Chuck Todd, the chief political writer for the National Journal, is one of the nation's most astute political observers. Back at the DNC convention, Jerome and I met with him for a bit, and he told us with complete certitude that Thune would beat Daschle -- "I've never seen a candidate learn more from his loss" he said, referring to Thune's loss in 2002 against Sen. Tim Johnson.
His take on races across the board were mostly spot on, earning my respect. He's also a non-partisan writer.
So it's great to see his take on the leadership of the Democrats' three election committees. (Subcription only, 1/12/05)
Democrats have recruited the best possible candidates for their key 2006 campaign committee leadership positions -- a move that puts the party on par with Republicans for the first time in a decade. Whether this development translates into actual electoral gains for the Democrats is another story, but for a party that has been getting outmaneuvered in the off-years, it's a welcome change.
Republicans can be a bit more complacent in their choices for the political committees, since the uber-party machine, led by Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman, is in full charge of the RNC.
The team of Bill Richardson (heading the Democratic Governors' Association), Charles Schumer (heading the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) and Rahm Emanuel (heading the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) is the biggest collection of alpha-male, hyper-competitive politicians the party has assembled in a long time. These three men are hungry and ambitious -- two things that can change the party's attitude when it comes to 2006 expectations.
Contrast that line-up with the Republican team of Kenny Guinn (Republican Governors' Association), Elizabeth Dole (National Republican Senatorial Committee) and Tom Reynolds (National Republican Congressional Committee). Of the three, only Reynolds seems to be a politician looking to ascend (either in elective or leadership politics), while both Guinn and Dole are likely on the back-end of their careers.
On the DSCC:
Harry Reid's ability to lure Schumer into the post is a nice feather in his new cap as Senate minority leader. Schumer, who has a reputation for looking out for number one, might seem like a curious choice to some, but his doggedness as a fund-raiser and his apparent ambition to be one of the pillars of the Senate Democratic leadership make him a potentially strong chair. Don't expect newly installed Executive Director J.B. Poersch to be as big of a media presence as some past directors, but he comes with a stellar reputation in the operative world.
On the DCCC:
The Emanuel selection also suggests House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi may be getting more comfortable in her position. Many Pelosi watchers thought she was going to name yet another California Democrat to the spot because she wanted to keep a hand in how the committee runs. Naming Emanuel -- whose candidacy she didn't support when he first ran in 2002 -- shows she's more interested in being a leader of the entire caucus. The Illinois congressman, who served as finance director in Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign, was probably the more popular pick among the rank-and-file simply because he is considered to be one of the party's best fund-raisers. However, Emanuel, unlike past chairs, will be judged by whether he targets enough seats.
On the DGA:
Generally, these are the two most overlooked committees during election cycles. But in this post-McCain-Feingold campaign finance landscape, each organization has the potential to be the tail that wags its respective party's dog. The RGA figured this out faster than the DGA during the 2004 cycle. Led by then Executive Director Ed Tobin, the RGA had grand plans of becoming the soft-money vehicle of the Republican Party. With so many more governorships up in 2006, look for Tobin's vision to be enacted, and look for the RGA to become a much bigger cog in the Republican campaign machine.
Richardson has clearly studied the ramifications of McCain-Feingold -- he's already boasting about the potential to turn the committee into everything America Coming Together (ACT) was trying to become last cycle. The CFR loophole that would allow both committees to become soft-money vehicles (at least for individual contributions) should make the future very sound, as each organization potentially could drive the turnout operations for the parties.
I'm not high on Richardson right now given the inability to deliver his state to Kerry, but he's clearly hungry and has something to prove -- a great motivating combination.
As to the DGA's desire to become "everything ACT was trying to become" is quite intriguing. While the promise of ACT is great, it suffers from one great problem -- it focuses all its attentions in battleground states. We need an organization that can build an effective GOTV machine, a la GOP's 72 hour program, in all 50 states. This'll be a topic to explore in a subsequent post.