Oh, yes, indeed, you’ve got a “lifetime of evidence” it makes no difference.
Case in point - had Schumer or Reid been majority leader vs. McConnell when the Supreme Court vacancy occurred under Obama - his pick would have blocked just like McConnell did. No difference, right?
Another example - Schumer almost certainly would have gone nuclear to get Gorsuch confirmed like McConnell did, baiting the Democrats into doing so, so the filibuster would not be available to them on future and even more consequential nominations. Another example of there being no difference.
Schumer would have gotten Kavanaugh through despite everything thrown at him, as well as Barrett - just like McConnell. No difference at all.
Schumer would have passed numerous Congressional Review Act measures and sent them to Trump’s desk like McConnell did. No difference.
Schumer would have gotten tax reform through, repealing individual mandate, etc. and sent them to Trump’s desk just like McConnell did. No difference.
No difference in whether or not the filibuster was upheld due to unanimous GOP opposition to changing it and therefore blocking Supreme Court packing, federal “election reform”, etc. No difference at all if a handful of GOP seats went Democrat.
Stopping BBB. No difference at all if a handful of GOP seats went Democrat.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
I mean, really - you can really see how there is no difference whatsoever...
Sure, those were positive developments but at the cost of having one viable direction in the country I don’t think it’s imperative to have “your team” winning at all cost. If Romney gets thrown out and that means losing the Senate for a cycle or two I think it’s worth it. The same is true if you’re bringing on a new Romney. Senators like that who stay for 30 years do more damage. The Supreme Court is one branch and really if you had a strong Senate that one branch van be neutralized.