Say we hold the Senate but lose Nevada...

[progressoid]

Who replaces Reid as Senate Majority Leader?

:shrug:

Inquiring minds want to know.

[beyurslf]

1. Schumer or Durbin

[marmar]

2. Please not Schumer.

nt

[brooklynite]

9. Why not?

Being Majority Leader is largely managing both the Democratic Caucus and the Senate at large. Schumer got us our Senate Majority in 2006 and built it up in 2008 because he's not afraid to twist arms.

[marmar]

11. He also got us John Roberts.

[blm]

17. Schumer didn't do anything for 2006 - That was Chairman Dean's 50 state strategy with a giant assist

from Bush pushing Schiavo, Social Security privatization, Katrina, and Mark Foley.

[beyurslf]

14. That's who I am hoping for, even if reid wins.

i want someone who will FIGHT.

[marmar]

15. He'll fight.....for Wall Street.

[blm]

16. Schumer only fights good Dems...like he led the fight AGAINST filibustering Alito.

Of course, his other great skill is duping left bloggers into THINKING he's fighting for our issues while he's actually making deals with the Republicans and other Wall St. servants.

[Uben]

3. Lieberman

Okay, if you don't know that's a joke, you are seriously fucked up!

[progressoid]

5. Yeah baby! He'll bring the whole country back together!

Oy.

[HopeHoops]

4. Al Franken - he would at least interject some humor and some well-needed reason.

[progressoid]

6. ...

Now THAT'S some change I can get behind. Too bad the Dems wouldn't go for it.

[HopeHoops]

10. They need a size 14 steel-toed boot up their asses anyway. They've been wimps.

If the GOP takes the Senate, I hope they take advantage of that 60-vote thing to fuck-up all the dumb-ass legislation the GOP will try to get through.

On Edit:

The MAIN reason I hope they do that is so the GOP assholes will realize that the vote should be simple majority without the ability for one Senator to hold everything up by just THREATENING to Filibuster. If you're going to threaten to talk for 36 straight hours, you better be prepared to do it!

[beac]

7. I second your nomination and add " keen intelligence" to his list of qualifications.

:patriot:

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

8. The next majority leader should

1) NOT be a DLC'er or sympathizer with DLC/Blue Dogs/ or Wall Street

2) Not be from Chicago. Sorry, Dick Durbin is a decent enough guy, but it feeds into the right wing horseshit narrative of "Chicago machine politics" if two branches of government happen to be led by someone from Illinois.

3) Be from a reliable "blue" state so we don't have to worry about losing another majority leader in the next election.

If both Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer survive the election tomorrow, they should be the "finalists" for the job. As for Harry Reid, I sincerely hope he beats the wackjob Sharon Angle, but he should be out of "leadership" regardless.

[progressoid]

13. Agreed. His "leadership" leaves a lot to be desired. eom

[alsame]

18. Boxer would be an excellent choice. nt

[mwrguy]

12. Schumer!

I love that guy.

[dtmfman]

19. if we lose Reid.....

if the tea bagging angle of death wins...it will truly be "the end of days".....

[hayu_lol]

20. Reid's potential loss would be a bright spot...

this spineless and worthless wretch should never held the position he has held. One of those things...if he stays, everything good is off the table. If we cut his head off and send the remains to the Nevada desert...thats a good thing.

Now, get rid of the rest of the Blue Dogs over the next couple of years.

[rucky]

21. Boxer, Durbin or Kerry

imho

[DFW]

22. I hope Durbin, fear it could be Schumer

Durbin deserves it, Schumer has been working on it longer.

[damntexdem]

23. If Reed beats Angle, we should still ask the same question.

We need a new Senate leader in either case.

[progressoid]

24. Absolutely.

I'm getting pretty tired of his wishy washy leadership