Okay, here’s a significantly expanded and detailed rewrite of the article you provided, formatted with Markdown. I’ve aimed for a minimum of 600 words while expanding on the context, arguments, and implications of the interview.

Chris Hayes Grills Chuck Schumer Over Democratic Strategy Against Trump

MSNBC host Chris Hayes subjected Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to a rigorous questioning session on Tuesday’s "All In With Chris Hayes," focusing on the perceived lack of effective Democratic resistance to President Donald Trump and the Republican agenda in Congress. The interview came in the wake of significant internal party dissent following Schumer’s decision to vote in favor of a continuing resolution (CR) that averted a federal government shutdown. This vote, aligning Schumer with Republicans, has fueled calls from within the Democratic party for new leadership, suggesting a growing frustration with the party’s current strategies.

The heart of the debate centered on whether Schumer’s approach – prioritizing incremental gains in Trump’s public disapproval ratings – is a sufficient response to what Hayes characterized as an unprecedented power grab by the Trump administration.

Schumer defended his actions by arguing that Trump’s enduring popularity, even at the time of the interview, presented a significant obstacle to any aggressive opposition strategy. He maintained that the key to unlocking Democratic leverage lay in systematically eroding Trump’s support base. "We have started doing this day in, day out, every day, fighting relentlessly," Schumer claimed. "His numbers have started to go down from 51 to 47. If we keep at it, and keep at it, and keep at it, his numbers will be much lower. He will not only be less popular, but less effective." This strategy, while seemingly patient, drew criticism for its reliance on gradual shifts in public opinion rather than immediate, forceful action.

Schumer further articulated a two-pronged approach. He highlighted instances where Democrats would refuse to provide votes to advance Republican priorities, even if such opposition triggered a government shutdown. "Democrats will find the moments where we shouldn’t give them votes," Schumer stated, asserting that in such scenarios, "Democrats will have the higher ground and we’re going to do it. Watch us." This commitment to strategic obstruction, however, was juxtaposed against the recent CR vote, raising questions about the consistency and credibility of the Democratic strategy.

Hayes challenged Schumer’s approach, arguing that it was inadequate in the face of what he described as Trump’s authoritarian ambitions. "If Mitt Romney were president," Hayes argued, Schumer’s political moves might be effective. However, under a Trump presidency, which Hayes characterized as "ambitiously trying to seize all power and create a presidential dictatorship in the United States," a more aggressive and uncompromising stance was necessary. This stark assessment underscored the core disagreement: whether traditional political tactics were sufficient to counter what Hayes viewed as an existential threat to American democracy.

The MSNBC host pressed Schumer on the potential ineffectiveness of his strategy. He asked, "Then what happens?" in the event that Democrats failed to significantly diminish Trump’s favorability. Schumer’s response emphasized the potential for further reductions in Trump’s approval, pointing to supposed successes in 2017 as evidence of this strategy’s efficacy. Hayes, however, remained unconvinced, interrupting Schumer with a skeptical, "It’s different though, My God." This exchange captured the fundamental divide between Schumer’s belief in the gradual erosion of Trump’s power through public opinion and Hayes’s conviction that the current situation demanded a more radical and immediate response.

Adding fuel to the fire, Hayes played a compilation of clips featuring prominent Democrats, including Rep. Hakeem Jeffries and former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, openly criticizing Schumer’s decision to support the CR bill. This move laid bare the internal fractures within the Democratic party and highlighted the growing discontent with Schumer’s leadership.

Pelosi’s statement, "I, myself, don’t give away anything for nothing. And I think that’s what happened the other day," drew a visible reaction from Schumer. He defended his vote by claiming that Republicans were unwilling to negotiate, leaving Democrats with only two choices: pass the CR or trigger a government shutdown. "They weren’t gonna negotiate with us, so, there were two choices, only. It would be nice if we had a third choice," Schumer asserted. This explanation, however, failed to fully address the criticism that Democrats had conceded leverage without extracting any meaningful concessions from Republicans.

Schumer concluded by arguing that a government shutdown would have been a worse outcome than passing the CR. This pragmatic justification, while perhaps appealing to some, did little to quell the perception that Schumer had prioritized avoiding short-term political pain over taking a principled stand against the Trump administration.

The interview highlighted a critical juncture for the Democratic party. Schumer’s leadership is being challenged, and the fundamental question of how to effectively oppose Trump remains unresolved. The debate centers on whether to prioritize incremental gains in public opinion or adopt a more confrontational approach, even if it risks political setbacks. As the 2024 election cycle heats up, the pressure on Democrats to develop a coherent and effective strategy will only intensify.