Democratic Senate candidate on supporting Schumer as leader: ‘I need to win first'
Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), a candidate for Illinois's open Senate seat next year, declined to say whether he would back Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) for another term at the helm, saying he needs to 'win first' before making that consideration.
Krishnamoorthi told CNN's Manu Raju in an interview on Monday that he wants to hear Schumer's plan for Senate Democrats to seize the moment and to help people with issues like affording a home, educating their children and retiring with access to Social Security and Medicare.
'If I were privileged to be in the Senate, I definitely want to hear his ideas for how do we meet the moment right now, those economic problems that beset people, how does he want to tackle them because I think that is the urgency of the situation right now,' Krishnamoorthi said in comments highlighted by Mediaite.
Raju had asked Krishnamoorthi about a CNN poll that found 72 percent of voters disapprove of Democratic leaders in Congress, and the congressman responded that he backed House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.,) but didn't mention Schumer.
After Raju followed up to ask about Schumer, Krishnamoorthi noted that he and Schumer voted differently on the Republican-crafted continuing resolution in March that avoided a government shutdown but implemented widespread funding cuts for nondefense programs.
Schumer faced significant backlash from critics over his vote to advance the measure as he argued the legislation was 'very bad,' but a shutdown would have been worse.
After Raju pressed Krishnamoorthi over his view of Schumer, the Illinois Democrat responded 'You're putting the cart before the horse.'
'I need to win first,' he said.
Krishnamoorthi is running for the seat being vacated by the retiring Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the Senate minority whip under Schumer. He is facing Lt. Gov. Julianna Stratton and Rep. Robin Kelly (D-Ill.) for the Democratic nomination.
Whoever wins the nomination will likely win the general election next November in the solidly blue state.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Gets Delightfully Catty On Trump-Musk Split
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) played the feud between President Donald Trump and former DOGE henchman Elon Musk for laughs on Thursday. (Watch the video below.) Approached by Spectrum News 1 about the fracture in their bromance, the smiling AOC said: 'Oh man, the girls are fighting, aren't they?' The progressive lawmaker could be forgiven for a little regressive humor. She has been one of the Democrats' most vocal opponents of Trump's so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill' ― the legislation that actually ignited the Trump-Musk row. Musk called the spending measure an abomination and once Trump finally expressed his disappointment in the Tesla magnate and Trump mega-donor, things turned personal between the two. The bill is being ironed out in the Senate and would reportedly ax 11 million people off Medicaid over time. Ocasio-Cortez had made a similar prediction last month. 'When this country wakes up in the morning, there will be consequences to pay for this,' she said at the time. But perhaps she didn't see the bill resulting in the breakup of DC's premier platonic power couple. For a moment anyway, it was something to crack wise about. AOC on Musk and Trump: "the girls are fighting aren't they ?"💀 — Winter Politics (@WinterPolitics1) June 6, 2025 Stephen Colbert Spots The Musk-Trump Feud Moment That Proves 'Things Are Bad' 1 Subtle Barb In Trump-Musk Blow-Out Has Dana Bash Saying 'Wow, Wow, Wow' 'My Prediction': Jimmy Kimmel Reveals Ugly Next Phase Of Trump-Musk Feud
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is.
Let's just get this out of the way: The birth rate is a red herring. It's been a common refrain that if the Trump administration and congressional leadership truly wanted to make it easier for families in America to grow and thrive, they would turn to policies like national paid leave, affordable child care, maternal health care and home and community-based services for our aging and disabled loved ones. They would be investing in early education and the caregiving workforce. They would be supporting commonsense accommodations like remote work. They would be growing social safety nets. But they've done none of that. Their response to child care is to send in grandma. They've said next to nothing about paid leave. What they apparently have suggested instead is both hilarious and dystopian. A medal for women with six or more children? Classes on your own menstrual cycle? Coupons for minivans? And instead of investing and building for the future, they're slashing and burning. From fertility and maternal health programs, to food and farm assistance, to Medicaid and Social Security, they're going after all the powerful things our country has built to sustain life. Elon Musk says the birth rate crisis is about the disappearance of civilization. I'd say he's already destroying its foundations. The real crisis is one of care. As baby boomers age, more and more of us are taking care of our parents and children all at the same time, with little help, and drowning financially and emotionally. No federal paid leave, in many counties without access to child care. The answer to the real crisis is not what we can gut and burn and take away from people, but what we can give them, the world we can create. My organization, Paid Leave for All, is asking people to envision their lives if they had the guarantee of paid family and medical leave ‒ if they knew no matter where they worked and the joy or loss they faced, they could maintain their life and their livelihood. Imagine the businesses and ventures that might be started, the families that could be sustained, the moments we wouldn't miss. Imagine the peace of mind, the paychecks kept, the lives saved. Opinion: Trump's $5,000 'baby bonus' isn't what new moms like me need What Musk, President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and beyond are suggesting isn't about any of that ‒ it's not about affording working families the security and dignity of being able to take care of themselves and each other. It's simply code for hatred and bigotry, driven less by concern for families than by a desire to preserve a demographic majority. But the good news? They're still at odds with supermajorities of Americans. They're overplaying their hand, ignoring the desperate real needs of working families and missing a political opportunity. In April, House Speaker Mike Johnson went to great lengths to try to kill a bipartisan measure to simply allow new parents in Congress to vote by proxy ‒ a pro-family protocol that would cost nothing. A lot of people had never heard of it, but message testing found that when you told people even a little bit about it and Johnson's unprecedented moves to kill it, their support for the measure jumped up to 23 points. This was true across every demographic group tested, across gender, race, age and ideology. What's more, their support for broader federal policies like paid family and medical leave shot up as well. Your Turn: Are you planning to have children? Why or why not? Here's what USA TODAY readers told us. | Opinion Forum In polling done in battleground states just before the 2024 election, there was record-high support for paid leave across party lines and walks of life, however you sliced it. That included 90% of independents, 96% of suburban women and 97% of low turnout Democrats. Commentary and post-election analyses have pointed to the family policies like paid leave and affordable care that would have offered tangible improvements in people's daily lives and stress, and could have changed the political landscape and outcomes. 'We didn't deliver what people wanted ‒ help with child care, help with elder care, more security in their lives,' said Ron Klain, a former chief of staff for Joe Biden. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. And that's the task ahead ‒ not just to respond to dangerous and very real threats to our families and communities, but to also counter with a vision of how much better our lives could be, and a plan to achieve it. To outline the damage they're doing to people's wallets and freedoms, and opportunities, and then to contrast with the policies that enable us to hold onto jobs and care for our own families. The desire to succeed in life, to be able to afford one, to be able to support your loved ones, is universal. It's not a liberal fantasy, it's an idea of strength and dignity. Making more babies by threat, faux incentives or even force is not a goal or a solution. But the idea of supporting families and allowing all of us to live healthier and richer lives is one we should be restoring front and center, and a conversation we should be having. This is the project facing all of us who actually care about the survival of civilization. Dawn Huckelbridge is the founding director of Paid Leave for All. You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Musk is wrong: Birth rate isn't the crisis. Child care is | Opinion
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump just made healthcare more dangerous for pregnant women | Opinion
