the best part? It’ll highlight to the electorate the absolute trash that is Jefferies. Who knows, maybe they’ll vote for a new Speaker afterwards like the GOP did to get Mike Johnson.
Aoc and mamdani,forced Chi Osse from challenging him
Why? Is being a corporate-sponsored centrist just a ruse that he plans to shed once he has the gavel?
Locally the DSA chose not to oppose him when he ran recently. I suspect there is some deal making happening
After such a historic election turnaround, driven in no small part by African-American voters, do you really want to tell them that you don’t support the first Black House Speaker?
Yes, they supported Harris by 80% in 2024, but that is actually below their historic Democratic support levels, and in the Midterms they broke 90% for Democrats. source. That 10% margin clearly made a difference in both elections
I think Jeffries is in the bag, we’ll all have to find a way to make sure he doesnt shut out voices in the party he doesn’t want to hear. (Plus, Democrats have such a huge majority that they can stand 20 or 30 defectors and still have Jeffries be speaker).
I would focus your efforts on Schumer. Don’t ban me, but I do like him, and like how he’s represented NY. But he’s old, and needs to give way to younger leadership
I don’t think the black electorate is as stupid as you’re portraying them.
I think they want meaningful change and know Jefferies is a sellout to the very same monsters who oppress them.
On the other hand, I think many minorities have experienced what it feels like to work toward a goal, and have it pulled out from under them at the last minute, while watching others where that doesn’t seem to happen.
We wonder why Conservatives consistently vote against their own interests. This is due in large part to their leaders lying, and taking actions that contradict their words on the campaign trail. Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, we see behavior that, to the untrained eye, might look like Progressive leaders doing the exact same type of thing. Some might conclude that, no matter how much these progressives talk about inclusion, this progressive movement might not include people like them after all, when they see a key leader undone by “their own side”.
This movement might think this is all in service of a greater good, but you don’t control other people’s opinions, and what their opinions are of your motives. And they aren’t obligated to believe you, even if you turn out to be right. This could set your movement back years, if people you relied on to build that new majority think you don’t respect them, and abandon you in future elections.
Yeah I get it, that’s an important symbol. But is it really worth two more years of status quo leadership? Now, at the time when there’s both a means and a need for a bold push for progressive policy?
We’ve already had plenty of historic victories this election. And everyone who broke barriers isn’t focusing on their identity right now, they’re focusing on the work that needs to be done. Is Jeffries onboard with that, or is he only going to stand in the way? That’s the difference.
For what it’s worth, I’d support somebody like Wes Moore for the presidential primary in 2028. So let’s not make this about Jeffries’ identity. It’s about his policy, and his donors.
But yeah, if the speakership is already more or less set in stone, then I agree we need to focus on the battle we can win, and that’s the senate majority leader.
Jeffries hasn’t actually held the job yet. We are making assumptions about how he would lead. Assumptions based on some pretty good historical data, but assumptions nonetheless.
Schumer has already held the job (and lost it), so we have a better idea of what that would look like if we go there again.