Schumer, in his efforts to eliminate or at least loosen the legislative filibuster, has been running the exact same play he learned from Reid: Putting Republican obstruction on trial by repeatedly forcing votes, specifically on iterations of voting rights legislation, to build up a case against the filibuster. This has actually worked, to an extent: 90-something percent of Democrats are ready to at least make carve-outs to the legislative filibuster if not raze it altogether. This was not the case at the beginning of the year. But he, like Reid, has a couple of holdouts who just won’t budge, and he, unlike Reid, has no way around those couple of holdouts. There is no pressure that Schumer, or anyone in the national Democratic party, can apply in West Virginia that would make Joe Manchin fearful of his job security.

What would Harry Reid have done with this 50-50 Senate majority that Schumer hasn’t? He would’ve been both meaner and funnier, often at the same time. He may have been more straightforward about the limits of a 50-seat majority, hiding the ball less and saying “We can’t do that because Joe Manchin’s being a jerk” in public more.

But stylistic differences aside, Reid and Schumer would’ve applied similar strategies since Schumer is basically running the playbook that Reid invented. It was a response to McConnell’s ramp-up, during the Obama administration, of filibustering and obstruction as the norm in how a Senate minority acts. When the Senate changed, Reid changed, recognizing that he couldn’t wait for Republicans to come around forever. And when the Senate changed, so, too, would Senate rules have to change.