The Nevada primary has not been held, much less the general election, but the Democrats are already considering the possibilities of who will become the Majority Leader should Sen. Harry Reid lose. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), are the #2 and #3 ranking Senate Democrats, both of which espouse the same agenda and ideals as Reid.

Democratic and Republican pollsters agree on one thing – Harry Reid is vulnerable and likely to lose the general election. However, the Nevada Senate race is not one that should lull anyone to sleep as the most recent polls indicate Reid is slowly easing back into the race. Of note is the current Rasmussen poll which reveals Reid earning 39% to 41% of the vote against any of four top GOP challengers. While those numbers may not bode well for Reid, it is an improvement from January when Reid picked up just 36% against his top two opponents. Against the next two opponents, Reid has 40% of the vote versus Sharon Angle and 41% versus Brian Krolicki.

If the polls hold up and the general election results mirror what they are telling us, the Senate Democrats will elect a new majority leader, assuming they do not lose their majority which is not likely. If stood alone, replacing Reid with another liberal Senate leader like himself does not sound like a victory. However, it does not stand alone as defeating Harry Reid will mean one less liberal Democrat Senator and defeating other Senators like him will narrow the gap between the number of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate. This would create conservative checks and balances that Reid was not faced with when he had 59 other Democrats at his side.

While Durbin outranks Schumer, it does not mean that he would automatically become the Majority Leader. There are 14 current Senators who are indebted to Schumer for his support of them. Political loyalties and paybacks run deep in politics. An example is Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) who owes her appointment to Schumer’s persuasion of Gov. David Paterson (D-NY) to choose her over Caroline Kennedy.

Durbin is more liberal than Schumer who is the vice chairman of the Democratic Conference, but Schumer is more aggressive than Durbin. Either one would be far more externally aggressive toward the Republicans than the mild Reid who quietly chooses his points of attack. The two have given $300,000 to Democratic Senate candidates through their PACs (for the purpose of buying loyalty), which allies say is a sign that they are preparing for a possible leadership battle if Reid loses reelection. One Democratic leader said, “You have a leadership PAC for a reason: You give to people that you want to support you at some point in the future. Is a future leadership race part of the calculation when you give? Yes, it is.”

Obviously, the Democratic Party along with Durbin and Schumer will do everything possible to ensure Reid’s re-election. At the same time, they realize that Reid faces a serious threat – one that must be responded to quickly should it materialize.

Of note in Reid’s campaign is the fact that he has cut back his own campaign contributions to other candidates. In 2007, Reid contributed $197,500 to federal candidates and other political committees while contributing $126,000 in 2009. Reid has not been giving money to incumbents as in the past, but is focusing instead on his own re-election. He has given to local candidates and political organizations in Nevada, including $5,000 to the Nevada Assembly Democratic Caucus and $2,500 to the Clark County Democratic Hispanic Caucus. Zac Petkanas who is Reid’s campaign manager said, “While the size and number of contributions to candidates may vary, the goal of the fund has always remained the same: electing individuals who share Sen. Reid’s commitment to creating jobs and turning the economy around.”

The 2010 election cycle is not about one state or one candidate, much less about one loss or victory. It is about how all of the components ultimately tie together in the end.