Google Ads


Site Stats

Who Should Succeed Bob Menendez as DSCC Chair?

by: DavidNYC

Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 5:13 PM EST


The Hill is reporting that John Cornyn will likely seek to stay on for another term as head of the NRSC. That of course raises the question of who will lead our senate campaign committee next cycle. It's not just that I think Bob Menendez did an ineffectual job as DSCC chair - the guy is also up for re-election in 2012, and it's hard to balance both jobs. (Click here to see who else is up.)

So who should lead the DSCC?

UPDATE: In comments, TheGradyDem passes along a link from Politico, in which a whole host of Dems say they aren't interested in the job.

LATER UPDATE: Chuck Schumer doesn't sound particularly interested...
DavidNYC :: Who Should Succeed Bob Menendez as DSCC Chair?
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Who Should Succeed Bob Menendez as DSCC Chair? | 143 comments
Senator Schumer to the red courtesy phone please

What about Wyden?
For now being a relatively senior Democrat he has no leadership role so far, so this could finally be a way for him to move up the chain. Plus, he just outperformed a former governor by 15 points or so.. compare that to Boxer/Brown.

So he's likely not too bad at getting people elected.

18- Hamburg, Germany (non-US-citizen)

He's
more of a policy wonk and wouldn't be suited to leading a party's committee.

Someone should start a "Draft Schumer for DSCC" facebook page.

19, Male, Independent, CA-12

[ Parent ]
That's my vote as well.


20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
Wyden might be an interesting choice
I'd go with Wyden or Bennet as dark horse picks but I suspect Schumer will be the guy.  

Independent Socialist & Chair of SSP Cranky Indianian Hoosier Caucus, IN-09
[ Parent ]
Not in the realm of possibility
As some people have said already, he is a wonk, through and through. He likes bi-partisanship and generally will march to the beat of his own drum a-la Wyden-Bennett or tax reform with Senator Gregg. He couldn't engage in this type of activity as chair of DSCC since  electoral politics is a zero-sum game, while the policy things he likes are generally not even close to zero-sum.

progressive, NY-8 (home), PA-7 (college)
[ Parent ]
There is only one possible solution
Al franken

18, Dem, PA-7
He said he doesn't want to
A shame
[ Parent ]
I'll run down Franken as a candidate
He'd probably be a pretty good candidate simply due to all the fundraising he can get.  I saw his call sheet binders back when I was one of his first campaign interns, he has four huge ones labeled MN, NY, San Fran, LA.  He could tap the Hollywood money like no other Senator could probably in history.  And that was back in March 2007 so his contacts have grown exponentially.

I dont know how politically sharp he is but he's a very smart guy in general, he isnt great on the stump and he has his own baggage as a candidate so I cant imagine him ever doing a rally for a candidate.  I'm not sure how he'd be on candidate recruitment but he's a personable guy and could maybe even promise some great celeb studded fundraisers.

[ Parent ]
I could see this
being a GREAT idea, if the job is mostly fund raising. The problem is, I imagine a good deal of it is candidate recruitment. Now, while I don't doubt he's a serious guy who has probably earned the respect of those that he's worked with, I am not sure he'd be nearly as successful as someone else who wasn't a comedian before he became a senator at meeting people and getting them into races, whereas I could easily see Schumer doing that. I'd love to be wrong on this, however, because if Franken takes this job and is successful, it'll drive the Fox News crowd absolutely nuts.

I don't know if anyone has brought their names up, but why not Kirsten Gillibrand, Mark Warner, or Kay Hagan? What about Patty Murray or Maria Cantwell?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Gillibrand and Cantwell are obviously out. They're up in 2012.


My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)
[ Parent ]
Mark Warner
I've been disappointed with him as my senator so far,and his rolodex would be phenomenal for fundraising.

22, male, VA-10
im down w warner
i think hed do a great job, but i think itll end up back in schumers lap. curse of doing ur job too well

25. gay jewish male. amherst, ma
[ Parent ]
A few ideas
Bring back Chuck Schumer - he knows how to do the job, can raise the money, and isn't up in 2012.

Assuming he doesn't want to reprise his past successful role at DSCC, the other options might be:

Barbara Boxer
Tom Harkin
Al Franken
Kay Hagan
Mark Warner
Mark Udall

Of those, I'd think Udall would be best choice, and Franken a close second. (Although the question of whether or not Franken would become a lightening rod for negative attention should be factored in).

Boxer could probably raise the cash, don't know if she's a great choice in terms of doing the hand holding with candidate recruitment, etc.  Hagan knocked off an incumbent, but as a low profile first termer, she might not be ready for such a role.  Warner could raise the money, but don't know if he wants to take on a high profile party role. Harkin is a veteran, but probably not interested in the nuts and bolts of candidate recruitment and fundraising.


What about Sheldon Whitehouse?
I know he's up for re-election, but he's running in Rhode Island, so it should be an easy victory for him. He's a solid Democrat who would be able to go to the mat and fight and the fact that he's not a centrist endears him to me. I always enjoyed listening to him during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings.  
My $.02:
A toss-up between Jack Reed and Kirsten Gillibrand.

I'm biased towards Gillibrand because I interned for her a long time ago. Also, she'd be well-suited for a DSCC gig because she can raise a heck of a lot of money.

[ Parent ]
FWIW, Gillibrand's up for re-election again in 2012.
Her 2010 "re"-election was only a special election to fill the remainder of Hillary's term.  

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
that must be depressing
two years of campaigning, only to win... and start again immediately to be ready for 2012.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
[ Parent ]
Eh, she's probably used to it by now.
That's what she had to do when she was a Congresswoman.  And besides, she dominated this year.  It would be different if she had won by one point.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Maybe,
but unless the tide turns so sharply against the Democrats that it's hard to describe, she's going to cruise to reelection. Who, exactly, is going to challenge her on the Republican side?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Baseball bat
Clearly it should be Paladino. That way we can get more horrible baseball references and remind us of how horrible 2010 Tea Party candidates really were.

But on a serious note we'll get more Guilliani buzz (only for him to decide to run after the election takes place), and I wouldn't be surprised to see Lazio or Pataki state an interest in running. Rep. King mentioned he had interest in running for Senate and I'm sure 2012 is his last chance. Also, recent Republican House candidates might run.

Also, Bloomberg's term in NYC is up in 2012 and although I don't think he'll run for Senator I would still list it as a possibility.

I wouldn't be suprised if Rep. Lee (NY-26) runs. He'd do well in western NY.

[ Parent ]
I'm sure he'd do great in Western NY
just like Paladino.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
I'd suggest any of the following...
Jeff Bingaman
Maria Cantwell
Tom Harkin
Jack Reed
Jay Rockefellar
Chuck Schumer
Mark Warner

I love Boxer and Franken, but I suspect they're too polarizing for this position. Just look at Elizabeth Dole's failures in '06 by tacking to the far-right - there was no outreach whatsoever to moderates. At least John Cornyn is bowing to the every need of the Tea Party crowd.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast

*At least John Cornyn ISN'T bowing to the every need...


For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast
[ Parent ]
Cantwell's up for re-election in 2012.
I don't expect her to lose by any means, but I expect the Republicans to at least try to make a showing of it.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
4th times a charm for Rossi no doubt!
I thought the only talent in the GOP bench (the AG or something?) was going to be gravitating towards the Governor's race?  Doesn't sound like Cantwell is going to have much of an actual threat, instead going for something like Clint Didier-lite.
[ Parent ]
Hey, Rossi still needs a defeat by Cantwell to complete the trifecta.
Gregoire and Murray have beaten him already.  One more and he'll have the full set of electoral defeats by Washington's Democratic women.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Does that like, unlock some sort of achievement?
Or give you some sort of prize?

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01
[ Parent ]
Hehe.
I can picture an Xbox live-type achievement, complete with a medal showing the Washington ladies smiling and flipping you off.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Bingaman's up for re-election


21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
One of the Udall cousins
There family has been in politics forever so they would have the connections to raise money. Neither is up for re-election. And both took over seats from a Republican albeit retiring ones

22, radical moderate AL-6.
that would be cool
A udall brother could be good.

22, male, VA-10
[ Parent ]
I'd say Boxer
She is from the BIGGEST state, which also makes it the most expensive place to run statewide elections.  She knows how to raise money, and I would think that makes her qualified for raising money.

20, Male, Democrat, CA-44 (home) CA-12 (college)
That's what I'm thinking.
Also, like Schumer, she's a fighter and would probably be able to strong-arm some potentially strong recruits to run or some incumbents in seats that would be vulnerable when open to stay on (ala Ben Nelson).

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)
[ Parent ]
john kerry?
kind of a demotion, i know, but he has a national donor base, is well known and should have national political connections after 2004.  plus he's not up until 2014, and is unlikely to be vulnerable even if he was.  as for being a lightening rod, make sure he doesn't joke, keep him away from media unless necessary and he can't be worse than franken in terms of rightwing anger.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
Actually
I kind of like this. And it might make sense for him if he's looking to get on the good side of party leaders-- go all-out for the DSCC for two years, and set himself up as the next Secretary of State in 2013?

Don't think it's likely, but I see how it could maybe make sense.

[ Parent ]
He's done it before, actually
He was DSCC chair for the '86 cycle.  
[ Parent ]
I don't remember
maybe because I was a few days old that election.

party: Democratic, ideology: moderate, district: CT-01
[ Parent ]
'88 cycle, actually
And he did alright. We had a net gain of +1 even though we already had a decent-sized majority and George Bush won by a pretty sizeable margin. I'd be down for Kerry if we don't get Schumer or Warner.

19, male, Dem, CT-04 (home) PA-02 (college and registered)
[ Parent ]
I say Chuck Schumer.


Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
Senator Chuck Schumer
Little biased, he is my senator.  However, he has the chops and moxie. He hold his own easily when on tv and not duck from GOP talking points, can raise cash easily, and has prior experience as former chair.  

Now, say he passes, my next choice would be Durbin.  

NY-29

Can you be Majority Whip
and DSCC Chair at the same time?

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
How About Someone Who Just Ran a Good Campaign?
I think both Schumer and Warner could do a good job - but what about Michael Bennet? He won both a tough primary and a tough general, and seems pretty well-connected. Or how about Kirsten Gillibrand (sure she's up, but it's NY in a presidential election year)?
Chuck Schumer
I have no doubts on this one. He's the perfect man for the job.
MICHAEL BENNET!!!
He can keep the job for four years and he has proven to be a good campaigner and a fresh face. He has future leader written all over him. I can't think of a better person for the job.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
TBH I really do like the man and I'm relieved that he won
He's got it going for him since he did portray the outsider image well yet still managed to raise prodigious amounts of money for that race that was heavily targetted by the GOP.  
[ Parent ]
Bernie Sanders, even though
he's not technically a democrat.
a few problems
1.  too old.  he's in his late sixties i think, not exactly spry.

2.  few connections nationally.  he's been doing more to make connections with the party since becoming a senator, but he's not very well connected.

3.  he a self declared socialist.  it's hard enough for dems to fight back against the socialist meme on their own, but the rightwing would love to harp about the nominees "hand picked by self declared socialist 'bernie hussein adolf stalin obama i'm going to tack all your money sanders.'"  it's more pain than it's worth.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.

[ Parent ]
He's
up for re-election this year. And he would be much too controversial. Don't get me wrong, he's my favorite Senator but he would not be a good face of the party.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
[ Parent ]
Um, none of that is as important as the fact Sanders is NOT A DEMOCRAT......
That's, um, fatal.

He deliberately refuses to be a Democrat.

And he's going to try to recruit people to run for U.S. Senate as DEMOCRATS?

No.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
This is the last time I'm ever going to warn you about this
Your use of ALL CAPS is grating and absolutely needless. No one else on the site engages in this behavior. Everyone knows that caps = yelling. There is no yelling at the Swing State Project. So stop doing it. Altogether.
[ Parent ]
OK, sorry. (nm)
nm

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10
[ Parent ]
A lot of Senators said they won't do it
Mark Warner, Jeff Merkley, Jeanne Shaheen, Al Franken, Mark Begich, Tom Udall, and Mark Udall

I think Schumer is the only one left  not up for reelection who is viable ad wants it.

if he doesn't try to coup reid
and durbin remains whip, i suppose it'll help curry favor for an eventual run for majority leader.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
[ Parent ]
On rollcall.com, Durbin and Schumer
both pledged to support Reid for another term as Majority Leader.  So, barring extreme circumstances, there will be no coup.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
That is somewhat disappointing
I hope I'm not the only one who could imagine Schumer being as ruthless as LBJ as Majority Leader.  The man projects power and he's the kind of man that would have the nads to force votes.  With that kind of personality and a Democrat in the Whitehouse, we could make a good run for it to try and alienate the House in a way that may just win back a lot of our seats in 2012.
[ Parent ]
Link please?
When did all these people say they won't do it?
[ Parent ]
Well I read it
here
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Someone else gave the official link

[ Parent ]
Mark Warner makes sense
Schumer would be the best choice but early indications are that he doesn't want to do it.

To me Mark Warner makes a lot of sense. He's a very good fundraiser from a swing state. He knows what kind of strategy is going to be needed in 2012 to win some of these states that got away from Dems this year.

You have to remember that raising money is only part of this job, you need the right staff, you're going to need to recruit candidates in Nevada, Connecticut, Maine and Massachusetts. Plus you have to worry about the retirement of someone like Herb Kohl. And that doesn't even get into the seats that Dems are defending.

If not Warner then maybe someone like Jeanne Shaheen. But really Warner makes the most sense to me. Part of the problem is that many of the logical choices to Chair the DSCC are up for reelection in 2012.  

ive heard Klobuchar is quite interested
But yeah, she's up in 2012.  She'll probably do it in 2014 then, or 2016 so she isn't responsible for her home-state seat.
[ Parent ]
Okay, forgive me y'all
But what EXACTLY is the job of DSCC chair?  From what I understand, the biggest part is fundraising. Next comes candidate recruitment/support. With so many incumbents up, there's actually not a whole lot of recruiting to do... And after that...messaging? Resource allocation? Anything else, really?

If this is the case, it should be someone with a big fundraising base, probably from a big state. And it has to be someone from a blue state because other Senators might fear they will look too "partisan" in the job. Plus, a liberal-leaning choice like that would be good for speaking to the base and influencing primaries to get chosen candidates into the general.

In my mind, then, Schumer & Boxer are the obvious standouts. Schumer, since he's done it before (and done a good job before) would seem to have the edge. But maybe a fresh face in the form of Boxer would be good. The only other good option I see would probably be John Kerry, who also has good fundraising ability.

If I chose, I would actually pick Boxer who comes with the added bonus that I think she's probably the most likely person as DSCC chair to be able to get Olympia Snowe to switch (they've worked together on legislation and been female colleagues in a boys club for years and years, they get on well, from what little I know). Now that would be a recruiting coup.

Kansan by birth, Californian by choice, and Gay by the grace of God.

Kerry
won't do it because he is the chair of Foreign affairs and it is probably to much for one person to do both.  

TX-13,22,Dem
[ Parent ]
It has to be Schumer
the Democrats will can not according to their own rules put up someone who is running for reelection. Everyone already said they do not want it. However Bennet could be the dark horse. Boxer is out since she is charring a committee as is Harkin and many others.  

TX-13,22,Dem
Link please?
When did all these people say they didn't want it?
[ Parent ]
Here
http://www.politico.com/news/s...

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26
[ Parent ]
Schumer, Schumer, Schumer.....
Get him in there two out of every three election cycles.  If he's not on the ballot, put him in the DSCC.
Agreed on Schumer.
An added bonus is that he helped create many of the democratic senators who will be vulnerable in 12/14.

CO-02 (college)/FL-15 (home).  
[ Parent ]
DSCC
Because of how tough the 2012 cycle is going to be, with the class of 2006 coming up, I doubt Schumer will want to do it. He wouldn't want to hurt his chances of becoming Majority leader one day with a possible bad cycle in 2012 that could be blamed on him.
Barbara Boxer
She's run every single one of her races very smartly, taking nothing for granted and that's what we need.

24, male, African-American, CA-24, Democrat. Chair of the SSP Black Caucus.
No one seems to have any reason not to
Why?  

1.  She's not up until 2016

2.  Has proven she can fundraise

3.  DSCC chair needs to be able to get $$ out of Manhattan or LA -- and she can

4.  Real Democrat

She's not really a wartime consigliere, but given that Sonny Schumer has done his time, I suspect that if she is staffed correctly, it's probably our best choice.

[ Parent ]
No brainer
Add me to the long list of SSPers who are pleading with Chuck Schumer to take another stab at it. He's perfect for the job, great track record. Otherwise, I'd go with Mark Warner, since he's plugged in to a large network of businessmen, or Tom Udall, who simply strikes me as a highly competent manager.

But by all means, BRING BACK CHUCK!!!

19, male, Dem, CT-04 (home) PA-02 (college and registered)

If need be, I'd also throw in some sort of incentive to Schumer
I'd promise him chairmanship of the Finance Committee once Max Baucus is gone or perhaps even promise him the Majority Leader's position or Majority Whip as soon as they open up. Not sure how much appeal an Appropriations position would tempt him, too.

Either way, offer this guy some sort of quid pro quo if he doesn't bite immediately.

19, male, Dem, CT-04 (home) PA-02 (college and registered)

[ Parent ]
who would be the "you" promising him? Reid?
He's in upper leadership already.  No one is going to really promise him anything to become the chair.  If he wants the things you suggest, he's going to get them when he can get them.  HE'S the one that can give out promises.
[ Parent ]
Yes, Reid is the "you"
Reid's the top dog in the Senate and he's the one angling for a DSCC chair, so naturally he's in a position to promise favors for Reid.

Schumer obviously still has higher ambitions and appealing to those higher on the totem pole is one way to advance an agenda. Taking the plunge will endear him even more to Harry and will solidify any chance at promotion later on.

19, male, Dem, CT-04 (home) PA-02 (college and registered)

[ Parent ]
If not Chuck, then Boxer, Hagan, or Landrieu
All know how to run and win tough races.  


21, male, CA-15 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)


I was wondering why
No one brought up Landrieu. She's probably the only person not up next year who hasn't said no yet. She is close to the more liberal senators (Her and Boxer are good friends) and she also has strong ties to moderates, which could help her recruit a wide variety of candidates.  
[ Parent ]
At this rate she'll get it be default: everyone else is saying no
Can't really blame them: the job sounds pretty hellish even under the best conditions.  If you read The Thumping you see Rahm not exactly having a fun time with it (different job, but similar conditions).  After doing it twice it's no wonder Schumer wouldn't want to go through that again.  

21, male, CA-15 (home and voting there), LA-2 (college)


[ Parent ]
Schumer is the obvious first choice
He definitely doesn't sound interested, but I think he will eventually end up doing it since nobody else with his level of competency wants it. He worked magic in the 06 and 08 cycles, considering some of the races he worked with (i.e. - NC and OR in 08) initially looked like huge recruitment fails on the part of the Dems. The national tide in those cycles played a huge part in our success, but if he'd not cultivated competent candidates in some of the marginal races, the ranks of the caucus would be smaller.

Mark Warner would do a phenomenal job at both the fundraising and candidate recruitment aspects. It's a shame he's not interested.

Menendez just got a bad cycle. He got A-list candidates in the open GOP seats (Conway, Carnahan, Hodes), but they couldn't fight the tide.  

What is it about Mark Warner?
I don't know much about him, but what makes him a potentially good leader of the DSCC?

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Mark Warner is a former Democratic Fundraiser..
He was one back in the 80s.

I am much more skeptical than some that Sen, Boxer can bring in big cash for the DSCC. Boxer has more than her fair share of enemies and she might have a tougher time bringing in cash than people think.

Maybe this means a newly elected Senator like Coons or Blumenthal ends up doing it because it's low risk, high reward. Or some people have mentioned Bennet--that might work.

[ Parent ]
Checking Opensecrets.org
I noticed he raised a lot of money in 2008 for the Senate race.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
I got 3 on my wish list (in order)
1. Schumer
2. Boxer
3. Wyden

The rest . . . well, they are the rest. Bennett and Warner stick out a little, but only due to fundraising, not strategy.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26

Hmm.
Logic:

It would have to be someone:

- Not up for election/re-election in 2012.
- Who hasn't already said they're not interested.
- Not with an existing committee chair.
- Not from a red state (i.e easy target for the NRSC in their next run)

That narrows it down to the following:

- Mikulski. Longest serving Senator not to have a full committee chairmanship, will probably retire soon, known fighter. However, she's had health concerns and probably isn't up to the nearly impossible task of the job.

- Lautenberg. Almost exactly the same situation as Mikulski, including the health problems, only he's much older. I don't think he'd be up for it.  

- Reed. Young enough to do it, personally popular, from a solid blue state, but obviously in the Senate for the long haul. Might not want to risk his career, or a shot at the Armed Services gavel (next in line if Levin ever gives it up, assuming Lieberman doesn't want it or loses in 2012.)

- T. Udall. Young, personally popular, but obviously wants to be in the Senate for a while and probably doesn't want the job. (I'm not considering his cousin for this. M. Udall has had plummeting re-elect numbers since about 10 minutes after his election, and obviously has plenty of problems of his own without having to run the DSCC this cycle.)

- Bennet. He's at least a good fundraiser, and managed to get elected in a bad year. I don't have much faith in him, but I don't totally hate him, either, so we could probably do worse.

- Blumenthal. Yes, Blumenthal. He's just about the only name left on the list, he just got elected in a blue state, and it's a way for him to make or break his career. Of course, he also has about as much charisma as a sandwich and ran a horrible campaign. I see this as a "last resort" option.  

At this point, I think Bennet, The Accidental Senator, is probably the most likely pick.  

What are Mark Udall's problems?


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
I'm curious...
...why you feel that it's a Senate career risk?  I can't even tell you who was the chair more than a couple of terms ago, and I'm a political junkie.  Menendez had a bad cycle (looked like D+3-4 when he came in, lost 6 seats) and I don't think the average voter in NJ cares or even knows that he was in charge.  (3 of the last 5 were NJ Senators BTW)  Patty Murray lost the Senate in 2002...have any of her fellow Democratic Senators held that against her?  Maybe, but I haven't noticed.  It doesn't seem like a vaulted position and I can't imagine the same people who refused to serve would hold it against the Senator that "takes one for the team".
[ Parent ]
No one but Schumer can do it!
C'mon Chuck its not like you'll be majority leader now.
What does it tell you that even Schumer doesn't
want it?

He doesn't think he can save the Senate for Dems in two years? (I'm not sure that's even a question).

Because it means
He'll presumably have to step down from caucus chairmanship.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
Well, what good is that position
in the minority?  
[ Parent ]
More likely he just feels that the next cycle will be harder.
And he's probably worn out from running it the past 2 cycles.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
well
2012 and 2014 we're going to be playing a ton of defense, with few opportunities for gains and tons of opportunities to lose seats.. I wouldn't want the job either.
[ Parent ]
Possible DSCC chairs
Murray
Boxer
Bennet
Udall
Kerry
Mikulski
Warner

Murray just ran and won a tough campaign and she is a great fundraiser. Warner is a champion fundraiser, too. Boxer is a tough campaigner. Bennet is a good fundraiser with intimate knowledge of the Rocky Mountain West--an area that was turning blue and looks purple now.

Sen. Mikulski is a possibility...
She's tough, she's got seniority, and she knows how to run a campaign.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native
[ Parent ]
I'm kind of puzzled
that someone like Mark Warner doesn't want it, unless he thinks the Democrats are simply doomed in 2012 and doesn't want to be associated with the fallout. After all, a solid performance is a way to make a lot of friends, and he's struck me as a very likely and forceful presidential candidate. Aside from a military background, he's pretty much got everything: experience as an executive whose tenure was extremely well regarded in a state that is turning blue sooner rather than later, experience as a legislator, success as a businessman, and a very telegenic family. Plus, people say he's a great fund raiser. Is there some sort of leadership position that he'd have to give up if he were to head the DSCC?

Anyway, what are the reasons someone wouldn't want to take this job?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

I think that the reason that Warner is balking
Is that he has presidential aspirations and that by associating himself with the dscc chair will hurt him if he tries to project an independant image later on.  
[ Parent ]
That makes sense.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Klobuchar would be perfect but boxer would also be good
I like boxer because she's a tough and proven campaigner who a proven fundraiser and her pick would energize the liberal blogosphere plus she's very good at playing defense which is what we will primarily doing in this upcoming cycle.
My favorite choice would be Klobuchar and yes I know that's she's up for reelection but sues pretty popular and there are no truly viable challengers  on the republican bench. Klobuchar is a rising star who is a very good fundraiser and is from the Midwest which will be a key battleground in this next cycle.    
it's really highly unlikely someone up for re-election would chair DSCC
There might not be truly viable challengers, but she is a freshman from Minnesota, which isn't the safest of Democratic states. After what happened to Feingold, she better act as if she's worried about her re-election race.  

Twitter.com/Taniel
[ Parent ]
Paulsen
Paulsen IS the Republican bench here. and I wouldn't be surprised at all if he threw his hat in the ring, especially if the courts draw his district to be more Dem-friendly.

26 White Male. Born and raised in MN-8, currently living in MN-5.

"A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything."

[ Parent ]
Let me ask
another question: how does everyone here know who is a good fund raiser and who isn't? Are these descriptions based on the numbers or anecdotes?  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
Pryor?
I haven't heard anyone bring up his name.

26 White Male. Born and raised in MN-8, currently living in MN-5.

"A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything."

I doubt it.
He likes to be low key.

Ad hoc, ad loc and quid pro quo!
So little time, so much to know!
[ Parent ]
and he needs to be low key to win in 2014
He doesn't need to be a moron like Blanche and attach himself at the hip to our national unpopularity.
[ Parent ]
Pryor won't do it.
He can't assume any official role of leadership in order to win reelection in 2014. He's probably personally popular (think the Pryor name) to win but he's still going to need everything to win with the downhill trajectory of Arkansas Democrats.

28, Liberal Democrat, CA-26
[ Parent ]
it's probably going to go
to an up and comer who wants to make a name for him/herself or an old hand who'll bite the bullet for the team.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
What's wrong with Boxer?
She's from the most important fundraising state, the base loves her, and she knows the political game well enough to be trusted with the job, a la Schumer. If I were Harry Reid, she'd be at the top of my list.

20, CD MA-03/NH-01/MA-08
Mmm...I have my doubts
She doesn't strike me as savvy in the same way that Schumer does. She's a good fit for California, but for someone that'll have to re-relect senators from Nebraska, Missouri, Montana, and Virginia, among other states, I'm not sure she's the best pick.

19, male, Dem, CT-04 (home) PA-02 (college and registered)
[ Parent ]
She has no experience campaigning in swing states
Or, speaking to - gasp - PRO-LIFE, conservative, Blue Dog Democrats. I can't imagine Boxer plays well in Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Virginia.

For daily political commentary, visit me at http://polibeast.blogspot.com/ and http://twitter.com/polibeast
[ Parent ]
I see your point, but I don't know
if she'd play any worse than Schumer does, simply by reputation. After all, he's not exactly a social conservative, but then again, he was supposedly friendly with Tom DeLay.

I know nothing about Boxer's personal skills, but Schumer seems like the sort of guy who could talk you into doing almost anything, which is exactly what you'd need in a position like that. Can Boxer do that? Maybe she can. And after all, she supposedly has great ties to Silicon Valley types, which can't hurt.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
She doesn't have to play well anywhere, she just has to...
...have a good understanding of who does play well in each state.

The campaign chairs really aren't targets in their own right.  I've never seen TV ads tying Democratic candidates to Rahm Emanuel or Chuck Schumer or Bob Menendez, or Republican candidates to Tom Reynolds or Tom Cole or whoever was NRSC Chair in 2006 or 2008.

I have no idea if Boxer could recruit effectively in purple or red states.  Only her colleagues really know that, as I've never seen anything dicussed publicly about it.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
You are absolutely right.
I'll admit, I am subscribing to some stereotypes by thinking that Boxer might be too much of an East Coast liberal to effectively recruit in the middle of the country. But if Schumer was able to do it, why can't she?

In the end, it's hard for any of us to know who can do what, because we are on the outside. We can rely on media accounts, but that is tricky.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Yup, Schumer did it, and Chicagoan Rahm Emanuel...
...was smart enough to recruit the likes of Heath Shuler, where that's what it took to win.

I think for these leadership positions, much of what they require are qualities whose presence or absence are known really only to the considered members' colleagues.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10

[ Parent ]
These would be my favorite candidates

1 J Reed (RI)
2 B Mikulski (MD)

Both with enough seniority for know who can be a good senator, and safe even when they must run for the reelection.

Yeah, unless Sen. Reid decides to take a demotion...
Sens. Wyden, Mikulski, and Reed are probably my top three.

Sen. Bennet? Seriously? He's been senator for less than two years, he had only very limited political experience before his appointment, and had only won reelection because first Romanoff and then Buck overstepped in their attempts to paint him unfavorably.

20, center-left independent, Auckland Central resident, MD-05 voter, OR-01 native

[ Parent ]
Bennet may be inexperienced
And it does seem tremendously unlikely he'd be given this kind of responsibility so early in his Senate career, but he is an absolute machine when it comes to fundraising.  

Independent Socialist & Chair of SSP Cranky Indianian Hoosier Caucus, IN-09
[ Parent ]
Hmm...
Sen. Bennet? Seriously? He's been senator for less than two years, he had only very limited political experience before his appointment, and had only won reelection because first Romanoff and then Buck overstepped in their attempts to paint him unfavorably.  

Disagree. Time in the Senate really does not matter as apparently Franken and many other freshmen where all frontrunners. Mendez was only in the Senate two years when he got the job. Same with Kerry. Time does not matter. He had little political experience before his appointment but he has proven himself immensely. He most certainly did not only win re-election because Buck and Romanoff overstepped. Romanoff was a well known and liked progressive while Bennet was unknown. Buck was very much to the right but no more than Allard was, he was not unelectable. Bennet ran an amazing campaign and has real skill. Take some time to watch some his ads on youtube. The one with his kids going on their bus and making their beds was nothing short of amazing. Best of the cycle. He also did excellent in fundraising. Bennet is the perfect choice. Of course Schumer is my top choice but I seriously doubt he takes it. As for Reid, that's a joke, he's not going to give up his Majority Leader spot and Durbin and Schumer have already said they won't challenge him. Wyden would be good, but I do not think he would want the job. Mikulski is too old and is not up for the job. Reed would be good but probably the same as Wyden. Bennet is a great choice.    

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  

[ Parent ]
My third would be Wyden too

We agree.

Some people talk with recent campaigns in mind but I think the office requires more experience.

Reed, Mikulski and Wyden would be more respected, and I think would have better result than less experienced senators.

Now, the cycle seems very difficult, but I think in 2012 we will have better prospects than now

[ Parent ]
Boxer
Big state.  Experienced at national fundraising.
Bennet
If he is as good as people say he is this is an ideal opportunity to show it. On paper the map looks bad but in early in '09 in looked bad for the Republicans and it looked bad for Democrats early in the 2006 cycle. Fortune favors the brave. Frankly, if it was me I would relish the challenge.
I have one name for you:
Harry Reid.

I can't say I have nearly the knowledge of his campaign that some on this site have, but my impression is that he played that thing masterfully. He realized what it was going to take to win, which was a superb ground game, and focused on that and tearing down his opponent. And he started early. He lucked out because Angle was so deranged, but his relentless approach to getting out the vote looks to have secured him a win.

The same approach won't necessarily work in every state. Nevada is much more blue state than a state like Virginia, let alone Montana, but the approach doesn't have to be entirely different. It can be part getting out old and newly registered Democrats and trying to secure a sizable advantage with independents and can vary based on the state.

Suffice it to say that it in some cases, the votes may not be there, but the election is more than two years away, and the Democrats still hold this House of congress. There's a huge period of time in which these candidates can buckle down and secure a victory. To pretend otherwise is ignore the election of Harry Reid and throw the Senate to the Republicans.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
^^^Seconded (eom)

[ Parent ]
Reid may have no other choice than to do it himself....
Everyone else is too chickenshit to take the job.
[ Parent ]
Would
he really give up being Majority Leader? That is a huge downgrade.  

Proud member of the Indiana Democratic Party from IN-9.  
[ Parent ]
I think he
will make Schumer do it before he does.  

TX-13,22,Dem
[ Parent ]
I wouldn't be surprised if...
...he were to offer it to Schumer, or even Durbin(?), in exchange for a private agreement to support the guy as Reid's successor as Majority (or God forbid, Minority!) Leader in the future.

43, male, Indian-American, Democrat, VA-10
[ Parent ]
Does the person who heads it
necessarily have to be a senator? I could see why you'd want the head of the DSCC to be one, but would it be the end of the world to have it be someone who knows the Senate and who can fund raise but who isn't affiliated? I can't imagine there's some sort of rule that can't be changed that says the person must be in the Senate. And while there might be some sort of backlash from some in the media--the same sort of backlash that happens when Democrats do, well, pretty much anything--I doubt anybody outside of the Beltway would care. If there was ever an example of inside baseball being the focus with nobody in the public giving a crap, that would be it.

There are a lot of good names being tossed around, but perhaps the scope should be expanded outside actual senators.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

I like
that I dont know if it possible, but that would be cool. Maybe a former senator who can raise the big bucks.  

TX-13,22,Dem
[ Parent ]
I'd be more worried
about the candidate recruitment. I want strong challengers in not just Massachusetts, Maine, Arizona and Nevada, but in Tennseessee, Indiana and Texas as well. And hell, if there's someone remotely plausible in Wyoming and Utah and Mississippi, so much the better. Fund raising is important, but I imagine that will be strong to begin with, and only made stronger if the candidates are good.

Besides, if this person wasn't running for anything or in congress, he or she wouldn't be bothered with that stuff and could focus solely on recruitment and then fund raising.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
tom daschle
experience in all counts, he has free time and hopefully paid his taxes.

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
[ Parent ]
Daschle gothis behind handed to him in 2002...
...and managed to get it handed to him again when he wanted to be HHS.

No, Tom Daschle is way too weak a "leader" to tryand getthe majority back.

[ Parent ]
Keep the majority, I mean... n/t

[ Parent ]
by ass handed to him
do you mean losing?  if so,one you got the year wrong, it was 2004 and two i don't think personal victory in political contests would matter in this type of setting.  he doesn't need to convince conservative south dakota voters to his side, he needs to raise money (strong suit A), persuade candidates to run (not sure where he ranks here) and have political connections to aid the candidates (strong suit B).  his failures in 2004 and for the cabinet are not all that relevant to the job of DNSC chair

Top ten signs you're an SSPer #1: your favorite song is "Panic At Tedisco" and no one understands what you mean.
[ Parent ]
The tax-cheating would look bad
Besides, this job is traditionally for a member of the club, and I don't think that's gonna change. They WILL find someone!

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Indiana may be possible
Given the fact that Texans just reelected a ridiculous extremist who claimed to favor secession, it's quite a long shot, as is Tennessee.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Anything is possible.
I'd guess Tennessee is the harder of the two states, if only because there are no clear demographic trends working in our favor that can be enhanced. But I imagine both states have a large pool of voters that can be registered and then worked into the Democratic coalition. In Texas, that's certainly the case.

I use the same examples in a lot of cases, but I think it applies. There are about 18.8 million potential voters in Texas, but only about 13 million of them are actually registered. Imagine of the Democratic party made a massive investment in the state, trying to register, from January until October of 2012, 1.8 million new voters. That's 200,000 voters for that nine-month period, which seems like a lot, but let's say you have 10,000 people working to register 20 voters a month each. That's one voter per day for ever day of a five-day week, on average. Now does it sound doable? It does to me. An investment of this sort would certainly benefit the Obama reelection campaign as well as any Democrat running for Senate, and a lot of House candidates as well, although in some districts more than others. Where's the downside?

I imagine something similar could be done in Tennessee, but there's probably a smaller pool of potential voters.

Still, why don't we spend money on these races? What's the point in not trying? If we concede them to the Republicans from the outset, that means they have even more money to spend in Virginia, Montana, and Missouri, among other states. And if we start working early, we will force them to spend money in states they are probably taking for granted right now.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
Whoa!
That plan (10,000 people for nine months) is super expensive. Tens to hundreds of millions of dollars expensive. Sure, we would win Texas, but we'd probably have to give up on pretty much every state that was even slightly swingy. If we cut the investment to 1,000 full-time people (some of whom are volunteers) you might be getting feasible but the impact would probably be much less. (Maybe half a million new voters?)
[ Parent ]
Yes, it would be expensive.
Of course, as you said, there are volunteers. You wouldn't get a lot in January or March of that year, but as the summer approached and the election started to heat up, you could certainly find people to volunteer. It's the second biggest state in the country. Would it really be that hard to find a few thousand volunteers?

But let's assume you couldn't find that many volunteers or that the volunteers you had weren't as productive as the paid staff. Let's go with 1,000 people, none of whom are volunteers. Register 200,000 voters a month would require each person, on average, to register 200 voters. That sounds like a lot, but that's 50 a week, or ten per day for a five-day week. That's still pretty hard, but it certainly sounds doable. After all, why not aim high? Would anyone really consider the attempt a failure if they only registered one million new voters? Not unless this person were an idiot.

But yes, it would be expensive. Thankfully, we happen to have a candidate who is pretty damn good at raising money. And is it really that much to expect a campaign like this to attract additional funding? Imagine if the reelection team devoted one person to working the donors in the state, many of whom I imagine aren't targeted nearly as much as they are in California or New York. Why wouldn't that bring in a lot of money? And why wouldn't those rich donors in New York and California be interested in turning Texas blue?

Or think of it this way: one million donors contributing $5 per month for each of the nine months that this campaign was taking place. That's $45 million right there. Again, I imagine this is the sort of thing that would build upon itself, so that once people could see it was working, even more would come in.


"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
I should also add two things:
1. There just aren't that many voters left to register in some states. What do you think the result of the constant efforts in states like Ohio is? Something like 94 percent of the eligible voter pool was registered in 2008. For a few reasons, that number will have dropped, but won't drop 15 points. Maybe it's not as extreme in other states, but many of the traditional swing states, like Iowa, Minnesota, and Florida, probably have similarly high numbers of registered voters. I haven't looked at the numbers for those states yet, but if I am right, after a certain point, if there aren't that many more voters to register, it's a matter of turnout.

2. While I might be optimistic, I don't think I am projecting anything truly out of bounds. I don't expect them to register four million voters in less than a year. I have presented a rough outline of something that seems possible with enough money and time. In other words, if the administration wanted this done, it could devote people specifically to getting it done. Let's hope that happens.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?

[ Parent ]
My guess is
in some states, esp those like IN and NC where there was no serious Democratic presence until 2008, there are some unregistered voters yet untapped. In 2008 I went to Gary, Indiana to register voters not too long before the registration deadline and managed to register quite a few. As long as we continue what Obama started, we can continue to make progress in these areas.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
Absolutely.
It's questionable how much registering new voters can make a difference versus simply changing minds, but I can't think it hurts. It's probably a process that moves in tandem in some states where there aren't that many voters left to register, like in Ohio, but in other states, where there are large groups that could be registered and turned out to vote, it could make a difference.  

"I have never deliberately given anybody hell. I just tell the truth on the opposition-and they think it's hell."--President Harry Truman. President Obama, are you listening?
[ Parent ]
Yeah, Ohio doesn't really count
that's a state where Dems have been campaigning in every election since who knows when. we've already milked Ohio for everything it's worth. the real improvement will be in states that have a large untapped Democratic vote because no Democrats ever bothered to run a campaign there.

21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
Not to overlook the obvious
There will still be young voters in Ohio who couldn't have voted before. Otherwise, I completely agree with your remarks.

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  
[ Parent ]
Yeah, but how many do you think there will be?


21, dude, RI-01 (registered) IL-01 (college)
please help Japan. click "donate funds" in upper right and then "Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami." http://www.redcross.org/
[ Parent ]
Who Should Succeed Bob Menendez as DSCC Chair? | 143 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

Sign up to receive a daily e-mail whenever the SSP is updated:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox