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…
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.
Al franken
I’ve been disappointed with him as my senator so far,and his rolodex would be phenomenal for fundraising.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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)?
I have no doubts on this one. He’s the perfect man for the job.
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.
he’s not technically a democrat.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Get him in there two out of every three election cycles. If he’s not on the ballot, put him in the 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.
She’s run every single one of her races very smartly, taking nothing for granted and that’s what we need.
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!!!
All know how to run and win tough races.
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.
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.
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.
C’mon Chuck its not like you’ll be majority leader now.
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).
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.
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 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.
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 haven’t heard anyone bring up his name.
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.
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.
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.
Big state. Experienced at national fundraising.
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.
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.