Priebus increasingly likely to seek 4th term

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Priebus is actually a very good party chairman.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Steele's record - 1 huge win
Priebus's record - 1 huge loss, 1 huge win, could still be re-elected after a potential 2nd huge loss

Hmm...I wonder which is better.

Steele was incompetent and if anything Republicans won in 2010 despite him, not because of him. And I remember with Republicans failing to retake the Senate, there was a lot of bitterness among them because of "wasted oportunities". I'm not claiming Steele costed him these, but he was no help either.

Priebus is very good at what party chairmen are supposed to do: coordinating fundraising and election strategy. He was doing a pretty good job as WI Republican Chair too. I wouldn't consider 2012 such a "huge loss", as it was actually pretty narrow. Then we have 2014 which was a real blowout.

Party chairmen have much more clout in downballot races than presidential ones, with a candidate's campaign essentially taking over running things on that level.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Steele's record - 1 huge win
Priebus's record - 1 huge loss, 1 huge win, could still be re-elected after a potential 2nd huge loss

Hmm...I wonder which is better.

Steele was incompetent and if anything Republicans won in 2010 despite him, not because of him. And I remember with Republicans failing to retake the Senate, there was a lot of bitterness among them because of "wasted oportunities". I'm not claiming Steele costed him these, but he was no help either.

Priebus is very good at what party chairmen are supposed to do: coordinating fundraising and election strategy. He was doing a pretty good job as WI Republican Chair too. I wouldn't consider 2012 such a "huge loss", as it was actually pretty narrow. Then we have 2014 which was a real blowout.

Party chairmen have much more clout in downballot races than presidential ones, with a candidate's campaign essentially taking over running things on that level.

2012 was not narrow. Democrats won 75% of the Senate seats up for the election! It was only a small net gain because they already nearly maxed out in the previous 2006 wave. If 2006 was a neutral or GOP-friendly year, 2012 would've been an absolute bloodbath even eclipsing 2014.

OK, in terms of seats that were up, yes, but we must make a distinction between presidential years and midterms.

What I mean is that in any presidential election year, both RNC and DNC are becoming effectively subordinated to the nominees' campaigns. Had DWS remained a DNC Chair now, he role would be similary symbolic.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

OK, once again, we can't give chairs all the credit or lay all the blame on them. DWS was not a good chair because 2012 election turned out fine. She was a bad chair because she was utterly divisive figure within the party with questionable loyalty to the President (Iranian deal everyone?) Dean was an excellent chair, while Kaine was pretty much not very impressive one.

To repeat: in presidential election year there comes a point, usually immediately after the convention if primaries aren't a mere formality (like it was in 2012 for Democrats), when both DNC and RNC are taking back seat to the candidate's campaign organization. They have much more freedom to act in midterm years.