Will Mitch McConnell remain Republican leader if Democrats take the senate?

[President Johnson]

Will Moscow Mitch stay on as Republican leader in the senate if Democrats take over the chamber and Joe Biden is elected president? Assuming he wins reelection to his seat, which I think is safe at this point. My take would be he quits leadership and John Thune replaces him, becoming minority leader. If Republicans would ever take over the majority after 2022 and Chuck Grassley retires, he would be pro tem, having been in the senate since 1985.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

He seems like the type to go on as long as the Republican caucus allows him to (for the next 12 years or so), and his ability to keep them in line on key votes doesn't appear to be diminishing. I think it would take either a big defeat in the Senate or a defeat that extended significantly beyond Trump's losses for McConnell to be dethroned.

Grassley retiring in 2022 doesn't seem a sure bet to me, either. He seems relatively active and would be younger than 90 at the point of his re-election, which is (on paper) politically viable judging by other elderly senators' re-election bids (Feinstein, Inhofe etc.). The IA Republicans could try to push him out, but why risk a contentious primary when a GE bid will probably be safer in 2028 than 2022?

[ProgressiveModerate]

He really likes to win, and to be in power. I think if Rs lose control of the senate in 2020, there's a good chance that he resigns from his seat, or at the very least, step down as the Republican leader. 60% chnace he stays the leader on the Republican side though. If he were to step down, they would likely chose Hawley, Grassley, Graham, Cornyn. If they try to go all "moderate" they may chose Romney, Murkowski, or Collins, which would be ineteresting, but I doubt it.

[For Trump, everything. For immigrants, the law]

McConnell will want some position of power as long as he’s alive.

[Coldstream]

I can’t see McConnell going willingly. But he’s so toxic so I can imagine Republicans might like a fresh start if they lose the senate since he’ll be a proven failure at that point.

[Tekken_Guy]

He’d probably resign outright if he was no longer the leader of the Senate Republicans. But I don’t think Beshear has any limits on his ability to replace him.

[President Johnson]

He’d probably resign outright if he was no longer the leader of the Senate Republicans. But I don’t think Beshear has any limits on his ability to replace him.

He won't resign and allow Beshear to pick a successor.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

What if Republicans get a supermajority in the Senate but McConnell is unseated? Hypothetical scenario, but still interesting to think about.

[Tekken_Guy]

He’d probably resign outright if he was no longer the leader of the Senate Republicans. But I don’t think Beshear has any limits on his ability to replace him.

He won't resign and allow Beshear to pick a successor.

He will if the KY legislature passed a bill to revoke the power away from him.

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

McConnell is in a tough election if it's a wave, he loses to McGrath

[MarkD]

Of course he'll stay on as GOP leader even if the Dems have a trifecta. He's too power-hungry to step down as leader while remaining in the Senate. He is no Robert Byrd.

[Lechasseur]

Yes

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Mitch will have power in a 51/50 Senate but wont have any power in a 51/49 Senate, Dems made the power sharing agreement in 2000 when they too had 50/50 Senate and Cheney had the tiebreaker. That means both Leaders need unanimous consent from both sides to bring anything to the floor, that's why Dems are spending money in KS and MT to have > 50 votes but WI and PA are out there for Ds in 2022 to net, and Toomey is likely to retire to run against Fetterman for Gov and Ron Kind runs for Senate. Also, Tim Ryan is out there if Dems do well in 2020 in OH to run against Portman and Jeff Jackson will run for open seat in NC. Burr is retiring

[Mr. Smith]

Pelosi did in The House, and there's far less reason to do that.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Pelosi did in The House, and there's far less reason to do that.

Schumer also had a fairly 'meh' cycle in 2018 and wasn't binned.

[MontenegroPH]

McConnell will be in the Senate until he drops dead, so nothing to see here folks.

[MT Treasurer]

Pelosi did in The House, and there's far less reason to do that.

Schumer also had a fairly 'meh' cycle in 2018 and wasn't binned.

How was 2018 a 'meh' cycle for Senate Democrats? They did remarkably well in the Senate considering that "polarization" is supposedly at an all-time high and that the Senate map was one of the most favorable maps to Republicans in history.

[lfromnj]

Pelosi did in The House, and there's far less reason to do that.

Schumer also had a fairly 'meh' cycle in 2018 and wasn't binned.

How was 2018 a 'meh' cycle for Senate Democrats? They did remarkably well in the Senate considering that "polarization" is supposedly at an all-time high and that the Senate map was one of the most favorable maps to Republicans in history.

Florida?

but WV and MT holding was good for D's, I think Sherrod Brown would have narrowly survived even if the GOP tried with a stronger opponent.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Pelosi did in The House, and there's far less reason to do that.

Schumer also had a fairly 'meh' cycle in 2018 and wasn't binned.

How was 2018 a 'meh' cycle for Senate Democrats? They did remarkably well in the Senate considering that "polarization" is supposedly at an all-time high and that the Senate map was one of the most favorable maps to Republicans in history.

Florida was poor and the way the Kavanaugh issue was handled did disproportionate damage in rural states that might otherwise have been saved - I'd argue it was only a decisive factor in McCaskill's case, but it contributed to potentially salvageable races in Indiana and Tennessee.

Ignoring specific battles he chose to fight, Schumer bears some responsibility for the deepening of the urban/rural divide which has contributed to polarisation, opining in 2016: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” #Populism is often overrated in terms of what it brings to one downballot candidate, but were Schumer less keen on fighting culture war issues and more willing to direct his caucus' energy towards economic protectionism, I think he'd have seen better dividends in 2018.

[Unbeatable Titan Susan Collins]

I think he would stay on as leader. Being Majority or Minority  Leader opens one up to stronger primary and general challenges and makes one a target of outside spending.

I think there are many Senators who are more than happy with mcConnell taking the job.

He has also proven himself to be a very effective minority leader in the past so i think they would stick with him. I think if the GOP loose the Senate the Senators are more likely to blame Trump and covid than McConnell.

[SevenEleven]

Pelosi did in The House, and there's far less reason to do that.

Schumer also had a fairly 'meh' cycle in 2018 and wasn't binned.

How was 2018 a 'meh' cycle for Senate Democrats? They did remarkably well in the Senate considering that "polarization" is supposedly at an all-time high and that the Senate map was one of the most favorable maps to Republicans in history.

Florida was poor and the way the Kavanaugh issue was handled did disproportionate damage in rural states that might otherwise have been saved - I'd argue it was only a decisive factor in McCaskill's case, but it contributed to potentially salvageable races in Indiana and Tennessee.

Ignoring specific battles he chose to fight, Schumer bears some responsibility for the deepening of the urban/rural divide which has contributed to polarisation, opining in 2016: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” #Populism is often overrated in terms of what it brings to one downballot candidate, but were Schumer less keen on fighting culture war issues and more willing to direct his caucus' energy towards economic protectionism, I think he'd have seen better dividends in 2018.

Schumer can only go so far as his caucus and their voters are willing to tolerate. There was no room for manuvering wrt the kavanaugh hearings.

[インターネット掲示板ユーザー Punxsutawney Phil]

Pelosi did in The House, and there's far less reason to do that.

Schumer also had a fairly 'meh' cycle in 2018 and wasn't binned.

How was 2018 a 'meh' cycle for Senate Democrats? They did remarkably well in the Senate considering that "polarization" is supposedly at an all-time high and that the Senate map was one of the most favorable maps to Republicans in history.

Florida was poor and the way the Kavanaugh issue was handled did disproportionate damage in rural states that might otherwise have been saved - I'd argue it was only a decisive factor in McCaskill's case, but it contributed to potentially salvageable races in Indiana and Tennessee.

Ignoring specific battles he chose to fight, Schumer bears some responsibility for the deepening of the urban/rural divide which has contributed to polarisation, opining in 2016: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” #Populism is often overrated in terms of what it brings to one downballot candidate, but were Schumer less keen on fighting culture war issues and more willing to direct his caucus' energy towards economic protectionism, I think he'd have seen better dividends in 2018.

Schumer can only go so far as his caucus and their voters are willing to tolerate. There was no room for manuvering wrt the kavanaugh hearings.

picking Kav was a clear culture war choice. If Trump wanted to avert that sort of thing he would have gone with Hardiman or some other option.
There were two upsides to Kavanaugh from Trump's POV.
1, the aforementioned culture war thing putting pressure on Senate Dems.
2, Kavanaugh was essentially as establishment old-guard R as any pick he could have made, and this once and for all locked down the votes of more traditional Rs in the Senate (including Susan Collins).
While you reap what you sow, the benefits with Kav were that it'd be later and not in the present.

[TiltsAreUnderrated]

Pelosi did in The House, and there's far less reason to do that.

Schumer also had a fairly 'meh' cycle in 2018 and wasn't binned.

How was 2018 a 'meh' cycle for Senate Democrats? They did remarkably well in the Senate considering that "polarization" is supposedly at an all-time high and that the Senate map was one of the most favorable maps to Republicans in history.

Florida was poor and the way the Kavanaugh issue was handled did disproportionate damage in rural states that might otherwise have been saved - I'd argue it was only a decisive factor in McCaskill's case, but it contributed to potentially salvageable races in Indiana and Tennessee.

Ignoring specific battles he chose to fight, Schumer bears some responsibility for the deepening of the urban/rural divide which has contributed to polarisation, opining in 2016: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” #Populism is often overrated in terms of what it brings to one downballot candidate, but were Schumer less keen on fighting culture war issues and more willing to direct his caucus' energy towards economic protectionism, I think he'd have seen better dividends in 2018.

Schumer can only go so far as his caucus and their voters are willing to tolerate. There was no room for manuvering wrt the kavanaugh hearings.

The mileage of 'X can only go so far' depends on how competent X is at working their caucus and how much political capital they're willing to spend in their efforts, so some blame still lies with them for failing to go as far as they need to on certain issue. Schumer is clearly worse at this than McConnell, for instance.

I agree there were practical limits (in addition to limits of political principle) to how far he could have pushed his caucus on handling Kavanaugh (who they were right to vote against), but Kavanaugh may not have been picked if Feinstein had first gone to the FBI. Schumer's failure to keep the caucus disciplined once the situation blew up was particularly damaging in two ways:

1. He allowed the process to become a platform for several #NotWhoWeAre presidential bid launches. The candidates behind these were always doomed to fail, but became more prominent figures in the party for a short time, which really wasn't helpful on election day.
2. He allowed much of the caucus to buy into media hype and lean into lines of questioning based on his identity that wouldn't stand up in court. ShE pASsEd A pOlYgRaPh TeSt, references to "100 kegs or bust" - this was weaksauce and allowed the GOP to conflate much more reasonable lines of questioning with what they called a "witch hunt". He should have just instructed Senators to hammer home points about the need for an investigation rather than trying to perform psychoanalysis based on a yearbook and feigning outrage while conflating a political bent with criminal intent.

[Lechasseur]

Pelosi did in The House, and there's far less reason to do that.

Schumer also had a fairly 'meh' cycle in 2018 and wasn't binned.

How was 2018 a 'meh' cycle for Senate Democrats? They did remarkably well in the Senate considering that "polarization" is supposedly at an all-time high and that the Senate map was one of the most favorable maps to Republicans in history.

Florida was poor and the way the Kavanaugh issue was handled did disproportionate damage in rural states that might otherwise have been saved - I'd argue it was only a decisive factor in McCaskill's case, but it contributed to potentially salvageable races in Indiana and Tennessee.

Ignoring specific battles he chose to fight, Schumer bears some responsibility for the deepening of the urban/rural divide which has contributed to polarisation, opining in 2016: “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” #Populism is often overrated in terms of what it brings to one downballot candidate, but were Schumer less keen on fighting culture war issues and more willing to direct his caucus' energy towards economic protectionism, I think he'd have seen better dividends in 2018.

Eh, tbh I think McCaskill was going to lose regardless

[Suburbia]

McConnell will want some position of power as long as he’s alive.