Monday, November 9, 2026
'62% of Israelis dissatisfied with election results'
JPPI poll finds that of 10 scenarios, only a government of Likud, Yashar, Beyachad and Yisrael Beytenu is not rejected by a majority of respondents. Opposition-bloc including haredi parties receives support of just 3%.
A majority of Israelis are dissatisfied with the election results, but the available options for forming a new government also face widespread public opposition.
The Israeli Society Index, conducted by the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI) following the elections, found that of 10 possible coalition configurations examined, only one is not rejected by a majority of respondents: a government comprising Likud, Yashar, Beyachad and Yisrael Beytenu, which together hold 67 Knesset seats.
Even that option faces significant political obstacles, as it would require cooperation between Likud and parties that pledged before the elections not to join a government with it.
According to the November index, 51% of all Israelis and 57% of Jewish respondents would not rule out a coalition of the four parties. The proposed center-right government would exclude the haredi parties, Otzma Yehudit, Religious Zionism and the Arab parties. The survey did not examine who would lead such a government.
The findings also reveal widespread dissatisfaction with the election results. Nearly two-thirds of Israelis, 62%, said they were dissatisfied, compared with 33% who expressed satisfaction. Among Jewish respondents, dissatisfaction reached 73%, including 44% who were "not very satisfied" and 29% who were "not satisfied at all." Only 2% described themselves as "very satisfied."
The picture was reversed among Arab respondents, 75% of whom expressed satisfaction with the results, including 37% who said they were very satisfied. The results come against the backdrop of the Arab parties' record electoral strength and the outgoing coalition's loss of its Knesset majority.
Despite the differences in satisfaction levels, a large majority viewed the election as highly consequential. Seventy-five percent agreed that the vote was a pivotal event that would significantly affect the country's future, for better or worse. Meanwhile, 19% said the results would not substantially change their personal lives.
The difficulty in forming a new government stems from the fact that neither bloc has the numbers to establish a coalition while honoring all its pre-election commitments.
It's official: Eisenkot receives mandate to form Israel’s next government
On Sunday, Israeli President Isaac Herzog tasked Yashar! party leader Gadi Eiskenot with forming a government. The ceremony took place at the President’s Residence in Jerusalem.
"Upon receiving the official results of the elections for the 26th Knesset, I set about fulfilling the task assigned to me by Section 7 of Basic Law: The Government, and held consultations with the representatives of all the factions elected to the Knesset," Herzog began. "These conversations were conducted with openness, candor, and transparency, and they represented the essential nature of the democratic process."
"They also brought to the surface the disputes, the painful points, and of course, the multitude of voices within Israeli society and politics. They were frank and pointed conversations, addressing the most important issues of this time. And they reminded us all that every citizen of Israel has an equal voice, from every side, every view, every way of life, and every faith. I once again thank all the faction representatives who took part in the consultations."
He added, "As I noted at the conclusion of the consultations on Thursday evening, the representatives of factions totaling sixty-seven members elected to the 26th Knesset recommended Yashar Leader Gadi Eisenkot to receive the mandate, while the representatives of factions totaling forty-six members of Knesset recommended the Prime Minister and Likud Leader, Benjamin Netanyahu. The representatives of one faction of seven members of Knesset chose to refrain from recommending any candidate."
"In light of this, and following talks I have held with various figures in recent days, it is therefore evident that Mr. Eisenkot has received the clear and unequivocal support of a majority of Members of Knesset on the most central question: who has the better chance of forming the next government that will win the confidence of the Knesset.
"Therefore, by virtue of my authority under Basic Law: The Government, I have decided to task the Leader of the Yashar party, Lieutenant General (res.) Gadi Eisenkot, with forming a government."
Herzog emphasized, "I am well aware that Likud is the largest faction in the incoming Knesset. I noted this during the consultations as well. However, both on the basis of the facts I have set out, and on the basis of clear precedents set by my predecessors, who in several cases tasked the leader of a party that was not the largest with forming the government, I have decided, as I said, to task Gadi Eisenkot with forming a government."
Sponsors Drop Jennifer Welch’s Podcast After Hosts Laugh at Charlie Kirk Joke
The Nov. 5 episode, titled “Drinking MAGA Tears,” featured the hosts reading posts celebrating Democratic midterm election results. Welch read one that said, “We’re digging up Charlie Kirk and doing it again.” Both hosts then laughed for roughly 20 to 30 seconds before saying “No comment.” They later asserted that Kirk’s accused killer came from a “super MAGA family” or was “a MAGA person,” claims that have not been substantiated by public evidence.
Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA, was fatally shot on Sept. 10, 2025, while speaking at an event at Utah Valley University.
Cash App posted on X on Friday: “We do not condone violence of any kind, and we are no longer sponsors of this podcast.” Chewy stated it does not sponsor or support the show, “unequivocally condemn[s] violence in all forms,” and that the hosts’ comments do not reflect its values. Boll & Branch said it “does not currently advertise with the ‘I’ve Had It’ podcast and will not in the future.” Lola Blankets confirmed it no longer works with the podcast.
Clips of the exchange spread rapidly on social media, prompting calls for boycotts of the sponsors. Additional companies, including Zenni Optical, have also paused or ended advertising, according to reports.
On Saturday, Welch and Sullivan posted an apology on the podcast’s Instagram account: “On Thursday’s show, we laughed at a joke about Charlie Kirk. It was an insensitive joke, and we should not have laughed. We regret it, and we apologize. Whatever our political differences, there is nothing funny about gun violence.” They said they donated to Everytown for Gun Safety and would continue advocating for gun safety reform. The segment has been edited out of the episode.
Sunday, November 8, 2026
Frieda Vizel Interviews an ex Satmar girl that married a Non-Jew and she is surprised that her followers are "outraged"
Frieda Vizel seems to fancy herself an amateur anthropologist, yet she often appears to have little understanding of the underlying values, sensitivities, and social dynamics that shape cultures and communities, including the one she grew up in.
I have spoken about her in previous posts
She recently expressed surprise at the backlash she received for posting an interview with Gittel Schwartz, a former Satmar woman who left her community, married a non-Jew, and had a child with him.
What seems to baffle Frieda is that the criticism did not come only from religious Jews. Even many secular Jews found the interview and the way it was presented troubling.
Right from the start, Frieda, who is usually an engaging and insightful commentator, manages to be remarkably irritating by repeatedly pronouncing Gittel's name as "Ge'tell."
What is that about? Is she deliberately trying to make Gittel's name sound more non-Jewish or more palatable to her largely non-Jewish audience? If so, the choice comes across as contrived and unnecessarily dismissive of the name's authentic Yiddish pronunciation.
I would suggest that before Frieda studies anthropology, she spend some time studying Jewish history.
Does she know about the Crusades, when entire Jewish communities were massacred by Christian mobs with extraordinary brutality?
Does she know that Jews were expelled from England in 1290, from Spain in 1492, and from Portugal in 1496, simply because they were Jews?
Does she know about the Chmielinski massacres of 1648-1649, when tens of thousands of Jews were murdered during the Cossack uprising in Ukraine and Poland-Lithuania? In Jewish historical memory, these events are remembered as one of the greatest catastrophes to befall the Jewish people before the Holocaust.
Does she know about the Uman Massacre of 1768, when thousands of Jews were slaughtered during the Haidamak uprising? Or the Odessa Pogrom of 1821, often cited as the first anti-Jewish outbreak to be described as a "pogrom"?
And that's only the beginning. I could go on and on.
Any Jew, whether religious or secular, who has even a basic understanding of Jewish history can understand why many people would be deeply troubled by content that appears to normalize or celebrate assimilation. Given the long history of persecution, expulsions, massacres, and the constant struggle to preserve Jewish identity, such reactions should hardly come as a surprise.
Jews make up 0.2% of the world's population, when we lose one single Jew, every Jew religious or secular that has even an inkling of their beautiful rich heritage is pained and mourns that loss, because that Jew is now lost forever amongst the rest of the 8,3 billion people worldwide. And even though Gittel's child is halachically Jewish, the chances of this child marrying Jewish, hovers around zero percent!
What Frieda Vizel and Gittel (Nelson) Schwartz seem not to understand is a simple truth: actions have consequences. When you publicly promote ideas or life choices that many Jews view as undermining Jewish continuity, you should not be shocked when people respond with criticism or outrage.
"Gi-TEL" not only turned her back on her family and the values they hold sacred, but also chose to leave her people, her faith and heritage behind. By marrying outside the faith, she broke a chain of tradition that stretches back more than 3,500 years. Yet she appears perplexed that her relatives want no involvement with her child.
"Gi-TEL" made a personal decision based on what she believed was best for herself, and now she is facing the consequences; her own family made a decision that they believe is best for them.
Liberman Rules Out Arab-Backed Government, Opens Door to Ultra-Orthodox Compromise
Liberman Rules Out Arab-Backed Government, Opens Door to Ultra-Orthodox Compromise
Yisrael Beytenu chairman Avigdor Liberman says he will not support a government dependent on Ra'am or the Joint List, while signaling willingness to negotiate with Ultra-Orthodox parties.
Liberman proposed using his 2018 military draft legislation as a starting point for new agreements, with adjustments reflecting the aftermath of October 7.
He also called for greater benefits for soldiers and reservists, arguing that political compromise does not mean abandoning his principles.
Have you ever wondered why "torah is not protecting" the Bnei-Brak Teirah protestors
Mystery has finally been solved. Why is it that the Bnei-teira in Bnei Brak have been arrested for evading the draft, and their Teira isn't doing a thing to protect them?
What is going on?
It seems that the gemarra in Gittin 57b states that the grandchildren of Haman will be learning Torah in Bnei Brak!
Now it all makes sense!
"מבני בניו של המן למדו תורה בבני ברק"
Meet The Reform Lady Rabbi That Rav Landau will sit with should he Join Eisenkot's Government
by Chaim Shaulzon
Translated
It is reported that Anna Kislansky, the director general of the Reform Movement, who replaced Gilad Kariv in the movement, has been notified of her expected appointment as director general of the Ministry of Religious Affairs in the government of change.
The minister designated for the Ministry of Religious Affairs, who was promised by Eisenkot, will be, as mentioned, MK Gilad Kariv.
With his appointment, Minister Kariv intends to abolish the religious councils and work to establish religious departments in any municipality that wishes to establish such a department. Gilad Kariv also plans to appoint a rabbi or rabbi from the movement in each city that becomes available.
If it is not enough for Charedim to understand that they are in trouble, and that the establishment of a left-wing government means a war against the Torah of Israel, that will change everything, and turn the rabbinate into Reform, then elect female rabbis to serve as chief rabbis.,
Anyone who makes an agreement on the "conscription law" and forgets about the leftist reality whose goal is to eradicate the Torah of Israel is a true criminal.
And to put it more calmly, he doesn't realize what he's doing
A leftist government means the destruction of religion in Israel, and if there are those who think that as soon as they can, they won't change the conscription law and force yeshiva students to serve in the secular army again, a blind person is not familiar with Israel's political reality
JD Vance sold Trump out after the midterm shellacking — it’s time to cut him off
Following the Democrats’ extraordinary rout in the midterm elections, it was inevitable that the Trump White House would react with finger-pointing and an off-with-their-heads approach to staff changes.
And so it has, and there is certainly more bloodletting to come. My only quibble is that the first person thrown overboard is the wrong person.
Instead of removing the capable and loyal Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and replacing her with the combative Stephen Miller, President Trump should have fired Vice President JD Vance.
Unfortunately, he can’t under the Constitution because Vance was elected and is not an appointed staff member or a Senate-confirmed Cabinet secretary.
Still, Vance’s decision to wave the white flag of surrender early Wednesday morning was a breathtaking breach of loyalty.
It was also political weakness writ large. For once, Trump has been too kind in his noncommittal response.
In a long statement on X, Vance shamefully tried to separate himself from the stalemate in Iran and the elections. He offered absolutely no defense of the Trump-Vance administration’s policies and decision-making.
He failed to mention what Trump repeatedly says about the war. To wit, that the goal was and is to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, which it had vowed to use against Israel and the United States.
Does Vance instead favor the approach that Dems Barack Obama and Joe Biden pursued for 12 years, which was to bribe the mad mullahs with cash and lift sanctions while accepting that the infusion of dollars would be shared with regional terror proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah?
Saturday, November 7, 2026
DIN's Musings Parshas Chaya Sarah
I was listening to the Baal Korah reading the parsha this week and suddenly I had an epiphany !
Let me explain;
The Torah for the very first time introduces us to Lavan, Rivka's brother!
Then I listened carefully how Lavan expresses himself.
I studied this parsha hundreds of time but it was today that I suddenly had to look again and make sure I wasn't dreaming.
Lavan talks like a tzaddik, there is absolutely no indication from this parsha that Lavan is a fraudster and a very evil guy.
וַיֹּ֕אמֶר בּ֖וֹא בְּר֣וּךְ יְהֹוָ֑ה לָ֤מָּה תַעֲמֹד֙ בַּח֔וּץ
וַיַּ֨עַן לָבָ֤ן וּבְתוּאֵל֙ וַיֹּ֣אמְר֔וּ מֵיְהֹוָ֖ה יָצָ֣א הַדָּבָ֑ר לֹ֥א נוּכַ֛ל דַּבֵּ֥ר אֵלֶ֖יךָ רַ֥ע אוֹ־טֽוֹב
הִנֵּֽה־רִבְקָ֥ה לְפָנֶ֖יךָ קַ֣ח וָלֵ֑ךְ וּתְהִ֤י אִשָּׁה֙ לְבֶן־אֲדֹנֶ֔יךָ כַּאֲשֶׁ֖ר דִּבֶּ֥ר יְהֹוָֽה
What is the message here?
I found the same thing later in Parshas Balak when the Torah relates the story of Ballam!
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֲלֵיהֶ֗ם לִ֤ינוּ פֹה֙ הַלַּ֔יְלָה וַהֲשִׁבֹתִ֤י אֶתְכֶם֙ דָּבָ֔ר כַּאֲשֶׁ֛ר יְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֵלָ֑י
יֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אֶל־שָׂרֵ֣י בָלָ֔ק לְכ֖וּ אֶֽל־אַרְצְכֶ֑ם כִּ֚י מֵאֵ֣ן יְהֹוָ֔ה לְתִתִּ֖י לַהֲלֹ֥ךְ עִמָּכֶֽם׃
אִם־יִתֶּן־לִ֥י בָלָ֛ק מְלֹ֥א בֵית֖וֹ כֶּ֣סֶף וְזָהָ֑ב לֹ֣א אוּכַ֗ל לַעֲבֹר֙ אֶת־פִּי֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהָ֔י לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת קְטַנָּ֖ה א֥וֹ גְדוֹלָֽה
וְעַתָּ֗ה שְׁב֨וּ נָ֥א בָזֶ֛ה גַּם־אַתֶּ֖ם הַלָּ֑יְלָה וְאֵ֣דְעָ֔ה מַה־יֹּסֵ֥ף יְהֹוָ֖ה דַּבֵּ֥ר עִמִּֽי׃
הַדָּבָ֗ר אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָשִׂ֧ים אֱלֹהִ֛ים בְּפִ֖י אֹת֥וֹ אֲדַבֵּֽר׃
אוּלַ֞י יִקָּרֵ֤ה יְהֹוָה֙ לִקְרָאתִ֔י וּדְבַ֥ר מַה־יַּרְאֵ֖נִי וְהִגַּ֣דְתִּי לָ֑ךְ
הֲלֹ֗א אֵת֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָשִׂ֤ים יְהֹוָה֙ בְּפִ֔י אֹת֥וֹ אֶשְׁמֹ֖ר לְדַבֵּֽר׃
הֲלֹ֗א דִּבַּ֤רְתִּי אֵלֶ֙יךָ֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר כֹּ֛ל אֲשֶׁר־יְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהֹוָ֖ה אֹת֥וֹ אֶֽעֱשֶֽׂה׃
What is going on?
I came to the conclusion that just because someone has the Name of Hashem constantly on his lips and talks about Hashem constantly, doesn't make him a Tzaddik, he can be a Rasha as well!
Another thought:
Last week one of the commentors, a Charedie, described Judea & Samaria as the "west bank"!
Now I know that many Jews, even Frum, Shoimrei Torah Umitzvois describe Judea & Samaria with the Jordanian term "west bank" They do this to minimize the importance of Judea & Samaria and are willing even to have Palestinians have a State there chas ve'sholom!
Yes.... Frum Jews like last week's commentator believe that!
However listening to the Baal Korah reading Parshas Chaya Sarah, written over 3,500 years ago, should disabuse all Jews, any of those thoughts.
For the very first time in Jewish History we hear about a Jew buying land!
The Torah dedicated over 16 pesukim to this real estate deal!
Where did this take place?????
It took place in Chevron, a place where this Charedie , a Yeshiva graduate describes as the "west bank"!
The second place the Torah describes a Jew buying land was in Shechem, Yaakov bought that for his son Yosef, and Shechem is in where this farfrumte Charedie described as the "west bank" !
וַאֲנִ֞י נָתַ֧תִּֽי לְךָ֛ שְׁכֶ֥ם אַחַ֖ד עַל־אַחֶ֑יךָ אֲשֶׁ֤ר לָקַ֙חְתִּי֙ מִיַּ֣ד הָֽאֱמֹרִ֔י
24:32 In Yehoshua
וְאֶת־עַצְמ֣וֹת י֠וֹסֵ֠ף אֲשֶׁר־הֶעֱל֨וּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֥ל ׀ מִמִּצְרַ֘יִם֮ קָבְר֣וּ בִשְׁכֶם֒ בְּחֶלְקַ֣ת הַשָּׂדֶ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֨ר קָנָ֧ה יַעֲקֹ֛ב מֵאֵ֛ת בְּנֵי־חֲמ֥וֹר אֲבִֽי־שְׁכֶ֖ם בְּמֵאָ֣ה קְשִׂיטָ֑ה וַיִּֽהְי֥וּ לִבְנֵֽי־יוֹסֵ֖ף לְנַחֲלָֽה׃
There is yet a third place the Torah describes a Jew buying land in Eretz Yisrael, and that is Dovid Hamelech buying the threshing floor from Araunah the Jebusite, that piece of land ultimately became the site of the Bais Hamikdash.
Where was that?
That was in East Yerushlayim described as the "west bank"by a Charedie, Yeshivishe graduate!
Judea & Sameria is Eretz Yisrael proper! There are now over 750,000 Jews living there.
Every Jews has an obligation to buy land in Israel, yes! in the "west bank"
Even on Shabbos!! Yes you heard that right, if a Jew finds out on Shabbos that a goy is selling land in the "west bank" he can hire a lawyer and instruct the goy to write up a contract on Shabbos!! There isn't a posik that argues with this halacha!
That is how important it is to populate Jews in Eretz Yisrael! That is why the "settlers" are so important and so vital to the future of the Jewish presence as a majority in Israel!
The Ramban says that the pasuk in Bamidbar 33:53
והורשתם את הארץ וישבתם בה
"You shall conquer the land and dwell in it"
Is a mitzvas esseh deoriisah, in the here and now, and he adds
לרשת הארץ....ולא נעזבה ביד זולתנו מן האומות או לששמה
"To inherit (possess) the Land... and not leave it in the hands of other nations or desolate! "
This applies to the "west bank" which is Eretz Yisrael "lechol ha'deis
What is interesting to point out is that the entire Tanach takes place in what this Charedie calls the "west bank" !
I did a search in AI to find out what the New testament calls this area;
I found this in Acts 1:8
"and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.""
So here we have a Charedie Jew disparaging this vital and integral part of Eretz Yisrael calling it by a made up name .."west bank" yet even Christians refer to it as Judea & Samaria!
Go figure!
Liberman about face 'We'll compromise on Draft Law and sit with the haredi parties'
Yisrael Beytenu chairman Avigdor Liberman has signaled a significant shift in his approach to coalition negotiations, making clear that he is prepared to compromise even on the military conscription law in order to establish a government that will bring Benjamin Netanyahu's tenure to an end.
In a post published Friday morning on X, Liberman warned against establishing a minority government that would rely on abstentions by Ra'am and the Joint List, declaring that Yisrael Beytenu would vote against such a government.
Under the headline "We Must Prevent the Destruction of the Third Temple," Liberman called on the leaders of the anti-Netanyahu bloc to reconsider their political strategy.
"The election results require all of us to recalculate our course and understand that we have no good alternatives or magic solutions," he wrote.
According to Liberman, the decisions made in the coming period must take the long-term consequences into account, while drawing lessons from previous political moves.
He warned that "a minority government will survive for a much shorter period, and when it comes to an end, we will get Netanyahu back with 70 Knesset seats for another four years. From there, the road to the destruction of the Third Temple will be short."
Liberman clarified that, from his perspective, there are three principles that must not be compromised.
"Ending the Netanyahu era, preventing another election, and opposing a government that would depend on abstentions by Ra'am and the Joint List."
Alongside these red lines, the Yisrael Beytenu chairman expressed a willingness to show flexibility on several issues that had previously been at the center of political disputes, foremost among them the military conscription law.
"On all other issues, it is permissible and desirable to show flexibility and compromise, and to understand that if you try to grasp too much, you end up with nothing," he wrote.
"This includes the issue of the conscription law. It pains me, and I know it pains many others as well. But in light of the many challenges we face today, the national interest of the State of Israel and the Jewish people must take precedence over every other consideration."
Later in the post, Liberman also addressed reports and speculation regarding the possibility of a rotational agreement for the premiership.
He denied having held discussions on the subject and expressed his fundamental opposition to an arrangement in which two leaders divide the prime minister's term between them.
"I haven't spoken to anyone about the subject, not even myself," he wrote.
"I believe that the rotation mechanism, from the days of Shamir and Peres until today, is a harmful mechanism that undermines the proper governance of the country and must become a thing of the past."
According to Liberman, "We must make every possible effort to establish a coalition of 61 Knesset members, without the Joint List and Ra'am."
"After it is established, there is a high probability that another three or four Knesset members from Likud could be brought into the coalition," he concluded.
Friday, November 6, 2026
Senate Democrats Will Not Let Trump Put A ‘Right-winger’ On The Supreme Court, Schumer Vows
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer is vowing that Democrats will not allow President Donald Trump to put “a right-winger” on the Supreme Court once they take power, raising the possibility that his party could block a presidential nominee if there is a vacancy in the next two years.
In an interview with The Associated Press on Thursday, Schumer would not say if he would hold a Supreme Court vacancy open until after the next presidential election, as former Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell did in 2016. But he said that Democrats are “not going to allow any crappy nominees” to be confirmed to the Supreme Court — or to the lower courts or Trump’s Cabinet, either.
“The bottom line is we’re not going to allow a right-winger on the court,” Schumer said.
Schumer’s pledge came two days after Democrats won a decisive Senate majority in the midterm elections — a feat few predicted a year ago, when Schumer was facing intense criticism from progressives within his party and Senate Republicans were betting that a favorable map and backing from Trump would help them keep power.
While there is still frustration with Schumer in some corners of the party, the New Yorker is expected to easily be reelected as leader by his caucus after leading them to wins in Republican-leaning states across the country. Democrats could have as many as 56 seats in the Senate if they win Mississippi and Alaska, which still have not been called — “a durable majority,” Schumer predicts, that has been 20 years in the making as he has been directly or indirectly in charge of his party’s Senate campaign operation.
With so many seats, Schumer is betting that “it’s not just a flip of the Senate once.” And the party will have the power not only to reject any of Trump’s nominees, forcing him to seek more moderate choices, but also to halt the Iran war and alter policies that they have been unable to counter in the minority.
Navigating divided government, Schumer says focus will be on costs
Schumer says the party’s agenda will center around lowering prices, along with five issues that they have focused on in the minority — healthcare, housing, Trump’s tariffs, childcare and lowering energy bills. He has said Democrats will try to ban federal elected officials from stock trades, and limit consumer costs from data center expansion.
Democrats also want to investigate Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids across the country and scrutinize the Trump administration, which he says is the “most corrupted administration by far in American history.”
But Schumer would not get into specifics, or how he plans to get around Trump — who posted a picture of a red hat with the word “veto” in large letters on election night.
Beyond Trump, Schumer will also have to navigate his own caucus, including progressives who have criticized him and incoming freshman who won red states and would not commit to supporting him for leader during their campaigns. And to pass any legislation, he will still have to win Republican support as well.
He predicts that Republicans will suffer more losses “and keep following Trump over the cliff” if they don’t work with Democrats in a bipartisan way.
But that will not be easy. Schumer would not say if he would try and eliminate the filibuster, which he tried and failed to do when he was majority leader during President Joe Biden’s term, to allow Democrats to pass legislation with a simple majority instead of 60 votes.
“The focus has got to be on getting things done,” he says. “That’s all I am saying.”
Asked if he would support a third Trump impeachment after Trump was impeached and acquitted twice during his first term, Schumer responds that he would support an impeachment of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, an effort that House lawmakers have already launched.
And Trump? “That’s up to the House,” Schumer said.
Election wins two decades in the making
Schumer first led his party’s campaign arm in the 2006 cycle and has had a hand in every election since then, with mixed results.
He attributes this year’s wins to good candidates and a focus on local issues in Republican states — the effect of Trump’s tariffs on farms in Iowa, where Democrat Josh Turek won, Trump’s war with Canada in Maine, where Democrat Troy Jackson beat Republican Sen. Susan Collins, and data centers in Ohio, where former Sen. Sherrod Brown won after losing his seat two years ago to Republican Sen. Bernie Moreno.
Still, the party’s focus on lowering costs was “a message that resonated everywhere,” he says. “That’s a big difference than in the past.”
The Democrats who won were not all his recruits — in Michigan, Democrat Abdul El-Sayed represents the progressive wing of the party and beat Schumer’s original choice for the seat, Haley Stevens, in the primary. But Schumer poured $67 million into that race to help El-Sayed and the two “talk regularly,” he said.
Schumer’s future is unclear
Even with his winning record this year, it is still unclear how long he will stay in power — and how long the party will support him as some call for a new generation of leadership. He is up for reelection in 2028, and he won’t say if he’ll run again for a sixth term.
“I’m focused on 2027,” said Schumer, who became the party’s Senate leader in 2015.
Senators in his caucus are sticking by him, but many are also agitating for change as they enter a new era of power.
Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a potential contender for the 2028 presidential nomination who has not committed to supporting Schumer, said in an interview with the AP on Wednesday that Democrats need to have an “open and honest discussion” about the next leader.
Vermont Sen. Peter Welch said in a separate interview that Schumer “has to adjust and open things up and take into account the criticism of our efforts.”
Still, Welch said, there’s no indication of a leadership challenge. “Schumer did an incredible job on this campaign,” he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)