The New York Times is sniffing around Harry Reid’s political corpse, even though they really don’t have anything substantive to report. Naturally, both Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer have been doling out cash and campaigning for senators in an effort to shore up support, should Reid lose his seat. And, indeed, things are looking bleak for the Majority Leader:
Positioned to pull off the biggest upset in the nation, GOP challenger Sharron Angle heads into Election Day leading Democratic incumbent Sen. Harry Reid by 4 percentage points, says a new poll for the Las Vegas Review-Journal and 8NewsNow.
The Mason-Dixon Polling & Research survey has Angle with 49 percent support compared with 45 percent for Reid in its first survey since the Tea Party favorite and the Senate majority leader held their only debate Oct. 14. The findings match two other post-debate polls in the race and show momentum for Angle, who two weeks ago edged out Reid, 47 percent to 45 percent, in the last Mason-Dixon survey.
I think it’s difficult to poll this race, considering the unpopularity of both candidates and the fact that Nevada allows people to vote for ‘None of the Above.’ It’s very difficult for me to imagine Sharron Angle in the U.S. Senate, but I guess I just have to stimulate my imagination. It looks like it could very well happen.
I’ve been really conflicted about who I’d rather see replace him as leader, between Durbin and Schumer. I like Durbin a lot more than Schumer. I consider Durbin a solid progressive, while Schumer is much more of a creature of Wall Street. But Schumer is probably the more aggressive of the two, and he’s very, very smart. I hope we don’t have to make a decision between the two of them because that would mean that Sharron Angle will be in the Senate for the next six years. But I would be excited to see new leadership. I just don’t know what new leadership would be better for the Democratic Party.
My heart is with Durbin. My head is conflicted.
It’s going to be Schumer because of the cash he brings in, and I’d go with Schumer at any rate.
Yeah, but Schumer brings in the cash because he’s Wall Street’s pet. As majority leader he’d actually be less-well positioned to cater to the oligarchs — which, I suppose, could be a good thing.
Durbin is a better man and a better senator, but Chuck Schumer is a dick which is exactly what we need right now.
Not sure if I agree, but…well put!!
But a dick for whom? I don’t trust him to ever go against the financial oligarchy, no matter how much populist rhetoric he spews when it seems advantageous. Why do we need an unreliable dick again?
Both are interested in filibuster reform, so that’s good.
It’s not just the Democrats who are going to have a leadership battle. I expect DeMint to make a move to topple McConnell. If the GOP wins the House, Speaker Boehner is not necessary a sure thing; if the GOP fails to win the House, Eric Cantor makes his move.
I suspect the New York Times article is the opening action of Schumer making his move.
Schumer over Durbin, preferably even if Reid wins in NV and Ds maintain senate control.
Our side just needs a much stronger public voice going into the next difficult two yrs. Obama, Reid, Pelosi, all smart, thoughtful, decent folks who unfortunately fail to give voice to the Dem base’s passion and frustration about the current situation with their very low-key manner.
Durbin is too closely aligned politically with Obama being from IL and having been so important to O’s decision to run (much too soon, imo) for prez after only a coupla years in the senate. From my pov (not a popular one here, I know), I wouldn’t want to reward Durbin for helping give us a young guy who really wasn’t ready for the top job and who still doesn’t understand the negative nature of the GOP.
Schumer is not ideal, mostly with his Wall St ties, but there don’t seem to be others — like a Sheldon Whitehouse — who are maneuvering to offer their leadership services.
What the Dems need, imo, and what was stark by it’s absence is a steam roller. Both Obama & Reid were/are far too timid. If Schumer can say, “I don’t care if you agree, or not, we’re doing it this way” good for him.
Personnally, I like Durbin better. I was at a Durbin fund raiser at Paul Simon’s house and Al Franken was there in his SNL get-up. (Howse that for name-dropping?) I perceive, Durbin to walk/talk softly, but carrying a big stick.
Off topic but I’m just wondering, since FDR the same party has won three consecutive elections only once, with Bush I in 88. Additionally, it seems a serious presidential candidate needs a national profile at least four years ahead of time, although I suppose Clinton didn’t have that. With Obama the presumptive favorite in 2012, who is a strong possibility for the democrats in 2016? The tricky thing is that I feel that excepting Hillary, no one from within the administration or the congress can do it, unless things are quite rosy indeed in 2016, which is unlikely. The history seems to be that voters are very inclined to give the other party a shot after 8 years.
While a republican victory in next week’s elections will be depressing, a presidential victory would be a nightmare, with the cataclysm of the boy king’s presidency representing the new standard in conservative politics. We just can’t allow these people anywhere near the white house. So shouldn’t some people be thinking about this now, although obviously it’s a long way away? Obviously it’s ridiculous in a way to even worry about it, yet it seems like someone needs to be formulating a plan as early as now for this. Should Obama be quietly grooming someone, assuming Hillary isn’t running?
Six years = multiple eternities in politics. Don’t worry, new faces will emerge. For example, in 2002 do you think many Democrats were thinking about an Illinois state senator as a presidential candidate in 2008?
I’d go with Durbin. He is a good progressive, which is exactly what we need given that parts of the progressive base seem demoralized. In addition, he is a lot stronger and more passionate on issues than many people realize.
As for Schumer, I like him and his ability to bring in the cash for the party. But the last thing we need to do at this time of anger against Wall Street is to put in a high profile leadership position someone so closely aligned with Wall Street.
Do you mean to say that that Reid has actually led?!!
Because neither Schumer nor Durbin are perfect is no reason to have to pick sides. And it is not our pick to make.
Who the leader is depends on who the Senators in the Democratic caucus are. And we don’t know that yet.
I bet Brad Ellsworth is not among them. Nor Blanche Lincoln. Nor Arlen Specter. And likely to be among them is Scott McAdams, Jack Conway, Chris Coons. And we might get Robin Carnahan, Elaine Marshall, or Roxanne Conlin if lightning strikes.
These folks might have a totally different idea of what is needed in a majority leader.
Between Durbin and Schumer, which is more likely to attempt Senate rules reform in regard to filibusters and quorum calls and etc? That dude gets my support.
Absolutely right. Filibuster reform will be far and away the most important issue for the new Congress. Both Durbin and Schumer have spoken favorably of reform, but I’d trust Durbin far more to honestly follow through.