Libs rage at Chuck Schumer over reported power-sharing agreement in the Senate with Mitch McConnell

Chuck Schumer is under fire from his own side over a reported power-sharing agreement in the Senate with Mitch McConnell:

The top two Senate leaders are nearing a power-sharing agreement to hash out how the divided chamber will operate, with Democrats in charge of setting the schedule but both parties likely to hold an equal number of seats on Senate committees, sources say https://t.co/LbtXLyA7iV

— CNN (@CNN) January 18, 2021

Negotiations are ongoing:

McConnell and Schumer are meeting today to talk power-sharing agreement. Negotiations still in process & deal will play a major role in how fast Biden can get his Cabinet approved. https://t.co/wUSMp6Vifa

— Anna Palmer (@apalmerdc) January 19, 2021

Here’s a sample of the rage:

power sharing with the dudes who just ransacked the Capitol damn Schumer is a wet, whipped dog https://t.co/Bh6r65yzH6

— Jason Linkins (@dceiver) January 19, 2021

And:

Black organizers did not bust their butts and turn out the vote in their community so that Senate Democrats can share with Republicans the power we won for them at the ballot box. Hell no. https://t.co/EeWLK0HqGU

— Rep. Omari Hardy (@OmariJHardy) January 19, 2021

But what do you expect in a 50-50 Senate?

Odds that Mitch McConnell would agree to even numbers on committees if there were a Republican president and a 50-50 chamber. ZERO

— Norman Ornstein (@NormOrnstein) January 19, 2021

Oh, and there’s a recent precedent for this:

Honestly wonder how do people like this get taken seriously as commentators?

We had a similar power sharing agreement during the 107th Congress when George W Bush was POTUS, there was an even split in Senators, and Mitch McConnell was a key member of Republican leadership. https://t.co/UnY6x3v3Gw

— AG (@AGHamilton29) January 19, 2021

“Much like 2001”:

Much like 2001, tie votes in Senate committees on bills and nominations are expected to advance to floor since GOP and Dems likely to have an equal number of seats on committees, with Dems setting the agenda. New sens from GA and Cali to be soon sworn in https://t.co/k2InH2bFtn

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 18, 2021

Recommended

Skin Grifting: Texas Democrat Jolanda Jones Says James Talarico Needs to Pay Blacks for Their Votes

Warren Squire

Advertisement

So, stand down libs. But if you don’t take our word for it, listen to the sane voices on your side?

3) Plenty of people are going ape shit in Schumer right now because of this false headline. That’s why it’s so important to call out this kind of false reporting, and why it’s so important to read beyond the headline before drawing conclusions.

— Palmer Report (@PalmerReport) January 19, 2021

EVEN Adam Jentleson, a former Harry Reid staffer, agrees that “it’s fine”:

A few quick thoughts on this: it's fine. If Dems control the floor and gavels, and ties in committees advance bills or nominations to the floor, those are the powers that come with majority control. Lacking clear majorities on committees might test party unity, but seldomly. https://t.co/40p228Po4u

— Adam Jentleson ? (@AJentleson) January 19, 2021

"Power-sharing" is an overstatement. The functional reality of the Senate will not be noticeably different under this than it'd be if Democrats had a bigger majority. The only significant difference is that committees will be evenly divided, but if ties go to Dems, that's fine.

— Adam Jentleson ? (@AJentleson) January 19, 2021

How this works: the Senate has to approve an organizing resolution that sets committee sizes and membership. Under current Senate rules, that resolution needs 60 votes to pass. There's, er, some debate about whether the Senate should go nuclear to abolish the 60-vote threshold…

— Adam Jentleson ? (@AJentleson) January 19, 2021

But he still wants Leader Schumer to go nuclear:

The Senate must (and I think will) abolish the 60-vote threshold in the short-to-medium term. But even I think it's unrealistic to go nuclear on the organizing resolution for two main reasons: First, the functional difference in the Senate's daily operation is not major (^^^).

— Adam Jentleson ? (@AJentleson) January 19, 2021

Second, the votes will be there for reforming the filibuster if (or rather when) it becomes clear that Republican obstruction is blocking major Democratic priorities. I believe that is inevitable sooner rather than later. But it's not going to happen on the organizing resolution.

— Adam Jentleson ? (@AJentleson) January 19, 2021

***