Chuck Schumer has had a rough go of it. Since becoming Senate Majority Leader at the start of 2021, he shepherded his bare minimum Democratic majority through the passage of a $1.9 trillion relief bill in March, and has had few other public successes.

The Democratic agenda in Congress has stalled. Build Back Better remains on a ventilator. Election reform failed very publicly due to unwillingness by members of his own party to change Senate rules. And discontent within the caucus has broken out into the open after Democrats kept a relatively tight ship for much of 2021, despite the slim majority.

But one area Schumer and Democrats have seen unprecedented success is in queuing up judicial nominees. Despite the gridlock, President Biden has had more judicial nominees confirmed by the Senate than any president in 40 years. 71% of Biden’s nominees are nonwhite, and 75% of them are women making them the most diverse array of nominees in American history.

That a bogged down legislative agenda has overshadowed this parade of nominations and confirmations is not surprising. It hasn’t been particularly well advertised, nor has that necessarily been the goal. In fact, Biden has sought to depoliticize the judiciary so it ceases to be a “political football.” But it makes for a politically convenient opportunity now that the most high-profile judicial nomination of Biden’s presidency (and Schumer’s Senate leadership) is slated for the next month: Biden’s nomination of Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to take retiring Stephen Breyer’s seat on the Supreme Court.

In and of itself, this is a big deal. If confirmed, Jackson will be the first Black woman on the Supreme Court. She’d also be the first federal public defender to serve on the Supreme Court, giving her a perspective into the realities of the justice system that has been sorely absent from the nation’s highest court. But we’re not here to profile the nominee, we’re here to dive into the pragmatic realities of the political situation – so let’s cut to the chase: Chuck Schumer really needs this.

Stand by your man (and woman)

At the end of January, Politico reported that Schumer’s strategy has created murmurs of discontent within the Democratic Party. Many Hill staffers were peeved by Schumer’s antagonism towards West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin and Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema – two Democrats from predominantly Republican states to whom Schumer owes his Senate majority. Schumer brushed aside a question on whether he would or would not support a primary challenge against each senator. A senior Democratic aide quoted in Politico’s reporting noted that, “Leadership 101 is even if you don’t get someone today, you’re going to need them tomorrow… The level of malpractice is stunning. [Build Back Better] is a once-in-a-10-year opportunity, and we fucked it up.”

This is a rookie mistake. An effective Senate leader’s primary job is to defend his majority. Schumer is certainly in an unenviable position with regards to how narrow that majority is, but his failure to recognize the precariousness of his own position and to stand behind his caucus is a major tactical misstep. It’s the kind of mistake Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell would never make – even in the most fractious moments of his own caucus. When Utah Senator Mitt Romney broke ranks to become the first to vote to convict their own party’s president in an impeachment trial, McConnell admitted some disappointment and then defended Romney’s record and noted “I’m going to need his support.” After Arizona Senator John McCain cast a shocking vote against a partial repeal of the Affordable Care Act, McConnell’s office was careful to avoid critique, confessing only regret that they didn’t get enough votes overall. When Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski announced her opposition to Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, McConnell defended her.

The Republican leader’s politics of placation are what have made him one of the most cunning senatorial strategists in decades. That McConnell can brush these losses aside and focus on defending his caucus at all costs demonstrates a commitment to the only thing that matters from his strategic perspective: keeping the majority. 

Like it or not, Schumer owes his job – and Democrats owe their majority – not just to Manchin and Sinema, but also Georgia Democrats Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, and also Ohio’s Sherrod Brown… and Vermont’s Bernie Sanders… and Montana’s Jon Tester… and Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin… and Oregon’s Jeff Merkley… do you get it yet? This is a diverse caucus: some of them represent states that Trump won by almost 70% in 2020, and some represent states that Biden won by 66% that same year. 

Don’t put baby in a corner

Ignorance of this prime directive for a Senate leader to defend your caucus is not Schumer’s only misstep. Frustration with Schumer also reached a boiling point in January over his handling of the voting rights legislation.

That month, Schumer brought a voting rights bill he knew was going to fail to the Senate floor, forcing a vote on cloture to end debate. For the record, both Manchin and Sinema voted for cloture,1Eagle-eyed readers will note that the cloture motion’s final vote was 49-51 because Chuck Schumer did not vote for it! This confuses a lot of people, because it often happens when the majority’s vote is going against them. In order to make a motion to reconsider and allow a measure to be voted on again, a senator must have been on the prevailing side of the vote. Because the Senate majority leader has the privilege to be recognized before all other senators (this is also the mechanism through which they derive much of their power over what reaches the Senate floor), the majority leader will strategically vote against the measure so that they can then resuscitate it if they’d like on a later date. but as it did not receive the necessary three-fifths majority to overcome a filibuster (which required Republican votes), it failed. Schumer then moved to change Senate rules so that there would be a special exception for the voting rights bill to bypass a filibuster and pass by a majority vote. This was a mini-nuclear option, which required only a majority, but Schumer – to no surprise, given both Manchin and Sinema had already and consistently said they were against it – lost this vote 48-52.  

This exposed Schumer, his caucus, and especially his most vulnerable members up for reelection to a political failure. It put public and media focus on Democratic division and not on Schumer’s actual adversaries in the Republican minority. Vulnerable Democrats up for reelection in 2022 like Arizona’s Mark Kelly now had to be on the record on a failing issue and either reject or accept colleagues’ votes against them, rather than counter Republican opposition. 

A caucus with zero votes to spare can only move as far as its least willing member. Schumer should have recognized this and stuck by Manchin and Sinema if his goal is to keep his majority so that they can pass legislation. When members of his caucus consistently project that they will not support filibuster reform without bipartisan support, it is incumbent on Schumer to work within these constraints or resolve them, not to face a very public blowup in a dramatic showdown on the Senate floor. An effective leader would have recognized that this put them in a Democrats versus Democrats conflict, which meant Schumer’s real antagonists – the Republicans – avoided any criticism or negative media attention.

Be excellent to each other (then party on, dudes)

Now, Schumer is treading water. His caucus is upset, his agenda is stalled, and he may very well lose his majority in November. Schumer needs something to reunite the caucus and reset the agenda. When Breyer announced his retirement, we were quick to point out the political opening and chance for renewal that a historic Supreme Court nomination would offer Biden. Shepherding a Supreme Court nominee through confirmation – something Democrats have not achieved in 12 years, provides exactly the kind of party unity (which has been maintained in judicial nominations under Schumer) and refresh that congressional Democrats need if they want to retain their majority. As we wrote in January: “Use the brief era of good feelings and party unity to let West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin draft a social spending bill he can get on board with, and 2022 will be not just the year of Build Back Better, but the beginning of build back Biden, too.”

Using this large, high-profile reset to drive home how the caucus can work together is just the beginning for Schumer. If he listens to his members, avoids issues of friction within his caucus, and stands by those to whom he owes his leadership, he can begin a slow reset and hope to achieve something. 

For guidance, he would be wise to look not just across the aisle at McConnell, but across Capitol Hill to a caucus manager with a much wider range of members than he. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is fond of noting that she’s “never bringing a bill to the floor that doesn’t have the votes.” As Speaker, Pelosi has never lost a floor vote. Her commitment to protecting her members on the House side is unparalleled, to the point where she stood by one of her caucus members seeking to primary an incumbent Senator. Pelosi has to balance the interests of 222 members ranging from more conservative Democrats like Maine’s Jared Golden, Arizona’s Tom O’Halleran, or New Jersey’s Mikie Sherrill to progressive Democrats like New York’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Missouri’s Cori Bush. That she has done so with a slim majority in her own chamber, while Schumer has failed to do so while trying to balance the interests of 50 members in his, is reason enough for Schumer to cross Capitol Hill and get some advice. 

After the voting rights vote failed, Pelosi was asked at a press conference about attacks on Manchin and Sinema. Her answer was not subtle as to where Schumer has fallen flat: “I have not encouraged [criticism of Manchin and Sinema]. In fact, I have discouraged it, because we are a giant kaleidoscope here, Democrats and Republicans. You never know who is going to be in the design of the next bill.” 

Chuck Schumer would be wise to listen.