Jon Ralston, contributing editor at Politico Magazine, has covered Nevada politics for more than a quarter-century. He has worked for both major Las Vegas newspapers and now has his own site, email newsletter and television program.

Nobody in politics has had a worse run-up to Nov. 4 than Harry Reid. Polls indicate the Senate majority leader might have a change of title foisted upon him—or, in the fevered dreams of some Republicans, perhaps be left with no title at all as he sees a grim Schumer reaper shadowing him.

Back home in Nevada, Reid’s vaunted political machine has not driven Democrats to the polls and a GOP sweep of statewide offices seems possible, the Blame Reid Firsters already have begun whispering.


And as unflattering pictures of him appear in battleground states across the country and his ninth political life seems set to expire, Reid has to confront the possibility that he might lose the Senate, his leadership position and his Nevada invincibility, all in one potentially fateful evening.

Yet, no one has had more funeral notices retracted over the course of a political career than Harry Mason Reid, whose resilience and toughness, forged in the crucible of his hardscrabble childhood, seem serially to have given him new political life when death seemed inevitable.

The pre-mortems already are being written, with reporters looking ahead to a Republican Senate, senators whispering they need someone new and conservatives relishing the schadenfreude of a coup to topple Reid.

Reid declined to be interviewed for this article, but his spokeswoman, Kristen Orthman, told me, in what has become something of a mantra as the vultures circle: “Democrats will maintain their majority, but regardless, Senator Reid will remain Democratic leader. He is running for reelection in 2016.”

At this point, Orthman’s guess—or spin—on all of that is as good as or better than most. In the 28 years I have known Reid and in his four decades in politics, his indomitability has been his signature feature, his ability to win when he should lose, his knack for saying the damnedest things but not being consigned to defeat because of them.

But never have the political headwinds been so strong—thanks in part to the languishing approval numbers of the president he has served as a loyal legislative general, but also because of Reid’s Senate stewardship, which has made him an issue in many campaigns and induced senators and candidates he has helped to muse openly about not voting for him as leader.

Still, we’re talking about Harry Reid here—so I find all of this comical and familiar. None of those senators would dare oppose him, and this kind of chatter happens every cycle about this time, forcing Reidites to swat away the speculation.

What many do not realize is how close Reid’s leadership team is. And while New York’s Chuck Schumer is most frequently mentioned as the Brutus of the piece (Illinois’ Dick Durbin is a less often talked about coup leader), there is an old rule of thumb that they all know: If you try to kill the king, you better kill him.

No one has a more deserved reputation for ruthlessness than Reid, who plays his game of chess with candidates in Nevada and elsewhere as his pawns. And like a grandmaster, he will not hesitate to sacrifice one or more if he thinks it can help him to checkmate the other side.

It’s not that Reid isn’t prepared to lose. It’s that he refuses to do anything but plow forward.

As usual, one of his confidants could not resist the boxing metaphor for the ex-pugilist: “Considered [losing]? Yes. Thinks it will happen? No. Always knew this cycle would be uphill (6th year itch, Obama numbers at all time low, massive spending on the other side). He’s used to being up against the ropes.”

For those who think a loss of the Senate might induce Reid to retire, especially with Nevada about to be inundated by a red wave—a little history is instructive.

Reid ascended to become the Democratic leader in 2004 after President George W. Bush won a second term and Reid’s predecessor, Tom Daschle, lost his reelection bid.

So what happened? Reid led the Democrats back to Senate control the following cycle.

As I have written many times over many years, Reid is known for comebacks. He thrives on comebacks. He lost his first Senate race in 1974, lost a bid for Las Vegas mayor in 1975 and just kept looking forward until he was elected to Congress in 1982.

Yes, he’ll be 75 on Dec. 2—no spring chicken in any other venue except the U.S. Senate. But he is not the fade-away sort; he will want to fight.

But might, as some are saying, Reid relinquish his leader’s slot if the GOP takes control, taking responsibility for the loss? “No,” a Reid intimate said flatly. “Being leader is the toughest job in D.C., and he has mastered it by tending to each of his members’ needs—oftentimes to his detriment.”

I’d guess Reid still knows how to count. And an argument could be made that considering the climate, Team Reid is part of the reason, or even the main one, the Democrats have any chance to survive Tuesday. It’s ugly out there, and the election map is bad for the Democrats—maybe “just” losing five or six Senate seats is actually almost a victory, thanks to good vote counts and lots of money courtesy of Mr. Leader.

Think about this:

* Reid has used his tenacious fundraising ability to get his close allies, Rebecca Lambe and Susan McCue, $53 million for the Senate Majority PAC, which has led the way in light money spending. Many of those red-state senators and candidates would already be writing their concession speeches if it weren’t for that spending.

* Reid is peerless at taking hits for his caucus, absorbing the blows for them, making sure they don’t have to vote on potentially damaging amendments and trying to stop the White House from making his job even harder. Yes, that has brought justifiable criticism that he runs the Senate like a dictator, that he stifles debate. But, as I always say: He does not care.

If he were relegated to being minority leader, Reid would still have immense power. No one knows the parliamentary process as he does; no one knows how to cut deals as he can. And he will know that a GOP majority will want to demonstrate it can break D.C.’s stalemate. He will be happy to oblige—for a price.

Nevertheless, when he returns home next to appear on the ballot in 2016, Reid will confront a much different Nevada than exists today. Republicans are likely to win a raft of seats on Tuesday, including most constitutional offices and one or both houses of the legislature.

I remain convinced Gov. Brian Sandoval—a very dangerous threat—will not run to oppose Reid in 2016. But the day after the November election, after he has garnered 70 percent-plus, drawing strong support from both Democratic and Republican voters alike, Sandoval will be courted by every major national Republican; he’s Hispanic, two decades younger than Reid and telegenic. And, according to the super-early, obviously very speculative polls, he would lead Harry Reid in a head-to-head matchup. It’d be a compelling race.

Yet even if Sandoval does not run, his protégé, Mark Hutchison, the soon-to-be lieutenant governor, just might. Hutchison would be viable too: He’d be able to raise a fortune and would be ahead in most polls.

But that’s just the way Reid likes it, right?