An old Washington parlor game has fired back up this week with the announcement that longtime Chicago Mayor Richard Daley won’t be running for reelection.

The speculation is that Obama Chief of Staff and Chicago native Rahm Emanuel will leave the White House and run for the position, one he has reportedly coveted for some time.

And here comes the parlor game… who will replace Emanuel in the White House?

Most of the names I’ve seen floated have been White House insiders and/or Obama loyalists. But, a bit from NBC’s First Read caught my attention this morning.

Here’s an excerpt: “So who replaces Rahm if he decides to run? It is a total Washington outsider (Mike Bloomberg, GM’s Ed Whitacre)? A former insider (Tom Daschle, John Podesta, Leon Panetta)? A politician with a business background (Mark Warner)?”

Hold the phone. Mark Warner? Virginia’s Mark Warner? The Mark Warner who has only been in the U.S. Senate a little more than 18 months?

Could this be a possibility? I would say, emphatically, NO!

Why? First, this would upset the balance of power in the Senate. Republican Governor Bob McDonnell would have the power to temporarily replace Warner, and he would obviously pick a Republican and likely a conservative Republican. That would have lasting ramifications.

If all the polls are correct, President Obama is going to need every vote he can get after November to get anything through the Senate. In fact, Mark Warner could be the one thing standing between a Democratic Senate and a Republican Senate, that’s just how bad this election could be for Democrats.

You need look no further than Arizona to understand the implications of plucking a sitting governor or senator out of office and have them replaced by a member of the other party. Just think about the current immigration debate. It started in Arizona with a law that Republican Governor Jan Brewer signed into law. But, she wouldn’t have had that opportunity of President Obama hadn’t tapped then Arizona Governor Janet Napalitano for Secretary of Homeland Security. How would Napalitano have handled the immigration debate in her home state? Would she have vetoed the bill? Would her bipartisan leadership have crafted a compromise with Republicans? We’ll never know, thanks to her selection as Homeland Security Secretary.

Second, Senator Warner seems to be carving out a niche in the Senate through quiet, steady, bipartisan leadership on a host of critical issues including financial reform. I doubt the White House wants to lose his expertise on these issues in the Senate.

Finally, I suspect that Senator Warner has his eye on something larger than the Senate and I’m not sure he could successfully launch that effort from the office of chief of staff. Yes, it’s a powerful job. But, it’s also a thankless one. Rarely does a White House chief of staff leave on a good note. In fact, usually they are pushed out (think Don Regan, John Sununu, or Andy Card). And where are all those folks now? Simply put, the job isn’t the best way to jump into a better position.

I have little doubt that Mark Warner could handle the responsibilities and it would be difficult to turn down the president if he asked. But, for the above reasons (at least #1 and #2), I don’t think the president will ask.

UPDATE: Since posting this, it’s been brought to my attention that Senator Warner has publicly indicated (just hours ago) that he has no interest in the job. Of course, politicians sometimes do this, only to reconsider when asked to serve their country and president. However, Warner’s swift reaction to his name being floated as a possible Emanuel successor will likely send a strong signal to the White House that they should look elsewhere.