I wouldn’t be so sure about that one. YOu should have specified that it won’t be Reid. That’s more likely. Chuck Schumer’s got the leadership position in the bag, I think, win or lose.
Are you suggesting that the Republicans will have 51 or more members and Chuch Schumer would still be elected Majority Leader???
You … ah… have any money you’d like to stake on that?
No, I’m saying there’s still a chance that Republicans will not win a majority in the Senate.
What I meant about Schumer is that he’ll probably be the Democratic leader. If the Dems win and need independents(the only really plausible path to keep the majority at this point), then Reid stepping down is probably the price they’ll have to pay. If they lose, Reid gets fired because his toxicity is part of the reason.
I’ll take that bet. Reid stays as Senate Minority Leader if the Democrats lose the Senate. Nobody is voting for Republicans because they hate Harry Reid.
I thought you were Bricker, not adaher! Not that the Republicans aren’t ahead, but your confidence is a little beyond what the poll aggregators indicate (and far beyond the 3 to 1 odds you gave me). 
I’m not betting, but call it a prediction. If Democrats lose, Harry Reid is not the Democratic leader anymore. It’s true that few are voting Republican because of Harry Reid, but someone has to be punished for failure. Harry Reid managed to go from filibuster-proof majority to the minority in record time.
If Democrats win, then I’d be inclined to still predict Schumer as the Majority Leader, but I’m not sure how committed Orman, Pressler, Pryor, or King really are to getting rid of him. I’m not going to make a hard prediction based on trusting politicians to do what they say they will do.
Meanwhile, the President continues to be hilarious:
Biden gets a lot of heat for saying honest things at the wrong time, but I’ve rarely heard a politician so candidly discuss the dishonesty of campaigning before so matter of factly. He basically just acknowledged that all these red state Dems are liars.
Really? What did they lie about?
That they are not close allies of the President. As the article states:
Attempting to deceive their constituents. That makes them liars.
You’re not even going for coherence anymore, are you?
Are they on board with the President’s agenda or are they not?
Some examples would be nice. Between quotation marks.
Let’s start with Begich, who lied pretty directly about opposing the President:
The rest of them try to speak in the most general terms about being independent of Obama, but their voting records say they are not independent at all, but rubber stamps.
The President says they are on board with his agenda. He’s said it twice now, so it’s not a gaffe. Is it true, or is it not true? And if it is true, are red state Democrats honestly running as the Obama allies they are? If not, they are liars. That may be fine to the President, who has told them to “do what they need to do”, but I’d think that here on SDMB we have higher standards.
So politicians are making political calculations to get re-elected? Stop the presses!
Somehow I’m wondering why Bush isn’t in demand as a campaign asset.
If you’re wondering that, you may be the only one who is.
I’m not outraged about their deception, just gleeful that the President exposed it. “Let me be clear” indeed. 
Notice I wrote that the President was being hilarious, not “I’m so pissed off at these red state Democrats!” And you have to admit, their act this campaign season has been REALLY amusing.
Wait until you read the Pit on Nov.5.
Regards,
Shodan
Interestingly, the only Democrat not running from Obama in a red state is Michelle Nunn. It doesn’t seem that there is any political benefit to running from your President when you share his party. Your supporters don’t believe it, your enemies don’t believe it, and independents don’t even believe it. I’m not sure what they think they are accomplishing. Those Democrats enable him, they need to own his performance, for better or for worse.