Mark Warner 2008 for President

[The Duke]

Mark Warner could beat George Allen. Hell, he almost beat John Warner in 1996:

John Warner (R) 1,235,744 52%
Mark Warner (D) 1,115,982 47%

To be fair there was a lot of confusion over names in that race, strange but true.

LOL!  Democracy rules!

And no, Warner could not beat George Allen.  Warner would get slammed six ways to Sunday on taxes.

[The Duke]

First of all, I amy not live in Virginia but I do know how campaigns work.  In any campaign, especially in Republican states, taxes are a litmus test.  You can't just be tolerable, you have to be very good.

I also know that most pollsters view a large segment of Warner's support as "soft" support.  Its moderate Republicans and Republican leanng independents who may be willing to approve of job performance for Warner but if given the choice between Warner and an even more poular politician like Allen, they'll go to Allen.

Finally, might I point out that George Allen left office as Governor with higher approval ratings than Warner has now and he barely beat Chuck Robb for Senate in 2000.  High approval ratings don't always translate into votes in Virginia.

[The Duke]

I never said it wouldn't be close, I said Warner would not, and probably could not, win.  Virginia is one of states that goes about 55-45 GOP most of the time and rarely swings Democratic for Federal offices and rarely is a GOP blowout.  Its a very stable state.

To claim that Warner could win Senate seat against Allen because he's a popular governor is not very convincing.  Could Phil Bredesen beat Bill Frist or Lamar Alexander?  Could Mike Easley beat Elizabeth Dole?  These are very comparable situations to the Virginia situation.  So he's a popular governor, so was Bill Weld.  Its no guarantee.

Yes, he could win an open seat in 2008, but only if the state shifts more Democrat with the growth of the DC suburbs in places like Fairfax County.  The Republican candidate, if he's at least adequate, would still be the favorite.

The defense of "But Republicans did it too!" won't work.  It may be true, but that has never mattered before in politics.  Besides, George Allen wasn't in the state legislature when the tax increase was passed, and he cannily but quietly opposed the move from his very convenient vantage point in the US Senate.

Another factor, heretofor unmentioned, working against Warner is money.  Allen headed the GOP Senate campaign committe the last two cycles.  Senators Coburn, DeMint, Isakson, Burr, Vitter, Tune, Martinez, Dole, Chambliss, Cornyn, Talent, Sununu, and Graham all owe their election in part to Allen, who recruited and funded them.  He can therefore command a large protion of the GOP Seante warchest if he needs it.  Would Warner be able to command the financial attention he would need to win with so many other Democrats (Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Mark Dayton, Clinton, Cantwell) in big races, with potential open seats in West Virginia and Wisconsin,  and with possible pickups in Ohio (DeWine), Pennsylvania (Santorum), and Rhode Island (Chafee)?  Warner would have to scramble for cash within a party that has lost most of its moderate leaders in the last four years.  There is no major centrist figure at a high level of the DNC right now that I can think of who would fight to get Warner his money.