Mark Warner 2008 for President

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I think there's a good chance Virginia governor Mark Warner will be the 2008 nominee.

[Ben.]

I think he’ll run for the Senate in 2006 or 2008 and probably win, he won’t want to make Edwards’ mistake. That said he’s a far more substantive figure than Edward already but he should run for the Senate so anything other than the Vice Presidency IMHO would be ill-advised.   

[A18]

I doubt Warner can beat Allen.

[Ben.]

I doubt Warner can beat Allen.

That's one reason why I think he'll wait till 2008, when John Warner may well be stepping down and Warner would win an open race... that said I think Warner could beat Allen and it would be very tough for both candidates... either way it wouldn't be a lock for either candidate, remember Allen was elected in a presidential year and despite the fact that Bush will be campaigning hard for Senatorial and Gubernatorial candidates as he did in 2002 against a popular former governor make no mistakes Allen will have a tough race on his hands… but it would be much easier for Warner to run in an open race in 2008 so he may just do that.   
 

[Sarnstrom]

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%

[Ben.]

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.

But I think he could beat Allen, but he may well wait till Warner retires as he is likely to do in 2008. 

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think it's possible a Warner vs. Allen race could be it in 2008. Not likely, but possible. More likely than McCain running.

[A18]

Ha, and Virginia is the deciding state!

[Ben.]

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.

When was the last time you where in Virginia!

The Man is well liked by most voters, that he raised taxes is not an issue, it not as thought Virginia turned into Massachusetts…


Ok lets make it simple…“Tax Rises are not always bad”   

…I don’t know what you think you know but he’s a popular guy and either in 2006 or 2008 he’ll run for the senate and probably win, sure its no lock, against Allen it would be tougher than Warner would like and for reason I think he’s more likely to run in 2008 if John Warner retires.   

[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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

BTW, I meant 2008 for President.

[Ben.]

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.

Then you forget that it was the Republicans in the State House who allowed the tax increases to come in, where it to be used as a campaign issues against Warner it would back fire... trust me, these are not astronomical rises, these are well thought out modests increases that have produced visible results and are viewed as such.

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.

Allen’s popularity is one reason why I think Warner will wait till 2008 , when John Warner may well retire and he would win any open contest. Against Allen it would be tough but he could win, you forget all the factors that where important in 2000 Allen was taking on an incumbent yet at the same time it was a presidential year and Bush was at the top of the ticket I think it’s more a reflection on Allen as a candidate and the campaign he ran that he didn’t win more convincingly in such a republican state.

If he ran in 2008 Warner would have the advantage of being a popular former governor and running in an open race and in the end this would trump it being a presidential year. If he ran in 2006 it would not be a presidential year however nor would it be an open race and Allen is a popular (if not wildly so) incumbent so it would be tough, but it is absurd to suggest that any contest between Allen and Warner would not be close and its similarly flawed to argue that if he was eligible he would lose re-election he wouldn’t and at the same time in any open race in 2008 he would be the favourite. But at the same time I don't think he'll run for president (though a "Draft Warner" movment is possible) he'll look to run for the Senate either in 2006 or 2008.               

[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.