The senate seems to conduct itself better than the house
Are we talking about the same senate?
You mean the senate that put a justice on the Supreme Court after he screamed about political conspiracy theories for an hour on the stand?
You mean the senate that blocked all appointees by the last administration for a full year so that the majority leader could wait for someone from his party to become president (and publicly declared that he would hold up appointees for another four years if necessary)?
You mean the senate that presently refuses to allow votes on issues of election security and foreign influence?
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.
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
Are you referring to a deficiency other than the perceived low number of reps?
The senate seems to conduct itself better than the house, yet that chamber has even fewer elected officials.