this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2026
144 points (98.6% liked)

politics

31043 readers
1963 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Sen. Chuck Schumer strongly backed Abdul El-Sayed after the progressive candidate’s slim victory in the Michigan primary and vowed that the Democratic “big tent” approach to intraparty feuds will succeed in taking back the Senate in the fall midterms.

The Senate Democratic leader told Punchbowl News he is 100% behind the newly minted nominee, even though the party’s political operation backed rival Rep. Haley Stevens in a contentious primary that El-Sayed narrowly won this week.

“What people don’t understand is that a big tent is a strength, not a weakness,” Schumer said. “It’s how you build a majority.”

top 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ShredderFeeder@shredderfood.net 67 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Well, a step in the right direction... but Schumer still needs to retire already...

[–] emmanuel_car@fedia.io 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Isn’t he 75? At what age is it considered early retirement in the USA?

Edit: I read the above comment before I had my morning coffee, and saw “early” instead of “already”. Leaving this here because at this point 75 does seem like early retirement for US politicians.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

At what age is it considered early retirement in the USA?

Dead.

[–] SatansDaughter@quokk.au 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not even then I mean look at Mitch McConnel

[–] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 1 month ago
[–] FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

75 is when you're done being a junior contributor, another decade and Chuck will be ready to think about running for president

[–] aramis87@fedia.io 25 points 1 month ago

Fuck you, Schumer.

[–] Nobody@anarchist.nexus 22 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Obligatory fuck Schumer, but even for the crusty old guard corporate democrats, winning the majority is crucial. Once a progressive candidate clears the hurdle to make a challenge, they have to fall in line. It’s that slim and that uncertain.

At least for now. They’re likely planning to drown him in bribes if he wins and hope that moderates him.

[–] cantstopthesignal@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Dems getting control means that a couple of turn coats will get a payday.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Schumer's just trying to keep his job.

[–] Floon@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

This is obvious, which is why it mystifies me that performative progressives online aren't celebrating that they're taking over the Democratic Party. They're winning, but they still have to be all "neither party is pure enough for me" in posts.

Democratic Socialists are doing exactly what the Tea Party and then MAGA did to the GOP. Doesn't anyone think we'll all be better off without the Neoliberal DNC and with the DS DNC?

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oh, you mean the guy who has been lying about a fictional couple that he thinks about when he casts his votes? Yeah, I trust him 100%.

I don't know anything about this other than Schumer being a fraudulent asshole. Vote Socialist / Leftist. Fuck Dems. And if Schumer is right about this person / anything, it's by accident or a lie.

“What people don’t understand is that a big tent is a strength, not a weakness,” Schumer said.

Wow, Charlie. Nobody understood that until you explained it to us. What a fucking political thinker.

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

A fictional Republican couple.

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

All my homies hate Schumer.

[–] PRIMEcavitationfetishist@quokk.au 12 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Is there anyone who'd be upset if chuck drowned in his own piss?

[–] ikidd@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago

I'd be upset that it wasn't my piss.

[–] tmyakal@infosec.pub 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The Baileys would probably be discouraged.

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'd rather he were torn apart by wild dogs, but I'd settle for piss-drowning.

[–] PRIMEcavitationfetishist@quokk.au 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What if he drowned in their piss?

[–] FreddiesLantern@leminal.space 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Ah expanding from the cavitations I see. Most distinguished good sir.

Quite an assumption!

[–] ChetManly@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

He needs him to vote for him for senator majority leader. After that he will shit all over him.

[–] superglue@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I am hoping that anyone left of center finally learned their lesson from the last election. Vote with your heart in the primaries but come election time join hands with those closest to you and present a united front. Republicans are idiots but even they understand this. I voted for Sayed and I'm happy he won, but if it was Stevens I'd be getting behind her as well.

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

No more placeholder politicians Schumer.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 6 points 1 month ago

Well that's an unexpected bit of principle.

[–] Arcane2077@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

I’m worried about Democrats’ new (old) direction of not being the loser party. Who body-snatched Chuck?

[–] itsgroundhogdayagain@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

Chuck will fold once Trump calls him names again.

[–] poddus@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I'm glad that the shift towards more progressive politics is being accepted by the establishment. It just makes sense even from a purely rational view of "my side wins", and if that's what it takes to enable actual change then so be it, regardless of what kind of politician chuck is on his own right.

[–] Josey_Wales@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Chuck Schumer Eats Shit

Abdul El-Sayed’s victory is earthquake for Democratic Party old guard

KEN KLIPPENSTEIN

AUG 05, 2026