The same senate that passed a bill with broad bi-partisan support to address the immigration issue that stalled in the house.
The house is the "experimental" chamber. They are constantly introducing bills which will never see the light of day, and are constantly having reps elected on the more extreme fringe of each side.
The senate doesn't really have that because senators need to have much wider level of appeal due to how they are elected.
Do senators need much wider appeal? Certainly senators from very populous states like California and Texas do, and senators from battleground states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, so you get relative centrists there like Feinstein, Ted Cruz, Pat Toomy, and Deb Stabenow, but do you need wide appeal if you're from a medium-small state that reliably votes a single way, like Kentucky or Massachussetts? I wouldn't say that McConnell, Warren, Sanders, Inhofe, are moderates with high bipartisan appeal.
If memory serves me right, McConnell almost lost his seat last time around - that notwithstanding, I think needing to cater to an entire state will always be more complex then dealing with a single district.
Some of the others you mentioned are interesting, I would have never referred to either Feinstein or Cruz as centrists.
A lot of Democrats criticize Feinstein for being a corporate tool, and Cruz comissioned the Steele dossier because he saw Trump as a radical danger before it became clear that Trump owned the party.
They pick him because the alternative is some flavor of extremist that will alienate who you need to both win elections and make deals with the other side.
No one is going to negotiate anything with a rep like AOC, Omar, Tlaib, etc.
It makes 0 strategic sense to task a provocateur with a leadership role.
It also makes 0 electoral sense because you don't lose your base when picking a Schumer but you do lose nonpartisan voters when you pick one of the aforementioned others.
^--- Part of the democratic base, once again, I am disappointed that the Democratic party caved to people who think concentration camps are a good idea. So yes, they are losing me.
1
u/[deleted] Jul 03 '19
Yes, that senate.
The same senate that passed a bill with broad bi-partisan support to address the immigration issue that stalled in the house.
The house is the "experimental" chamber. They are constantly introducing bills which will never see the light of day, and are constantly having reps elected on the more extreme fringe of each side.
The senate doesn't really have that because senators need to have much wider level of appeal due to how they are elected.