Somebody has to say this, so it might as well be me: there’s a step missing in this scenario. “Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) on Friday endorsed his rival, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), to become the next Senate Democratic leader, clearing the path for what is likely to be an easy transition in leadership when [mc_name name=’Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’R000146′ ] steps down from the job.”  To wit: Chuck Schumer actually has to win re-election, first.  He’s up in 2016.

Now, I know what everybody is thinking. Chuck Schumer is far too popular in his home state. He’s a tireless and gifted campaigner. He’s safely ensconced in a Blue state. It’s a Presidential election year.  The mere suggestion that there could be an upset is downright absurd. If nothing else, local media would protect him. And, of course: if Chuck Schumer was already tapped for leadership, there’d be no way that he’d actually lose the formality of an election… wait, sorry, I already used the Tom Daschle example. My bad.

But my point is this: it’s not smart to anticipate results. Is Chuck Schumer an odds-on favorite to win re-election in New York? Sure.  He’s an incumbent who can raise funds, and [mc_name name=’Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’S000148′ ] indeed works hard at getting re-elected. Is it impossible for him to be beaten? Don’t be absurd. Or, worse, too lazy to try.

Moe Lane