Could coalition of Democrats & Republicans replace McConnell as Senate Majority Leader?

I could see this happening. There seems to be some underlying revolt from the GOP Senate. They will vote for Majority leader after the Georgia Senate races have finished.

No r1, they would all lose republican primaries so that ain't happening, plus they all prefer McConnell.

R2 Depends on how far along Trump's coup attempt goes. If McConnell keeping the gavel is the difference between another Trump term and another Biden term, Romney and Murkowski would give the gavel to Schumer to stop it.

Something like this could also drive a wedge between "Party of Lincoln" Republicans and "Party of Trump" Republicans. If the split persisted or deepened, it would eventually result in four main coalitions in the Senate:

* Trump Republicans who get more and more radical by the day

* Lincoln Republicans who are increasingly more disturbed by the Trumpians than moderate Democrats. Romney, Murkowski, Collins, etc.

* Establishment/Conservative Democrats who are eager to prove they're neither 'socialist' nor in favor of defunding the police.

* Progressive Democrats, who regard the right 2/3 of the party as sellouts

No and never. Nobody should make any concessions to the GOP unless they yank down McConnell by his shriveled balls. The Democrats should harass and attack Republicunts till they scream uncle.

Let that Kompromat fly. Today. Now.

Not likely, but Romney, Murkowski & Collins would be good candidates. Romney is safe in Utah, Murkowski won last time as a write-in candidate & Collins has another 6 years before having to face a primary.

R2, the thing is, if Romney played it to get the gavel for himself (indirectly empowering Utah), and otherwise was on "good behavior", he probably WOULD win his next primary. In the RP, challenging an incumbent Republican is taboo, EVEN IF the incumbent is on the national party's shit list. Challengers who lose are blackballed from the RP for life, so it's a HUGE gamble few will make.

Collins *barely* won re-election. She *needs* to start making friends across the aisle, while antagonizing as few Republicans at home as possible. She can spin it as "she believes in giving everyone a voice, and allowing bills to get voted on after spirited debate" (vs Mitch silently blocking them).

Murkowski would probably emerge unscathed. Alaska is Republican, but it's "Alaska Republican", and doesn't quite neatly align with either party 100%.

r5, in other words, you're as intolerant & authoritarian as the Trump camp... anyone who doesn't agree 100% with you & officially play for your team is a traitor enemy combatant.

We need to BREAK the destructive cycle of hyper-partisanship and authoritarian intolerance, not shore it up. The Republicans might have started it, but that doesn't mean flipping 160 degrees to the left will make things any better. We need to return to amicable adversity and reasoned debate, and turn our backs on the scorched-earth strategies of Gincrich & Friends.

[quote] Let that Kompromat fly.

Why is everyone capitalizing this word? It’s not a proper noun.

You need to fuck off and die r8.

Why people like you come to a heavily left leaning site and shit out your GOP talking points is beyond absurd.

You’re an idiot, a stooge, a moron. If you’re gay, you’re worse than an Uncle Tom. They hate you and wish death upon you every minute of every day, and you lick their asses. You’re worse than a Jew for hitler. You’re Grima Wormtongue crossed with Gollum but worse.

How spineless worms like you face yourself in the mirror every day is a mystery.

Oh, and in case it was unclear, die in a grease fire. Wear a MAGA hat as you’re doing it for love of your shitsmeared diaper wearing orange god.

r10, LOL, seriously? "GOP talking points"?!? What I've just described is the GOP's official worst nightmare... its de-facto descent into IRRELEVANCE as its nominal members openly engage in relations with the Democrats and rebel against it.

Get fucked r11.

The Senate can vote to remove him, or or when he comes up for a new term as Majority Leader they can propose and vote for someone else. No one ever challenges him.,

I think there's a legit chance of getting Senator Burr to resign, and then having his Democratic governor replace him with a Democrat.

If Burr is given immunity for his financial crimes and maybe a nice spot in the Biden administration, it could be a good way to say FU to the GOP for screwing him over so badly.

This is one of the dumbest threads on DL. And that's saying something. The Majority Leader of the Senate is not voted on by the entire body. Each party votes for who they want to lead their caucus. Republicans vote for the Republican leader. Democrats vote for theirs. The leader of whichever party has the most senators is designated the Majority Leader. The only way Romney, Murkowski and Collins could vote with Democrats would be if they switched parties,which would give the Democrats the majority of senators and Schumer would then be the Majority Leader. Unless another Democrat challenged him and received the votes of enough Democratic senators to beat him.

r15, my entire point IS, the scenario you described assumes Senators from a party elect a leader from their party, then vote along strict party lines to enforce it. Normally, that's the way it historically has gone.

These aren't normal times. The RP is in greater danger of angrily fracturing apart into two or more factions who view each other as illegitimate savages than it has in modern history... and Romney, Murkowski, and Collins are its metaphorical "San Andreas Fault".

30 to 40 years ago, the Democrats lost almost their entire conservative wing to the Republican Party. If Schumer (and Pelosi, and Biden) play their cards well, this is their golden opportunity to bring them back into the fold & cement the Democrats' role as America's establishment majority party for the next few decades.

If the Democrats end up somehow winning only 1 of 2 seats in Georgia, electing Romney, Collins, or Murkowski as their nominal leader (and thereby inducing them to vote for the Democrats to elect themselves instead of McConnell) would be a sneaky parliamentary trick to turn a minority loss into a saving throw hail-mary partial victory & ensure their agenda at LEAST gets discussed & voted on, rather than silently squelched.

R16 you still don't get it. The votes aren't held in a joint session of both parties. The Republicans get together in their caucus and vote for for their leader. There would be no Democrat for Romney, et al, to vote for. There would only be Republicans nominated by the Republicans to lead the Republican caucus. No Republican is going to put forward Schumer or some other Democrat for the Republican caucus to vote for. You seem to be under the impression that all 100 senators vote on who gets to be Majority Leader. That's not how it works.

I read your OP again and realized that you're even dumber than I thought. But I take pity on your ignorance, so I'll try to help you out.

There are two groups of senators. One is comprised of all of the Republican senators (the Republican caucus). The other is comprised of all of the Democrats plus two independent senators who have chosen to ally with the Democrats (the Democratic caucus). The caucus with the most members is "the Senate majority". The one with the least members is "the Senate minority". Right now, the Republicans have the majority. If the Democrats win both Georgia runoffs, they will become the majority in the next Senate. If not, the Republicans will retain their majority.

At some point soon, each caucus will meet separately to choose who will lead their respective caucuses. The Republicans will choose McConnell and the Democrats will choose Schumer, unless there's an uprising among the caucus members, which there won't be. Once it is determined which caucus holds the majority in the new senate (based on the outcome of the Georgia races), one of them will be the Majority Leader and the other the Minority Leader. The Majority Leader controls the business of the Senate.

Your idea of having the Democrats join with Romney et al to to elect the Majority Leader is not even a possibility. Unless the Democrats can convince Romney and the others to switch parties to make the Democratic caucus the majority with a promise to elect Romney as their caucus leader. That's is not going to happen.

So, yeah, these aren't normal times. But it's not a fantasy world either.

The one scenario you're ignoring is the possibility of a Republican Senator (Romney/Murkowski/Collins) announcing that they'll caucus with the Democrats (while officially remaining a Republican).

Yes,it would be unprecedented for a Republican to do it... but it's not literally impossible. It would probably nuke any future possibility of Romney et al running for President AS A REPUBLICAN, but would simultaneously pave the way for him to someday run as a legit trailblazing "new Democrat", and would have little direct impact on his Senate-electability. Frankly, if the RP continues on its Trumpian trajectory, Romney et al have no realistic chance of winning the Republican nomination for President, anyway.

Yes, Republicans in general would howl, cite it as direct evidence of a deep-state conspiracy, and make threats... and Romney could tell them all to fuck off. The national party will walk on eggshells, because it would rather have a nominal Republican who's still mostly in agreement with its agenda in the Senate than a pissed-off & antagonized FORMER Republican who's ready to actively oppose them. Remember, regardless of what happens, Romney et al are all US senators, and party loyalty won't & can't change that for the remainder of their terms.

Now, if both Georgia seats go to the Democrats, Romney et al won't do anything to rock the boat. But if it came down to 49-51, I think the Democrats would do everything possible to try and snatch final victory away from Mitch.