CBC pushes back on Slotkin's call for 'new leadership' among Democrats

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: The Hill

06/27/26 11:32 AM ET


The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) expressed its support for House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) on Friday evening in response to Sen. Elissa Slotkin’s (D-Mich.) call for “new leadership” in the Democratic Party.

“The Congressional Black Caucus and House Democrats are united behind Leader Jeffries and remain focused on lowering costs for working families, defending our democracy, protecting fundamental rights, and taking back the House majority this November — not engaging in distractions that only serve to divide Democrats at a moment when unity and resolve are essential,” CBC Chair Yvette D. Clarke (D-N.Y.) and former chairs, Reps. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.) and Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), said in a joint statement shared on social media.

During a Wednesday appearance on SiriusXM’s “Straight Shooter” podcast, Slotkin discussed the debate over a “path forward” for Democrats. “That’s why I believe we need significant new leadership,” the Democratic senator told host Stephen A. Smith. “The old models are no longer working, and that includes the Democratic Party.”

The CBC criticized Slotkin’s comments and cited her record of voting to approve multiple members of President Trump’s Cabinet, including former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. “Before attempting to weigh in on House Democratic leadership, Senator Slotkin should account for her own role in enabling a racist administration whose policies have caused profound harm to the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Black communities that we represent,” the CBC said in their statement.

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5943837-congressional-black-caucus-elissa-slotkin-democratic-party-rhetoric/

---

REFERENCE - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143685225

[bob4460]

1. She is right we need new leadership!

[creeksneakers2]

3. The last thing we need now is to go to war with ourselves.

[luv2fly]

11. Comical at best

Particularly given the language often used to condemn those you disagree with.

[creeksneakers2]

16. What do you think I should call the people

Who got rid of a five term incumbent and replaced him with this person?

Darializa Avila Chevalier, a democratic socialist congressional candidate endorsed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, deleted a previous Twitter account that included thousands of posts and reposts expressing support for abolishing police, prisons and borders, as well as seizing private property and nationalizing major industries and calling into question Israel’s right to exist.

Avila Chevalier criticized police, Israel and Democratic politicians, a CNN KFile review of hundreds of deleted posts and reposts found ones that called for abolishing police, prisons and borders; tweets about communism; calls for open borders and zero deportations; and expletive-laden attacks on Democrats.

[luv2fly]

17. What I think you should call engaged voters is irrelevant.

Oh hey, there's one... "engaged voters" exercising their right to vote for the person they choose to best represent them. You know... "Democracy."

[creeksneakers2]

19. The choice was remarkably unwise.

[luv2fly]

22. Roughly 33,000 people feel differently n/t

[creeksneakers2]

24. In NYC

How about what they've done to everybody else?

Have you noticed that Democrats were winning lots of off year elections? Even in red areas? There's a good reason why. Republicans were unmotivated and weren't showing up. Their turnout was way down.

But now the "democratic socialists" have given Trump and the Fascists an incredible gift. The GOP is going to go all out from now on saying Democrats are communists. Most people don't know the difference between a communist and a democratic socialist. MAGAs especially don't. You can bet they start coming out of the woodwork though to prevent communism. This fiasco is going to give the GOP millions of votes. And on top of that they'll have this lady to talk about who doesn't believe in police or borders.

And what will anybody get in return? The democratic socialists aren't going to see any of their agenda passed into law as long as Trump has veto power. So this is all for nothing on our side.

Its surely nothing to be happy about.

[Cobalt Violet]

35. They've been calling Dems communist for decades.

Yawn.

[Cobalt Violet]

53. not true.

[creeksneakers2]

54. How can you deny it?

The people in NYC are calling themselves democratic socialists. Most people don't know what the difference is between a communist and a democratic socialist is. MAGAs especially don't.

Have you heard we've won a string of off year elections and many of them in red districts? Why? Because the right was very unmotivated and their turnouts were terrible. Trump and the Fascists have been desperate for something to motivate them. Mamdani and his followers just gave them an enormous gift.

MAGAs will come out of the woodwork to vote to stop communism. This will bump up their turnout by millions. And for what? Trump will veto anything from the democratic socialist agenda. All this harm is for absolutely nothing.

[JustAnotherGen]

40. She's one of the

100K Democratic Socialist America Party members in the USA. They are heavily concentrated in urban areas. They can't win in Purple districts so they they run as Dems in Primaries. They win the nomination.

If she doesn't want to end up like Cori Bush - she's going to have to work with others, sometimes across the aisle to enact meaningful legislation.

There are a lot of people who hate the Democratic Party - and never ever attack the Magapubs. They pay lip service to them. Folks - you aren't getting Magapub votes. They need to stop and lean into the Base.

[angrychair]

50. Why?

Especially over the last several years when I hear "bipartisan" I automatically know it's not worth the paper it's written on because whatever good thing Democrats were trying to achieve was allowed to become so watered down it has become worthless.
When that is pointed out, the excuse is always the same, "we are making progress" or "baby steps, it will eventually get better" but it never does.
Republicans don't compromise. It's very evident that Republicans are getting everything they want, while Democratic voters just get excuses.

Cori Bush didn't lose because she was a progressive, she was demonized and had millions of dollars spent against her by AIPAC and got very little support from Democratic leadership.
Same reason Jasmine Crockett lost the Senate race in Texas, because leadership wanted a white man to win that race.

I imagine we have seen the last time Democratic Party leadership will ever allow anyone but a white male to run for president.
There are people pushing our Party more and more to the right every single day in some insane attempt to court Republican voters. That was blatantly obvious in the Harris run for office.
She was running around holding hands with Liz fucking Cheney, publicly praising the war criminal Dick Cheney and demonizing progressives and barring them from speaking at the convention.

What did that get us?

It got us the current government we have now. That is what it got us.

Demonizing progressives is only going to suppress voter turnout again. So unless we want president Rubio, I suggest we start supporting Democrats and stop kissing Republican asses.

[creeksneakers2]

52. Are they democrats?

[angrychair]

55. Not sure I understand your question

But progressives are Democrats. Democratic Socialists of America are Democrats. Not sure what you mean by asking the question your asking.

[creeksneakers2]

20. Its relevant to your complaint about my language.

[luv2fly]

23. You prefer "progressive loonies," yeah we know n/t

[creeksneakers2]

25. I'm backing off some because

Some don't want the truth out and are alerting on me.

They said I'm giving right wing talking points. Ridiculous.

[Cha]

27. No she's Not! Look to herself for her votes for

PEDO's cabinet~

The CBC criticized Slotkin’s comments and cited her record of voting to approve multiple members of President Trump’s Cabinet, including former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. “Before attempting to weigh in on House Democratic leadership, Senator Slotkin should account for her own role in enabling a racist administration whose policies have caused profound harm to the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Black communities that we represent,” the CBC said in their statement.

Mahalo nui loa CBC!! And BRDS!

[Cheezoholic]

2. We really don't need this shit right now. I don't care, the stakes are too high to be doing the usual bickering

It really turns people off on the party. We desperately need people to get out and vote. Lets get ourselves back in power THEN we can make the appropriate adjustments. One cause, one goal. Defeat authoritarianism and oligarchy. This shit already right before the midterms seems well, a bit well timed. I don't like it.

[creeksneakers2]

4. Right on!

[Ponietz]

6. Some people won't lead and they won't get out of the way

The “center” needs to shut the fuck up. There, fixed the problem.

If you’re taking AIPAC dollars then questions need to be asked.

AIPAC has provided significant financial support to members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC).
Total Contributions
Amount Given: At least $3.6 million
Timeframe: Since February 2022
Context of Contributions
AIPAC's funding has primarily targeted members of the CBC's "old guard," while progressive members, particularly those associated with the Squad, have faced challenges from AIPAC-backed candidates in upcoming primaries.
The financial support reflects AIPAC's strategy to influence Democratic primaries, particularly against those who advocate for restrictions on U.S. aid to Israel.
This financial backing illustrates AIPAC's ongoing efforts to maintain influence within the Democratic Party, especially among Black lawmakers.

[QueerDuck]

37. You can't lead from the minority.

The problem with telling half the party to "shut up" right before an election is that it is a guaranteed recipe for losing.

If you want to talk about leadership, the absolute first rule of political leadership is actually winning the majority. If Democrats lose the House because of eleventh-hour factional infighting, no one is leading anything and nobody has a gavel.

The CBC is focused on the immediate, practical reality of winning a majority so the party can actually pass legislation. Litigating primary grievances and purity tests on a national stage right now only helps the opposition... and secures our position as the out-of-power minority party. Which do you prefer?

Secure the power first, then worry about the internal debates.

[Cha]

28. Mahalo! We sure as Hellscape Don't!

[QueerDuck]

5. Spot on from the CBC!!! Unforced public drama is the absolute last thing we need right now.

If you want to fine-tune the party's leadership, you wait until you actually hold the gavels and have the majority locked down. Airing these grievances on a national podcast right before an election just makes Democrats look like the Keystone Cops and drains momentum.

The CBC is entirely right to call this what it is: a completely unnecessary distraction. We win by projecting unity and keeping the focus entirely on lowering costs and protecting democracy, not by giving the media a factional food fight to exploit. Secure the power first, then worry about remodeling the house.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

[angrychair]

8. So is it projecting unity

When Democratic leaders attack progressives running for office and Democratic voters, voting in a primary for the candidate they prefer?

In my mind they are the ones trying to divide the Party.

For the record I don't know what Slotkin's motives are but we need leadership that is going to unite the Party and back the candidates that Democratic voters have chosen to represent them.

[creeksneakers2]

21. There will be time for that later.

[QueerDuck]

34. Completely agree that unity has to go both ways.

That is exactly why the timing and context of these debates matter so much. There is a huge difference between a primary debate and airing grievances on a national podcast right before a general election.

Part of building a winning coalition means understanding that what works in a safe blue seat won't always work in a tough competitive district. The party leadership's job is to protect our most vulnerable candidates in red and purple areas so we can actually win a majority. It isn't an attack on voters; it's just hard electoral math.

Internal factional debates are healthy in their proper venue, but when they are aired publicly at the eleventh hour, it only drains momentum from the entire ticket. We can debate leadership and strategy all we want once the gavels are secured, but we have to win the house first before we can remodel it.

[angrychair]

43. My point is

That its Democratic leadership, that has repeatedly and openly attacked progressives and after progressives have won their primaries, questioning voter judgement, even saying the Democratic Party should just disqualify them and choose the candidate they want to win, not what the voters wanted.
All those things happened after the NY primaries.

Hell there were some saying that Goldman losing his primary in NYC was antisemitic... except the majority of voters in that district are Jewish and the person that won the primary is also Jewish.

Progressive continue to win elections and Democratic consultants and leadership continue to attack them. Openly saying the DNC should refuse to support progressive candidates or the Democratic caucus should refuse to allow them to caucus with Democrats if elected.
That is the opposite of unity.

They don't want unity, they want obedience. We, the public, are not here to serve them, they are elected to serve the Democratic Party voters.

[yardwork]

48. Vote for every Democrat on your ballot in November.

Politicians politic. That's what they do. Voters don't need to get drawn into it.

Campaign for and vote for every single Democrat on your ballot in November.

[QueerDuck]

49. Well... it seems clear that we are talking about two entirely different things.

My original comment was strictly about the CBC's response to Elissa Slotkin's tactical choices on a podcast right before a major election. You are looking to litigate historical New York primary battles and broader factional grievances.

Those are two completely different topics, and we are clearly at an impasse here. I have no interest in engaging in a factional debate or rehashing old primary fights.

But, I thank you for sharing your perspective, and I hope you have a great week ahead!

[LiberalLovinLug]

10. "Spot on from the CBC!!! Unforced public drama is the absolute last thing we need right now".

That is the very definition of an oxymoron.

[QueerDuck]

36. Not sure how disciplined campaign strategy qualifies as an oxymoron.

There is absolutely nothing contradictory about the CBC calling for unity and discipline right before a major election. It's standard, smart politics.

The point stands: unforced public drama right before an election drains momentum and hurts the entire ticket. The CBC is right to push for focus and unity until the majority is locked down.

[Ponietz]

7. AIPAC, i.e., "Talking dollars"

AIPAC has provided significant financial support to members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC).
Total Contributions
Amount Given: At least $3.6 million
Timeframe: Since February 2022
Context of Contributions
AIPAC's funding has primarily targeted members of the CBC's "old guard," while progressive members, particularly those associated with the Squad, have faced challenges from AIPAC-backed candidates in upcoming primaries.
The financial support reflects AIPAC's strategy to influence Democratic primaries, particularly against those who advocate for restrictions on U.S. aid to Israel.
This financial backing illustrates AIPAC's ongoing efforts to maintain influence within the Democratic Party, especially among Black lawmakers.

[Escape]

9. This is why Democrats lose elections...

We start looking for perfection when we should be just looking to beat the Republicans and wins seats.

WHEN we win the majority, THEN we start perfecting our message, our clientele, our platform.

We can welcome ALL OF THE NEW GUYS WITH NEW IDEAS to join the current party platform. There is nothing wrong with the establishment Democrats and it is their nature to welcome new ideas.. And, we can ALL treat each other with respect.

Look at WHAT we are fighting AGAINST.

ALL DEMOCRATS need to form a United Front against the alternative.

[oasis]

12. Work together. Makes a ton of sense to me.

[Cha]

30. Yes it does.. I'm so disapponted in Sen Slotkin.

[yardwork]

47. Politicians gonna politic.

That's who they are.

Let's step away from their infighting and just vote for the Democratic nominee in every race on our ballots.

Simple. Effective.

[Cha]

29. Yes! We've done it befoe so we know the

Nightmare it caused. The fucking Fascists were delighted.

[QueerDuck]

38. Spot on. Those advocating for "purity tests" would rather rule the ashes of our minority than win a majority.

Thank you! This post is the exact doses of reality this thread needs. The obsession with ideological perfection right before a critical election is exactly how Democrats snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

It is incredibly short-sighted to attack the CBC or dismiss the party establishment over proxy grievances like AIPAC funding. The immediate, existential threat is the opposition, and the only way to stop them is with a united front.

We don't need a factional circular firing squad right now. We need to win seats. Once the gavels are secured, there is plenty of room at the table for new ideas and internal debates. But we can't build a big tent if we don't even own the ground it stands on.

[yardwork]

46. Vote for every Democrat on your ballot this fall.

Leave the infighting to the politicians.

Vote for the Democratic nominee in every race on your ballot - local, state, federal.

We won't agree with everything every Democratic candidate says or does. That's ok. Vote for them anyway.

[Miguelito Loveless]

13. I support a Black person

As the majority leader, Jasmine Crockett.

[Cha]

31. Rep Crockett won't be there next year. I support

Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

[Wiz Imp]

56. Jasmine Crockett will no longer be in Congress as of January 2027

[LudwigPastorius]

14. I agree with the CBC.

Let's give Rep. Jeffries a majority - make him Speaker of the House - and let's see how he runs with it.

Judging someone's leadership ability when they have never had the chance to control the agenda is just dumb.

[Cha]

32. Excellent post, Thanks!

[electric_blue68]

15. Debate all that Later! ffs w rhe squabbles right now! Win FIRST!!! And. ..

in the past several months Jeffries has been stronger in his reactions...so, good!

[yardwork]

45. All of this.

[dave99]

18. Corraling Cats

[Cha]

26. Hmm... Sen Slotkin should take the CDC's advice!

The CBC criticized Slotkin’s comments and cited her record of voting to approve multiple members of President Trump’s Cabinet, including former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. “Before attempting to weigh in on House Democratic leadership, Senator Slotkin should account for her own role in enabling a racist administration whose policies have caused profound harm to the safety, security, and economic well-being of the Black communities that we represent,” the CBC said in their statement.

Mahalo nui loa CBC!! And BRDS!

[fujiyamasan]

33. The party is going to have this discussion at some point regardless

Some of this strikes me as theater. Democratic leadership isn’t viewed as very popular nationally, and this isn’t even an ideological or racial issue for most. Ask most democrats, and the reaction is that leadership is tepid and has not been effective.

Slotkin was also on Smith’s program, and most know he’s a blowhard and if she answered with canned responses that democratic leadership is doing great, she would have been pilloried by him.

We haven’t seen Jeffries as speaker, so I personally don’t believe he should be thrown under the bus. I’m willing to give him a chance. So far, he’s done a decent job keeping his caucus in line, and has even managed to peel off republicans occasionally making life very difficult for little Mikey.

Schumer, on the other hand… and it’s not really all his fault, but either way, it’s time for him to take a hint from Durbin. He’s not from this era and the way he operates doesn’t fit our current politics.

[Icanthinkformyself]

39. Of course

the leadership of the CBC will complain. They are some of the same leadership Slotkin is calling to change. Why is it that when Democratic primary voters choose an anti-establishment type so many Democrats go bonkers as if it's the end of the world. It's who the voters selected. Get over it. It's called democracy.

[JustAnotherGen]

41. Slotkin is one of the most

Conservative Democrats in the Senate. I don't trust her. Glad I have Booker and Kim for my Senators when she engages in her shenanigans.

I don't think people realize the cynical inner smirk a lot of Black Americans are hiding right now. I read the news with a smirk. If she doesn't want us in the Big Tent - she should just come right out and say it.

[BumRushDaShow]

42. To underscore the issue regarding Slotkin

the progressive/left vote tracker site "Progressive Punch" has a tally -

SENATE "lifetime overall vote %" sort - https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?topic=&house=senate&sort=overall-lifetime&order=down&party=D

She ranks 41 out of 47 on the "progressive scale", in the middle of the conserve-a-dem pack.

So if people think by "change", she means more to the left, that's definitely not the wing of the party that she resides in.

[ancianita]

59. Right. She's labeled on at least one website chart as a "Swing" voter with Dems; whereas the Democratic Socialist

Bernie Sanders caucuses and campaigns with the Democratic Party and votes with the party 95% of the time.

Sanders is credited with influencing a leftward shift in the Democratic Party after his 2016 campaign. An advocate of progressive policies, he opposes neoliberalism and authoritarianism. He supports workers' self-management, universal and single-payer healthcare, paid parental leave, tuition-free tertiary education, a Green New Deal, and worker control of production through cooperatives, unions, and democratic public enterprises. On foreign policy, he supports reducing military spending, more diplomacy and international cooperation, and greater emphasis on labor rights and environmental concerns in negotiating international trade agreements. Sanders supports workplace democracy and has praised elements of the Nordic model.

To the Democratic Party's credit, Sanders, unlike Slotkin, has been an independent Democratic Socialist who has shown how good it is to work with Democratic Party leadership.

I can't take a swing vote Democrat like Slotkin seriously, and neither should FDR Democrats.

[yardwork]

44. Vote for every Democrat on your ballot this fall.

Leave the infighting to the politicians.

Vote for every Democrat on your ballot this November, even if you don't agree with everything about them.

[ancianita]

57. Slotkin should have defined "Democratic leadership" and "old models." She will confuse independent voters.

When Slotkin says "... old models aren't working, and that includes the Democratic Party," she is being carelessly divisive.

Hakeem Jeffries is Pelosi's endorsed House leader. As such he stands as a major part of "Democratic leadership." The CBC is correct to clarify that.

The Democratic Party is not in any way 'part of the problem' when it comes to campaigning on the merits, gerrymandering election districts, or governing. At all. The electoral college is the problem. Eliminate it and the popular vote will elect the Democratic Party most of the time.

Moreover, the Democratic Party is the longest standing model since FDR for restoring and maintaining and preserving this longest standing democracy.

Slotkin's probably angling for leadership herself.

[Quiet Em]

58. Jeffries has been a tremendous leader of the House

There is no appetite to replace him.

We are going to win back the House and Jeffries is going to be the next Speaker of the House.

Now that's she's in the Senate, Slotkin should focus on that, not the House of which she is not a member.