Mark Warner, the Democratic contender

[MAS117]

Mark Warner, the Democratic contender
Youth, money, base ... and he's a southern governor
By Howard Fineman
MSNBC contributor
Updated: 3:38 p.m. ET June 1, 2005

WASHINGTON - The buzz here is about Deep Throat and how President Bush allegedly lost his 'Mo, but, being the campaign geek I am, I'm thinking about the future: the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.
Here's where we are as we enter the starting gate. There are paired entries, as they say in horse racing. Hillary (and Bill) Clinton in Number One, of course. Then, the 2004 John-John ticket-mates, Senators Kerry and Edwards. The third pair are smooth-moving moderates: Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana and Gov. Mark Warner of Virginia. Rounding out the field, three other governors: Richardson of New Mexico, Vilsack of Iowa, Rendell of Pennsylvania.
Hillary's Hillary. 'Nuff said. The entry I'd rather talk about this time around is arguably the most obscure -- Warner.
Let's put the caveats up front. He is relatively young (50), has zero experience in defense or foreign policy, has no military background or national organization, and strikes some people who know him as unusually hungry and manipulative. Also, he will be out of office at the end of this year (Virginia has one-term-only governors), and who knows what will happen between then and '08 to affect the national landscape. We are in a dangerous and unpredictable world.
Still, he bears watching, and here's why:
He's a Governor
In recent decades, governorships have been the best launch vehicles, especially if they are in the South or West. Among Democrats, we're talking about governors who managed to avoid the label "liberal" as they rise to national prominence: Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
It's far easier to do that if you aren't in Washington, where the congressional party, and the interest groups attached to it, are pulling you to the left on every vote you must cast.
He's got money, and access to more
Warner, a Harvard Law grad who made a fortune as an early player in Nextel, is worth well north of $100 million. Perhaps more important, he has friends in the high-tech business corridor of Northern Virginia, and around the country, who can tap into deeper pools of cash.
In fundraising, you have to "bundle," which means aggregate relatively small (by the standards of rich people) donations. Warner is "prebundled."
He's got a base
It's not quite the same thing as money. The late Lee Atwater, as cunning a political operative as there ever was, once told me that "politics is a base game." What he meant was, in the chaos of public life you need a reliable group of supporters who understand who you are and where you are coming from and who will remain loyal to you no matter what happens.
For many politicians, that base is geographical, but it's often something other than that.
For Ronald Reagan it was the conservative moment. For George W. Bush, it was his mother's Christmas Card list and the National Governors Association. For Warner, it's the high-tech investment community nationwide. He knows the players in Silicon Valley and Seattle and New York City and, more important, they know him. That matters.
He's a Southerner ... at least by adoption
There is a reason why the last three Democrats elected to the presidency have been from the South. It's become Republican territory, and the dominant cultural force in politics, and unless Democrats can make the GOP compete there -- and not take it for granted -- the Dems have almost no chance to win.
Virginia is trending Democrat, at least in the Northern Virginia (Washington) suburbs. Warner was born in Indiana and reared in Illinois and Connecticut. He came to D.C. for college, and stayed in search of business opportunities. He doesn't have a Southern accent -- and he'd never be mistaken for a good ol' boy, but he is, after all, governor.
He has a theory
When you run, you have to be able to give primary voters a convincing explanation of how you are going to win the general election. Those voters actually care about such things, which is one reason why Kerry won the Iowa caucuses and Howard Dean didn't.
Warner's theory (claim) is that he has cross-over appeal to what are, or have become GOP constituencies. He has some evidence to back him up, from his campaign, and from a major legislative victory in Richmond. He reached rural voters in 2001 by signaling his respect for cultural touchstones such as NASCAR, and by promising to bring broadband and the other engines of the digital economy to the countryside.
Faced with a big budget deficit, he enlisted corporate business types to support a tax increase -- and got the Republican-led legislative to approve it.
He has positioned himself as a centrist on social issues, which may be right where "country club Republicans" are: wary of too much emphasis on gay-rights or women's rights, but essentially tolerant people.
He has time
He'll be out of office by the end of the year, but the virtue of that is that he can travel the country and show his wares.
He's doing that already, having recently paid visits to the kingmakers of Democratic California. This week it's Illinois. His role in the National Governors Association gives him other avenues for travel. It's a big country out there.

[Moooooo]

He'll have my support in '08, but knowing my party... We'll just pass him by.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He'll have my support in '08, but knowing my party... We'll just pass him by.

The Dean wing of the party could get behind him, but then again Dean didn't make it, either.

[Ben Meyers]

If I had to choose one Democrat to have in the White House, here he is.

He is also the Democrat's most formidable potential candidate.

[TheresNoMoney]

He'll have my support in '08, but knowing my party... We'll just pass him by.

We just have to work to make sure Hillary doesn't get the nomination and then Warner should be all set.

[Moooooo]

He'll have my support in '08, but knowing my party... We'll just pass him by.

We just have to work to make sure Hillary doesn't get the nomination and then Warner should be all set.

It will be a little more complicated than that.  When Warner is forced to get up in front of the Liberal Army in Iowa and discuss his views on Abortion, Death Penalty, Iraq, and Illegal Immigration... The Lib's are gonna' go nuts.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He'll have my support in '08, but knowing my party... We'll just pass him by.

We just have to work to make sure Hillary doesn't get the nomination and then Warner should be all set.

It will be a little more complicated than that.  When Warner is forced to get up in front of the Liberal Army in Iowa and discuss his views on Abortion, Death Penalty, Iraq, and Illegal Immigration... The Lib's are gonna' go nuts.

He's got a lot of support on DailyKos.

[Moooooo]

He's got a lot of support on DailyKos.

I posted a diary on MyDD the other day regarding his position on illegal immigration, and they were basically calling for his head.

[TheresNoMoney]

[It will be a little more complicated than that.  When Warner is forced to get up in front of the Liberal Army in Iowa and discuss his views on Abortion, Death Penalty, Iraq, and Illegal Immigration... The Lib's are gonna' go nuts.

I really think you're a little misguided in your analyis. "The Lib's" will not go nuts. I think the majority of Democrats are pretty close to yourself  and my views. Most are not "far left". Warner is very exemplary of the Democratic mainstream on most issues:

Abortion-he'll be fine. Most people support parental notification.
Death Penalty-he'll be fine. The vast majority of politicians support the death penalty in some instances.
Iraq-I think his view is pretty typical of most Democrats. Support the war, but not the way it was carried out.
Illegal Immigration-most Democrats believe in much stricter immigration laws. This will actually be a strength of Warner.

Warner is pretty similar to Bill Clinton, although probably a little more to the left on some issues.  

[TheresNoMoney]

I posted a diary on MyDD the other day regarding his position on illegal immigration, and they were basically calling for his head.

Do you have a link?

From what I've read, the DailyKos community is pretty much split on the immigration issue. Most believe in at least somewhat stricter enforcement.

[TheresNoMoney]

He's got a lot of support on DailyKos.

He's probably third most popular behind Wesley Clark and Russ Feingold in terms of legitimate candidates. I read Daily Kos all the time.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He's got a lot of support on DailyKos.

I posted a diary on MyDD the other day regarding his position on illegal immigration, and they were basically calling for his head.

Hmm, I haven't been there much. As you can see, people definitely like him on DailyKos.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/8/03116/3996

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I posted a diary on MyDD the other day regarding his position on illegal immigration, and they were basically calling for his head.

Do you have a link?

From what I've read, the DailyKos community is pretty much split on the immigration issue. Most believe in at least somewhat stricter enforcement.

I haven't seen that much on immigration there, unless you count the massive opposition to the Real ID Act of 2005.

[TheresNoMoney]

[I haven't seen that much on immigration there, unless you count the massive opposition to the Real ID Act of 2005.

I've read a few threads on the issue and it's very split. But again, the majority believe in at least somewhat stricter enforcement. I think illegal immigration reform will be a very winning issue in 2008 if Warner chooses to emphasize it. And his signing of that bill will give him credibility on it.

By the way, I remember reading one of your diaries about a month ago.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

He's got a lot of support on DailyKos.

He's probably third most popular behind Wesley Clark and Russ Feingold in terms of legitimate candidates. I read Daily Kos all the time.

Feingold probably won't run. They'd go nuts over a Warner/Clark ticket.

[Moooooo]

I really think you're a little misguided in your analyis. "The Lib's" will not go nuts. I think the majority of Democrats are pretty close to yourself  and my views. Most are not "far left". Warner is very exemplary of the Democratic mainstream on most issues:

Abortion-he'll be fine. Most people support parental notification.
Death Penalty-he'll be fine. The vast majority of politicians support the death penalty in some instances.
Iraq-I think his view is pretty typical of most Democrats. Support the war, but not the way it was carried out.
Illegal Immigration-most Democrats believe in much stricter immigration laws. This will actually be a strength of Warner.

Warner is pretty similar to Bill Clinton, although probably a little more to the left on some issues.  

I sure hope your right... I guess Im just being a pessimist.

Here is a link to my diary entry regarding Gov. Warner and Illegal Immigration...

http://nickshepdem.mydd.com/story/2005/3/30/154131/416

Skip down a little bit.  The first 5 or so comments are pro-Warner.  After that it starts to get ugly.

[TheresNoMoney]

Feingold probably won't run. They'd go nuts over a Warner/Clark ticket.

Warner/Clark would be a very good ticket. So would Warner/Richardson or Warner/Obama.

Feingold is my favorite politician but it might be best for him to stay in the Senate.

[TheresNoMoney]

Here is a link to my diary entry regarding Gov. Warner and Illegal Immigration...

http://nickshepdem.mydd.com/story/2005/3/30/154131/416

Skip down a little bit.  The first 5 or so comments are pro-Warner.  After that it starts to get ugly.

OK, you said Daily Kos.

Anway, I'm in the roughly 25% of Democrats who believe in closing the borders and fining companies who hire illegal aliens.

The bill Warner signed is pretty tough, but I agree with it. I also think there needs to be some type of accountability for corporations who hire illegal aliens. That should be the next legislative order of business.

[tinman64]

Warner would be a great choice.  He'd win VA, and possibly win in FL.  If that's the case, he wouldn't have to worry about winning any other southern states if he holds the Kerry states and picks up IA or NV or NM. 

[Moooooo]

OK, you said Daily Kos.

I posted a diary on MyDD the other day regarding his position on illegal immigration, and they were basically calling for his head.

[tarheel-leftist85]

The more I think of it, the more I'm afraid Mark Warner won't be able to win the primaries, especially if Evan Bayh is competing:  It'll be like Clark and Edwards splitting the Southern vote and giving the pass to Kerry.  We really need to coalesce around ONE moderate alternative to Hillary.  My pick for this alternative is, of course, Mark Warner (and Blanche or Bayh as VP).  It'll be great if there are lots of liberal Senators vying along w/ Hillary:  They'll split the liberal vote.  The still more promising prospect is if Reps. have so many Evangelical senators (Frist, Brownback, Allen) that they split the vote and allow someone like Guliani or Romney to grab the nomination (maybe that's too far-fetched, but interesting, nonetheless).  In this scenario it would a decisive Democratic victory, dare I say, picking up most of the South (I doubt a lot of Southerners would vote for Guliani, even if he's a Republican, but actually more libertarian).  To my fellow Dems. who are more socially liberal than I:  I urge you to take a look at Warner.  Sure he's not 100% socially liberal, but do we want to risk marginalizing our party for another four years and giving a free pass to unchecked power?  If Warner faces off against Allen, he won't win VA (though he'll make it close along w/ NC), but a quintessentially populist state like Arkansas or Missouri is up for grabs.  Nevada will be ours by 08 (from 1992 to 2004 the Dems. have been steadily gained ground and made it a 2pt. race with an ultra-weak candidate).  If it's Warner and Frist, I actually think Warner will prevail in VA by the smallest of margins (dare I say, recount?!?).  If Brownback secures the nomination (not out of the question, as the first caucus is held in a Midwest, socially conservative state), Warner will win Virginia with a majority of the vote (but no more than 52%).  Besides the jackpots of FL and OH, all it takes for us to win is VA + NV with the Kerry states, or MO/IN + IA.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The more I think of it, the more I'm afraid Mark Warner won't be able to win the primaries, especially if Evan Bayh is competing:  It'll be like Clark and Edwards splitting the Southern vote and giving the pass to Kerry.  We really need to coalesce around ONE moderate alternative to Hillary.  My pick for this alternative is, of course, Mark Warner (and Blanche or Bayh as VP).  It'll be great if there are lots of liberal Senators vying along w/ Hillary:  They'll split the liberal vote.  The still more promising prospect is if Reps. have so many Evangelical senators (Frist, Brownback, Allen) that they split the vote and allow someone like Guliani or Romney to grab the nomination (maybe that's too far-fetched, but interesting, nonetheless).  In this scenario it would a decisive Democratic victory, dare I say, picking up most of the South (I doubt a lot of Southerners would vote for Guliani, even if he's a Republican, but actually more libertarian).  To my fellow Dems. who are more socially liberal than I:  I urge you to take a look at Warner.  Sure he's not 100% socially liberal, but do we want to risk marginalizing our party for another four years and giving a free pass to unchecked power?  If Warner faces off against Allen, he won't win VA (though he'll make it close along w/ NC), but a quintessentially populist state like Arkansas or Missouri is up for grabs.  Nevada will be ours by 08 (from 1992 to 2004 the Dems. have been steadily gained ground and made it a 2pt. race with an ultra-weak candidate).  If it's Warner and Frist, I actually think Warner will prevail in VA by the smallest of margins (dare I say, recount?!?).  If Brownback secures the nomination (not out of the question, as the first caucus is held in a Midwest, socially conservative state), Warner will win Virginia with a majority of the vote (but no more than 52%).  Besides the jackpots of FL and OH, all it takes for us to win is VA + NV with the Kerry states, or MO/IN + IA.

1. Hillary isn't liberal
2. If there are two similar candidates and one drops out, that should help the other one

[MHS2002]

1. Hillary isn't liberal

While you might think Hillary isn't liberal, it is a label many use to describe her, for better or worse.

[No more McShame]

I posted a diary on MyDD the other day regarding his position on illegal immigration, and they were basically calling for his head.

Do you have a link?

From what I've read, the DailyKos community is pretty much split on the immigration issue. Most believe in at least somewhat stricter enforcement.

Good for Warner.  there are many Republicans who doesn't have the balls he has. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Oh, and another point.

3. In the Democratic primaries, delegates are awarded proportionally by congressional district. The superdelegates are free to vote for whoever they want. So it's not really winner take all.