New York polls are full of warnings for Chuck Schumer

[Mysterian]

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer's approval rating in New York has cleared 40% just once during the last six months, according to polling from Siena University.

His approval was at 53% at the same point in President Trump's first term, according to Siena.
Why it matters: Schumer is obsessed with his hometown polls. He's up for reelection in 2028 and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is eyeing his seat.

The minority leader's New York approval rating reached 38% in March, according to polling by Siena.

https://www.axios.com/2026/04/02/new-york-polls-chuck-schumer-senate-ocasio-cortez

Schumer's loyalty to Israel and lack of strong leadership in a time of crisis are troubling to me. We need fire-breathers, not milquetoasts.

[BannonsLiver]

1. Best news I've heard all day.

[Intractable]

2. I've been calling for him to step down for years.

About ten years ago, I was watching a TV interview with Schumer. He referred to something or other as being "namby pamby."

It's a phrase I've heard, but never use myself.

At the time, I didn't hate him, but didn't actually like him.

But when the words "namby pamby" came from his mouth, I realized what it was about him that I didn't like.

[ALBliberal]

3. I always compare minority leadership with Pelosi like in the Covid pandemic

She was an excellent minority leader, excellent leader all around Schumer and even Jefferies just don’t seem to be rising to the occasion

[dalton99a]

4. Democrats are in desperate need of new leadership.

[Grim Chieftain]

25. We need strong leaders who are willing to step up and fight the good fight for our democracy

No more strongly worded letters or memos. There is too much at stake.

[LeftInTX]

28. Leadership is mostly a procedural position that focuses on order and decoram.

Without this, you would have brawls. I've been involved in a few. Nothing gets done and people get hurt.

The minority party focuses on maintaining the filibuster and preventing bad bills from passing. If things turn into a "fight", guess what? You could lose the filibuster and the bad bill passes. If it is a reconcilation bill, it is not subject to the filibuster, so this means that there is horsetrading done to remove the worst parts of the bill.

Why do you think ICE has not been funded? The Democrats would not fund DHS if it included ICE. Eventually Trump caved to the Democrats and TSA got paid again.

[Mysterian]

35. Leadership is a lot more than that

That's why Schumer's numbers are in the shitter.

[LeftInTX]

36. Well, I've been in a brawl where people were hurt. It sucks. It was at a political meeting.

This happened every month for about a year. But we had to censure numerous people. Covid finally put an end to it. One of the kooks was banned from office by a judge. She literally beat up a state representative. She got her conviction overturned and is running for higher office under the "felons for office" banner.

[bigtree]

5. just elect a Democrat

...now how about fucking getting back to campaigning against republicans instead of campaigning against the leader of the party that's crushing republicans in nearly every election?

How about giving the party and leaders in power credit for the political momentum since there is only ONE party in power that is providing that opposition and fighting for the people.

How about presenting the party and our leaders honestly, instead of this navelgazing backbiting nonsense that pretends we're not slamming republicans to the point they're breaking apart?

Why is this effort void of ANY of THAT fight against republicans that it pretends to want?

[LeftInTX]

10. Exactly

[comradebillyboy]

11. Bravo! Democratic self-sabotage needs to stop.

Making the perfect the enemy of the good is a losing proposition. The imperfect Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries are still better than every republican in congress.

[BannonsLiver]

30. Your last sentence is undoubtedly true.

That being said, there is a whole big middle ground between the purity kooks, for whom everyone is terrible all the time, and those who espouse what your interlocutor believes, which is essentially that Democratic leaders, particularly those he favors, are infallible, should not be criticized, are above criticism and that even the gentlest critiques are akin to being disloyal to the party. And also that their political appointees are above any criticism, as is their belief when it comes to Garland. That’s also an extreme position as well, IMO. Neither do us any good.

[bigtree]

34. most critics believe their projections are superior to reality

...and many of them spend almost all of their effort sowing cynicism about a party that many of them refused to support in the last election.

All of the movements that posture to reform the party are naturally exploited by people who never intend to show up on election day; exploited by people who want to dissuade Dems from showing up on election day.

All of the effort is just to denigrate the party and its principles, not on their efforts alone, but on the opposition's succes in succeeding; seemingly oblivious to the effect of their own divisive actions which almost never include any actual opposition against republicans.

They work to wedge support away from Democrats who were historically successful and able in ANY Democratic majority; most notably Sen. Schumer in the Biden term.

Tore down an incumbent president over Gaza, but can't be found today to oppose Trump's collusion with Israel. Where's the protests? Never mind.

And they denigrate the prosecutors of Trump, even as the convicted criminal and his DOJ mob purge those very prosecutors and lawyers from the Justice Dept. who the critics incredibly claim weren't investigating and prosecuting.

I mean, who attacks Donald Trump's prosecutors? Who does that? Who continues to make that their most pressing concern, and a prominent part of their messaging?

In Jack Smith's testimony to Congress, he testified that Trump bore responsibility for the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6.

The Special Counsel who inherited over 20 Garland prosecutors in what CNN described at the time as a "fast-moving investigation" was relying on evidence to be used in the indictment; in the court he was already appearing in when voters pulled the rug out from under his prosecution; on evidence that MERRICK GARLAND had amassed through over 1500 arrests and nearly as many convictions up to sedition of people these same prosecution critics derided as 'foot soldiers' and immaterial to convicting Trump.

That's supposed to be the genius of screaming nonsense at Garland (and I mean screaming because, they NEVER come with facts about the case they're supposedly so concerned about, just their clawing at the people prosecuting).

They can't credibly discuss the case because, they never bothered to look at the state of the evidence; read through the challenges and claims of privilege; discern what court was adjudicating those claims, what judge set the date of the hearing and when; never bothered to say ONE WORD about the Trump friendly judges and justices who delayed their hearings and judgments on the unprecedented appeals until right up until we voted; clueless that this is something Jack Smith wrote in his report which they conveniently ignore.

The fucking weirdness, though, of being the people who are dragging Garland at the same time Trump is dragging the people who prosecuted him.

And we're supposed to believe they give a shit about the prosecution? No more than we should believe they care about achieving a Democratic majority, ever.

[angrychair]

32. All due respect

In my opinion, that is a self-defeating approach.
It's not "navelgazing backbiting" to hold the leaders of our political Party to higher standards and to question their actions and motives and to demand more from them than the status quo.

I would also take exception with the analysis that Democrats are doing better in elections because of Chuck Schumer's leadership. You are going to have to prove that to me with facts.
Because right now, as far as I can tell and as far as polling has revealed so far, Democrats are mostly winning because people are voting against Republicans more than for Democrats.

That's not my opinion, that is according to the most recent polling.

CNN’s Harry Enten, in a recent analysis of polling data, found Democrats’ have a net favorability of five points. And that’s well below what their rating was in previous midterm elections when a Republican was in the White House: eight points in 2018 and 11 points in 2006.

We cannot win on a "we hate Trump" campaign and expect that to carry us. It just won't.

I don't doubt that Schumer is a good person and has the best intentions but his perspective feels stuck in the 80s or 90s when it still felt like bipartisanship was a thing but the Republican Party is a fascist cult only loyal to Mango Mussolini.
I believe that unwavering push for bipartisanship at any cost was a factor in Democratic turnout in 2024 and in past recent elections in which more people didn't vote than voted.

I'm totally down with Schumer IF he will show a material push for a more aggressive approach and stops gate keeping by making it twice as hard for Progressive candidates like Mamdani or AOC or Frost like candidates to get official DNC support and endorsements from Party leaders (and I don't mean just a written endorsement two days before the election).

My concern for our Party is that some, including many in leadership roles, seem more welcoming to Republicans to come to the Party than they do for Progressives or Democratic Socialists especially.
People do not want more of the same. They want real change and a completely different approach to how we see and deal with Republicans.

But unless he can demonstrate that willingness to change, if a primary candidate, potentially AOC, can convince people she can deliver that, then more people are going to vote for her as they should.
I will always vote for a Democrat but that doesn't mean that if a primary candidate presented a better case that I'm not going to vote for them over an incumbent that has not shown that willingness to be better.
(Perfect example of that is the failure to pass a bill making Roe v Wade the actual law of the land when they controlled the House, Senate and WH)

Sorry for being so long winded but I'm trying very hard to make the point that it's not about not supporting Democrats, it's about supporting Democrats that will fight to make real, material changes and hold Republicans accountable for everything they have done over the last 10 years.

[druidity33]

38. Thank you. Your response was better than mine would've been. nt

[Ziggy Beans]

39. Thank you

Democrats could win by 20+ points almost everywhere if they simply gave people a reason to vote for them. Democrats like Mamdani, Platner, and Talarico are showing everyone how to do it. Unfortunately, many Democrats—like Schumer and others in leadership—aren’t just ignoring this; they’re actively trying to defeat these Democrats with far less popular establishment centrists.

There are two generations of Americans who have zero interest in either party. They see both as weak, ineffective, or evil. Some in the party—like those I mentioned above—recognize this and are now running to bring these people back where they belong: as members of a Democratic Party they can be proud of.

Simply supporting Democrats without calling them out when they’re ineffective is exactly why Republicans continue to win

[Crunchy Frog]

6. He's not right for this period in our history, IMO. I'd be thrilled to be able to vote for someone else (Democratic).

[irisblue]

7. He is now 75, it is time for him to retire so younger women & men

can move into leadership.
Come.on Chuck, love your country more them your job and ego.

[LeftInTX]

8. If AOC wins his seat, she will not be senate minority or senate majority leader.

The senators elect their leader. They will elect a senior senator.

Here is the Democratic leadership. It will be likely be someone from this list.


In 2027, new leadership will be elected again. Durbin won't be there. If they don't elect Schumer, looks like it will be Klobacher, Booker or Warren. Minority/majority leader is a very procedural position. Whip is a very important job.

[bigtree]

9. the benefits to NY from a senior member of the Senate are immeasurable

...and the loss of that experienced and connected pol will be immediately and tragically noticed and experienced by New Yorkers.

None of the people who think he's some kind of Senate king in the Dem leadership that they're deposing will be affected by that loss. They don't care.

[LeftInTX]

12. Haven't heard much about Gillibrand lately...She would then be the senior senator from New York.

[SocialDemocrat61]

14. If Schumer retires in 28

yes, Gillibrand would be the senior senator from New York. But that wouldn’t put her in leadership. Being senior senator from a state is more of a ceremonial title.

[bigtree]

19. right

...great pol.

I know a lot of folks think Schumer is 'weak' and all of the other diatribes that people project, but he's one of the people that built the 'liberal' wing of the party and provided the Senate bulwark that shaped Democratic opposition to the modern republican party.

I don't know that Gillibrand is prepared to organize as broad a coalition of support, or more importantly, has the depth and breadth of experience crafting legislation out of the slim majorities they've been saddled with.

Principled obstinacy is a valuable attribute, but it doesn't usually move legislation. That's the kind of leader the Senate Dems will look for, and they will be just as accommodating of the consensus of the Dem caucus as every other Dem leader, and limited by the same political equations that Schumer has faced.

I doubt his leadership replacement will come from NY, so, much of that influence and connection to the Senate leadership is likely severed with him gone. What a shame that the Gaza folks that stirred up most of this opposition to Schumer are still protesting him and the Democrats, instead of Trump. i doubt they're taking any responsibility for the Senate leadership after Schumer (which they have zero control over except to blow up the Democratic leadership).

What a curiously counterproductive effort.

Btw, I'd expect Chuck to resign before he's voted out by the ne'er-do-wells.

[Fiendish Thingy]

16. Klobuchar is running for governor.

I’d like to see Chris Murphy, unless he’s got other plans…

[JustAnotherGen]

37. Dick Durbin is retiring

And Bernard Sanders should too. He's 80 this year.

[Coventina]

13. I keep reading "New York Dolls"

[bigtree]

21. lol

...dated.



I bought this in my teens. I saw through the androgyny as a put-on, but the lp was shit.

[SocialDemocrat61]

15. Schumer will be 78 in 28

Hopefully, he’ll retire at the end of his current term.

[Fiendish Thingy]

17. He will, one way or another. Nt

[Skittles]

33. like Bernie?

some people CANNOT give up power

[Fiendish Thingy]

18. He will retire in 2028

Whether by choice, or by losing the primary to AOC.

[bigtree]

20. by choice, I'd think

...I'd guess he'll also bow out of the leadership after the midterms.

[Fiendish Thingy]

23. Let's hope so. Nt

[bigtree]

24. I'm not one of the people obsessing on this as if he's some sort of obstacle to anything

...because he's just not.

[fujiyamasan]

22. I think this should allow for a gracious exit

He’s a decent man and public servant, but I’d rather see him stepping down from his seat rather than end up in a nasty primary fight with AOC. I really hope he steps down from leadership after the midterms. He’s not the right person for the job right now. He worked well with Biden as president because they spent most of their careers in a totally different era.

If he does step down, it will be an open primary and several others will likely throw their hat in. I wouldn’t be surprised if Hochul does too. There are plenty of others…

[bigtree]

26. it's funny how the 'new era' seems to be fraught with so much uncertainty and regression

...while his and Biden's 'era' was marked by historic, progressive legislative progress.

The new leaders will oversee an era of restoring all of those accomplishments to the level they were before so many of these same critics refused to show up and vote for a Democratic majority in an epic counterproductive protest; refused to show up to preserve and protect them .

If we're successful in the midterms, they will be governing in a political period that will certainly hope to match that past record of progressive progress that Biden and Schumer helped usher in; can only hope to advance the nation as far as those two leaders' generation did when they were in power.

[Joinfortmill]

27. 'You've got to know when to fold 'em..'

&list=RD7hx4gdlfamo&start_radio=1

'You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run'

[Pesky1]

29. No Tom Hagan now

We need a wartime consigliere. With maybe a Luca Brasi on his staff.

[Scrivener7]

31. He benefitted greatly from standing next to Nancy for so many years.