3 questions on mark warner

[WalterMitty]

1.  is he definitely running for president?
2.  is his moderate/conservative persona just a 'put on' in order to get elected in red virginia (in other words, is he more liberal than he puts on?)
3.  was his narrow loss to john warner in 1996 due in large part to name confusion?

[nini2287]

1.  is he definitely running for president?
2.  is his moderate/conservative persona just a 'put on' in order to get elected in red virginia (in other words, is he more liberal than he puts on?)
3.  was his narrow lose to john warner in 1996 due in large part to name confusion?

1.  Almost definitely.
2.  I doubt it.
3.  No, I doubt it made more than a 1-2% difference

[tarheel-leftist85]

1.  Yes.
2.  No.  He reminds me of a few entrepreneur types in my own family--all-around moderate people.
3.  No idea.  Don't know a lot about the race, but I think Virginians are smarter than that!

[MODU]

1.  is he definitely running for president? - Yes, though I don't think he's actually said the words.

2.  is his moderate/conservative persona just a 'put on' in order to get elected in red virginia (in other words, is he more liberal than he puts on?) - He's a moderate.  Most Virginia elected democrats are.

3.  was his narrow loss to john warner in 1996 due in large part to name confusion? - Not sure.  I was out of town during the election.

[Keystone Phil]

1) Yes
2) No
3) No. I think, if anything, it helped to have that name. I still don't know how that race was run. Two candidates with the same last name running against each other. What a headache.

[MAS117]

1.) Most Likely
2.) No
3.) Not sure

[nini2287]

3) No. I think, if anything, it helped to have that name. I still don't know how that race was run. Two candidates with the same last name running against each other. What a headache.

Now imagine if he defeats Allen in 2006.  Two Warners from the same state.  (Though we might able to trump that in PA with the possibility of sending 3 Murphys to Congress)

[Keystone Phil]

  (Though we might able to trump that in PA with the possibility of sending 3 Murphys to Congress)

I've bring that up often. Sad to think of two of those Murphys there but it would be funny.

[WalterMitty]

michigan has the two levins.  both are extremely horrible people.  ugh.

[nini2287]

  (Though we might able to trump that in PA with the possibility of sending 3 Murphys to Congress)

I've bring that up often. Sad to think of two of those Murphys there but it would be funny.

Interesting that all the Murphys are in PA's 3 most competitive races.

[TheresNoMoney]

michigan has the two levins.  both are extremely horrible people.  ugh.

Of course you would think that, you're a partisan hack.

[Keystone Phil]

michigan has the two levins.  both are extremely horrible people.  ugh.

Of course you would think that, you're a partisan hack.

He speaks out frequently against members of the GOP and some of our beliefs. He's no hack.

[AuH2O]

1. Yes.

2. Yes, and I have a very, very strong connection on this one (to a high level person in his admin who also was a prime backer of his campaign). Trust me, he's more liberal than he lets on, at least on social issues.

3. No, I think it helped it.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

yes

no (possibly a tiny bit on social issues)

no

[Moooooo]

1.  is he definitely running for president?
2.  is his moderate/conservative persona just a 'put on' in order to get elected in red virginia (in other words, is he more liberal than he puts on?)
3.  was his narrow loss to john warner in 1996 due in large part to name confusion?

1.  No.  A couple days ago he hinted at a possible run for senate.
2.  No.  He has made some conservative decisions since becomming governor and it is obviously not because he wants to be re-elected. (for example, imigration reform)
3.  Maybe a little.  He's just an all around good candidate, and people need to realize that.

edit:  Regarding #2.  He maybe a little more liberal on social issues than he likes to admit.  He did something a while back regarding gay marriage.  I forget the details, but it was a pro-gay marriage decision.

[Keystone Phil]

2.  No.  He has made some conservative decisions since becomming governor and it is obviously not because he wants to be re-elected.

But you just said he hinted at a Senate run a few days ago? Couldn't that be his reasoning for making conservative decisions?

[nini2287]

  (Though we might able to trump that in PA with the possibility of sending 3 Murphys to Congress)

I've bring that up often. Sad to think of two of those Murphys there but it would be funny.

Yes.  Tim Murphy is an asshole (see PoliticsPA) and I'm not thrilled about a former NARAL President in Lois Murphy going to Congress, but Congressman Patrick Murphy sounds good to me.

[Moooooo]

But you just said he hinted at a Senate run a few days ago? Couldn't that be his reasoning for making conservative decisions?

Maybe hinted wasnt the word I was looking for.  What I should have said is, he is no longer writing off the posibility of running for senate.

[TomC]

1.  is he definitely running for president?

No, but it sure looks like he will. I say a 75% chance

2.  is his moderate/conservative persona just a 'put on' in order to get elected in red virginia (in other words, is he more liberal than he puts on?)

Most every politician has to nuance on issues, taxes way up on the list but other issues too, and I'm sure Warner has done this. However, his background makes me believe he is pro-business and pro-growth more than he is into redistribution of wealth and making huge bureaucracies. I don't know how outspoken he is on social issues, so I can't say about that. I have no reason to believe he has a radical social agenda. I believe Warner is genuinely a moderate.

3.  was his narrow loss to john warner in 1996 due in large part to name confusion?
No, John Warner is a distinguished statesman with no stark, compelling reason to oust him; Mark Warner was the lesser candidate in this race.

[© tweed]

1.  is he definitely running for president?
2.  is his moderate/conservative persona just a 'put on' in order to get elected in red virginia (in other words, is he more liberal than he puts on?)
3.  was his narrow loss to john warner in 1996 due in large part to name confusion?

no
yes
no

[YRABNNRM]

michigan has the two levins.  both are extremely horrible people.  ugh.

Of course you would think that, you're a partisan hack.

Pot calling the kettle black eh?