276
this post was submitted on 04 May 2026
276 points (98.3% liked)
politics
29658 readers
2780 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This implies Shitterman needs to be flipped.
The flip part has to do with who is senate leader, and all the powers that come with it.
Arguing over who gets to own the "Send more money to Israel" committee chairmanship
Let's get real. The power in the Senate isn't with the individual Senators, any more than the power in F-1 is with the drivers.
Individual Senators do have power when their peers are trying to pass something or prevent something.
That’s how Senator Lisa Murkowski (R), from Alaska, was able to get her state special concessions negotiated in order to pass the unfavorable OBB bill which was anything but beautiful.
The senate majority leader has a lot of procedural power.
Significantly less than the House Speaker, as a point of comparison. Also, the Majority Leader tends to be the Senator with the largest lifetime fundraising haul. When a Senator (like Cruz or Paul or Lee or Sanders) doesn't need the money to win reelection, they can get out-of-pocket very quickly.
Individual Committee Chairmen have significant power. And Majority Leader gets to nominate the Chairmen. But the future prospective Chairmen back the Majority Leader in exchange for the nominations. So it's a Chicken-Egg situation, where the real pull comes from electing more Senators to back you, not strong-arming them with procedure once everyone is sworn in.
One consequence of the Platner primary win in Maine is that he's personally at-odds with Schumer out of the gate. By contrast, both Schumer and Fetterman are nakedly Zionist. Platner is more of a threat to Schumer's future reclamation of Majority Leader than Fetterman, as a result.
He does if republicans have less than 51...
Like, that's how we decide which party gets actual leadership positions with power, and which party gets empty suits with no real duties.
If Fettermann caucus with Dems or Republicans, that really really fucking matters...
And it's depressing no one understands, like, this should just be shit everyone knows before they graduate highschool....
You're right, and I am aware of that. I was just using the opportunity to express disdain for Fetterman. The cynical part of me doesn't mind the omission because regardless of whoever is the leader the Republicans always seem to manage to get what they want these days. Although that's probably just a bias based on my frustrations and fixation on the bad they've managed to do, in no small part because of Perle like Fetterman.
That is more complex to express than fuck Shitterman though, so I went the lazy route.