2016: Mark Warner/Michael Bennett vs. Scott Brown/Marco Rubio

[exopolitician]

Discuss. Maps would be nice too.

[Person Man]

Scott Brown would probably had to become the next Romney to get nominated. By becoming the next Romney, I mean that he will begin talking about how some disrespectful medical student talked about "clumps of cells" or maybe even how some guy wanted to watch him pee in a public restroom. (start supporting the Religious Right without joining them) Watch for this in the 2013-2015 time period. He'll win by the simple fact that people would be ready for "change"...though it will not be promised. . The two Democrats keep their home states and Brown wins the election by doing better in the Northeast. He may even win Northern Maine. On the other hand, if he can't swing Pennsylvania, he might be sh**t outta luck.

[Miles]

Bennet wouldn't be able to take over as President if something happened to Warner; he was born in India. For that reason, Bennet would be a bad VP choice.

[redcommander]

Bennet wouldn't be able to take over as President if something happened to Warner; he was born in India. For that reason, Bennet would be a bad VP choice.

He can since his father is an American citizen.

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

I'm gonna go with Scott Brown, even though I hate Marco Rubio. Mark Warner is a good candidate and I like him, but I'm unsure he'd be a good President.

[Bull Moose Base]

Both Brown and Warner have a similar dilemma that makes their nomination unlikely.  To run for re-election to the senate, they'd need to espouse positions that would be politically fatal in a presidential primary.  Especially Brown in Massachusetts.  He has no chance of being on a ticket.  (Though I could see him run for governor if he loses in 2012.)  Warner, it's a bit more navigable but still tricky to position himself for re-election in purple Virginia in 2014, and then a few months later pivot for the Democratic primary base, barring 2014 being a very Democratic year.  Also, his 2008 keynote was lackluster too, but no idea how reflective that is of his presentation skills in general.

[Person Man]

Both Brown and Warner have a similar dilemma that makes their nomination unlikely.  To run for re-election to the senate, they'd need to espouse positions that would be politically fatal in a presidential primary.  Especially Brown in Massachusetts.  He has no chance of being on a ticket.  (Though I could see him run for governor if he loses in 2012.)  Warner, it's a bit more navigable but still tricky to position himself for re-election in purple Virginia in 2014, and then a few months later pivot for the Democratic primary base, barring 2014 being a very Democratic year.  Also, his 2008 keynote was lackluster too, but no idea how reflective that is of his presentation skills in general.

Just like the rest of America as a whole, right?

[Vote UKIP!]

I would vote for Scott Brown, although I am not necessarily pleased with his voting record.

I really like Marco Rubio. I think he has potential as a presidential or vice presidential candidate. He won a tough three-way election, which I would say is hard to do with Florida being a more moderate state.

[feeblepizza]

I would vote Warner, and I believe Warner would win.

[Bull Moose Base]

Forget what I said.  Warner has been a reliable
Democratic vote and is safe for re-election.

[Its Evolution Baby]

Warner/Bennett

[Blue3]

Scott Brown and Mark Warner, truly beloved by the Atlas community. They're doing so well right now...

[Likely Voter]

Blue, I know Sundays is THE WALKING DEAD night but this is getting ridiculous

[henster]

I really do wish Warner were running he'd make a very good candidate/President. If he did run I have no idea why he'd pick Bennett though, two white guys doesn't seem like a winning Dem ticket anymore.