Definitely half the Senate; they’ve been there the longest, and seem more interested in internal party structures and hierarchies than governing. Some of them seem genuinely shook by the way Trump has upended Democratic norms, but even then they seem like they just want to get back to business as usual.

The good news is that I don’t think the current leadership is long for power. Schumer came across like such a weak imbecile in the shutdown negotiations that even centrists want him gone. Jefferies might hold on for another term because he kept the caucus together during the shutdown, but he’s heavily tied to AIPAC, and that is now deeply toxic to most Democratic voters.

First of all, again, they did control the Senate; Schumer was Majority leader. If you want to argue that they didn’t have a strong enough Majority to govern, fine, but that’s not what, “control of the Senate,” means. Second of all, the last time the Democrats did have a strong Majority in the senate (60 seats at the start of Obama’s term), they let the public option get stripped out of the Affordable Care Act and abandoned homeowner mortgage bailouts because they preferred to let one Senator (Joe Lieberman) hijack the negotiations. Either the leadership of this party isn’t interested in advancing a progressive agenda or their the most spineless, incompetent negotiators in history.

They did control the Senate: 50 members (48 Democrats and 2 Independents that caucus with them), plus the Democratic VP to break ties. But they couldn’t pass anything Biden ran on because a couple of, “moderates,” wouldn’t play ball. Just like, even though the Democrats were winning on the shutdown last year, eight, “moderates,” decided to cave. The Democrats will always find a few Democrats to be the villains of the week so that the party can betray their voters to please their donors.

Expect bipartisan legislation to increase the anonymity of PAC money before the year is over.