Already, the naysayers are out in force. George Zornick of The Nation and Dylan Matthews of Vox have already poured cold water on it.
Respectfully, they're full of shit.
Zornick and Matthews completely ignore what a Schumer Majority Leadership would look like. Schumer has taken $8.8 million from Wall Street since he came into the Senate. Making Wall Street's best friend in the Democratic Party the Majority Leader would send a terrible message to the American middle class we’re trying to protect. It completely undermines progressives because Republicans can point to Schumer and say 'look, Mr. Wall Street himself isn’t just a democrat – he’s their leader. They're the party of Wall Street, not us.' Schumer as Majority Leader would at the very least allow the GOP to muddy the waters on who will stand up against Wall Street and who won't. Between Clinton and Schumer, the Democratic Party will have absolutely zero credibility on the issue.
And never mind that Schumer himself would water down and undermine every attempt to substantively regulate Wall Street. This is a critical issue that, if permitted, will cause a relapse into deregulation and recession. As a matter of policy, we can't allow Schumer to be Majority Leader in 2017.
1. Her work would change and distract her from what's really important
Asking granular questions on the banking committee and producing great youtube videos is excellent. I’d prefer anointing progressive senate candidates, blocking terrible appointments, protecting good appointments, making sure good legislation gets scheduled for a votes, and really putting the screws to GOP Senators on hard votes. Never mind reforming the filibuster, which Reid protected, and Schumer would almost certainly protect just as readily.
Matthews points out the “perks” of being on the outside. Warren has done some good things in the Senate as a plucky outsider, they’ve mostly been symbolic, and not substantive. The leader’s position is where substantive work can be done. Her grassroots energy is somehow tabulated as a weakness against her. This is a problem with the party that most beltway bodies don’t seem to grasp – the apparatus should actively work to advance the interests of the grassroots. This is why the GOP shows up for midterms and Democrats don’t. When the party apparatus is mobilized to work for the grassroots, not only is the grassroots not as hard to mobilize, but the party brand actually means something.
Furthermore, she's only growing in institutional might. As a Senate newbie she raised $3 million in a terrible 2014 cycle for Democrats. In Iowa polling, she's consistently second to Clinton with around 16-18%, despite tiny name recognition numbers. The argument that she wouldn't do well in an institutional roll is entirely lacking in factual foundation.
2. It would water her down and make her less effective - the "messy compromises" argument
First, the Pelosi analogy ignores the fact that she was a highly effective leader. She didn't lose a single vote. Second, the analogy fails to incorporate Reid's failure to deliver the Senate. It was Reid's Senate that did the watering down - not Pelosi. Reid had to appease people like Max Baucus and Joe Lieberman and Arlen Specter because he chose not to change filibuster rules over, and over, and over again. Somehow, Matthews attributes Reid's strategic lack of vision and tactical failures to Pelosi. Its an argument divorced from reality.
3. "Too heavy a lift" – ‘Its not a sure thing so why try’ argument
Zornick claims that "it’s one they just can’t win. It's definitely possible someone other than Schumer could be elected leader, but Warren is way too heavy of a lift." Never mind that this is what people were saying about an Obama Presidency in 2008. Never mind that this is a conclusion without foundation. It ignores the potential incoming crop of Senators. Already, Warren conceivably has the support of around 5 progressive Senators. There are 11 GOP seats up for grabs in swing states. Zornick admits that Warren is a “prodigious fundraiser” and is able to do so even in red states. The above figure doesn’t include incumbents and new candidates running in safe blue states. Realistically, should Democrats have a big year in 2016, Warren’s influence would definitely be threatening to Schumer.
With Elizabeth Warren as Senate Majority Leader, the Democratic Party could repair its brand with the American middle and working class. Warren has the Clintonian ability to take highly complex issues and make them understandable to average folks without condescending, and lacks the Clintonian trait of selling out for fleeting political gain. Warren would have that position for the remainder of her career, unimpeded by term limits or a hostile electorate. She could use the bully pulpit in a way that no other Senate democrat can, and in a way that Barack Obama should have. Her face, her voice, and her message would be the one echoing across the media, and that message is a strong message, a progressive message, and most importantly, a winning message.