A petition calling on House Democrats not to support House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries as the next Speaker has hit 500,000 signatures, according to its creator.
It follows the Democrats’ dramatic midterm election victory that saw the party flip both the Senate and the House of Representatives, which will lead to a new Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House.
The petition, which labels Jeffries part of the “Democratic establishment,” suggests Democratic leaders are likely to remain under pressure from their party’s left-wing over both personal and policy choices. It was created by Nicole Whitted, an author and Democratic supporting social media creator with over 210,000 followers on TikTok.
For those who don’t want to give newsweek a click: https://www.change.org/p/house-democrats-choose-a-new-speaker
The petition for Jeffries to not be speaker already has more than 5x as many votes as Jeffries had to get elected
The House Speaker should be AOC. Jeffries will hinder the Democrats for 2028.
I support this, but I do want it settled quickly either way, not like the clusterfuck of infighting when the GOP had to pick a speaker.
Speaker of the House Battle Royale. Or Hunger Games. Same thing.
The original concept of change.org was that average folks could petition leaders with the backing of many people. You didn’t earn money from petition-creation efforts.
According to the petition, “Nicole Whitted is a Change Ambassador who receives compensation in connection with this petition.”
I found myself wondering what a “Change Ambassador” was, search said, "Ambassadors receive a flat advance payment plus performance-based compensation—often ranging from $0.30 to $0.50 per signature collected over a specified period.
It seems that as of 2024, change.org has become a way to earn a small fortune. If she gets 50 cents for each signature, and this one hit half a million signatures, then she just made $250,000.
I really need to get into grifting. It seems very profitable.
So this person made somewhere between $150-250k for posting this? How do I become a Change Ambassador?
e: You have to have a social following of >100k. You get an upfront payment based on audience size, then performance-based payouts for each petition on top of that.
But where does that moeny supposedly come from? Ads aren’t likely to generate that much per person signing.
I dunno. I could see campaigns being willing to pay a fair bit for a list of email addresses of people who care about a specific topic.
I didn’t know this was a thing, gross.
You also may not have realized that you would be on their email list for the rest of your life.
Filters and blocking takes care of 99% of my junk
My district is gerrymandered as fuck but I already contacted both senators saying Schmuck has gotta GO
I found one for the Senate also:
https://www.change.org/p/replace-chuck-schumer-as-senate-majority-leader
Get rid of all of the current Democratic leadership that have spent years being door mats.
Replace both the sellouts
If you’re going to do one thing, contact your Rep and Senator and tell them to change leadership. It’ll carry more weight than a change.org petition.
(Yes, I know that’s technically two things).
Can Mark Ruffalo be the speaker?
Yes, anyone can be nominated. It’s just always traditionally been a member of the House.
Change.org is really annoying to use. You can’t just sign. You gotta sign, then click through donations and share requests, then click an email link, then skip through more upsells, THEN finally you have signed.
And then they sell your data to every spam list imaginable.
Maybe it’s unlock origin but I just signed and that was it.
Oh yea then they recommend more petitions at the end.
Where do I sign?
Edit: never mind, found it and signed
I posted it!
Jeffries gotta go! Chuck the cuck gotta go! Fire Fetterman into the sun!
I’d say that Ro Khanna or Pramila Jayapal in terms of seniority and experience and proven progressive streak should become Speaker.
For US Senate, I see nobody better than Senator Sanders who is actually the visionary who helped set this all in motion, unlike Schumer. It’s a perfect role and way to cement his legacy in a substantive way.
For both these positions, age is less of an issue and more respect, experience, and understanding of chamber rules matter more.
Being the Senate majority leader requires a different skillset than retail campaigning. We need a progressive in that role, though, definitely, someone who will take risks and bend only when absolutely necessary.
You also don’t want to put any potential presidential candidates in there–legislators have a lot of exposure to attack ads by voting for bills they don’t 100% agree with but are worth the tradeoffs and a majority leader is going to have less freedom to vote No.
I feel this is exactly why Sanders is perfect for the role, though.
- He’s worked on bipartisan legislation
- He’s one of the most experienced, longest-serving members of Congress.
- He’s by definition “Independent”
- He is a visionary, and fulfills precisely what is entirely lacking by way of Schumer in lack of passion and willingness to fight.
The mere signal this would send to say that progressives are here to stay for the Democratic party would be massive alone.
That said I’m open to other suggestions, but the options are somewhat limited for experienced progressives who understand Senate rules and decorum and have relationships with much of the Senate.
He’s 85. We wouldn’t let an 85-year-old manage an Arby’s. I love Bernie, but we gotta get off the gerontocracy.
But he’s already a US Senator, repeatedly elected, and part of the most powerful chamber. The US Senate Majority Leader role is all about age and wisdom, frankly and little different than the duties he’s already fulfilling effectively.
I can see this concern for the President, but in this case if the worst happens, Dems can just appoint someone else. It’s Low Risk / High Reward.
The real question is: What can you point to that has shown his age with respect to cognition or position on current-events?
The second question: If not him, then who?
He’s 85 years old. It’s safe to assume cognitive decline. We let people retire at 67 without an exam, and we should be able to retire our legislators the same way.
The real question is: What can you point to that has shown his age with respect to cognition or position on current-events?
Pretty much everything he’s ever said about the AI bubble. He’s either drunk the fearmonger Kool Aid or some awful staffers. Either way, he’s dropped the ball entirely, up to going on stage with Steve Fucking Bannon to talk about a sci-fi concept that has nothing to do with LLM tech or the real stakes of the bubble. It’s been an awful show of face for him.
going on stage with Steve Fucking Bannon
I take issue with the way one framed this. It feels disingenuous.
He did not go on stage “with” Steve Bannon; he had a speech on the same stage that Bannon gave a speech on at the same event, detailing mutual if not tangential concerns about AI and its effect son humanity. That seems completely different than seemingly trying to imply they’re buddies or something.
Seems that while Bernie may be overextending the capacity for AI to be fluidly intelligent, I actually think he and his advisors are threading the needle very effectively in saying that, “Hey look, we know AI in some shape or form is likely here to stay. If it is, then it should be regulated, perhaps nationalized, and in the hands of public interests to be used for good – like combating disinformation or pursing advancements in healthcare, etc.”
Overall, across all issues, I think he and his team are pretty much on-point, and splitting hairs on AI is maybe a rare exception, not the norm – and certainly not an indication of declining cognitive capacity or age. But again, since our options are limited to 100 US Senators and non-freshman generally, I’m very curious who one believes the better pick would be.
You’re right. I love Bernie, but he’s not a strategic thinker.
The current moment owes almost everything to Bernie’s first major campaign ten years ago, but he’s made some pretty big blunders recently. Going on stage with Steve Bannon to fearmonger about rogue AI, a complete sci-fi concept, WTF?
No real shade. He’s old, no one can turn the wheel forever and eventually someone’s gotta keep the momentum moving, and that’s exactly what I think has happened to Sanders.
Strategic aka always bending to the Republicans?
Progressives don’t have enough clout yet to choose the speaker. A lot of the people who just won new seats are conservative to moderate Democrats.
At this point I just want a fighter who’s going to go after maga. I’m pretty progressive but we need to be realistic about how Congress actually works.
