Regarding Governor Mark Warner (D - VA)

[PopSixSquish]

Ok, a chance to play political strategist for a moment...I've seen his name mentioned as a possible Presidential candidate for 2008. I've done a little research, talked to some folks in VA and generally like what I see.

The issue as I see it...His term as governor is up in 2006 and VA law prohibits him from running for re-election. So, he's essentially a single-term governor, not well known outside the region.

Conventional wisdom (for the sake of this discussion) would tell you that a person seeking the Presidency needs an office/base of operations to run from.

Howard Dean or Wesley Clark or John Edwards are possible exceptions to this, should they decide to run in 2008 but all are known from this time around.

Secondly, George Allen, the "lovely" Republican Senator from VA is up for re-election in 2006 and I know more than a few folks in VA who really want to stick it to this guy.

So my question, if you are Mark Warner and perhaps harbor Presidential ambitions. Do you run for President starting from after your term is up in 2006? Do you even have the power base from within the party to start a run, raise money, etc?

Or do you run against Allen for the Senate, thus serving the good people of VA for at least 6 years in the Senate? I think there's an even money chance he beats Allen. If you defeat Allen and are successful in the Senate, it's 2012 before you can conceivably run

Or you could get picked for VP on the 2008 ticket, but again you're up against having been out of politics for 1 1/2 to 2 years or in another office for 2 years.

Thoughts?

[David Dunham]

1. Warner should challenge Allen, If Warner wins, it's huge for him!

If Warner can beat Allen in 2006, Warner will have a good chance at getting the nomination in 2008. If Warner does not challenge Allen, Warner's chances at getting either the Pres or VP nomination will not be good.

[PopSixSquish]

8. And This is Exactly How We Ended Up with W

1994 elections and both sons of Bush were running. Conventional wisdom (heh) had it that Ann Richards would beat W in Texas and Jeb would beat Lawton Chiles in Fl. But the reverse happened.

W leapfrogged to the front of the pack at that point, the only thing he had to do was win re-election in 1998.

The moment he did, the Presidential talk started and the oxygen was sucked out of the room for anyone else.

If Warner beats Allen, then he goes to the front of the pack for first being elected governor of a "red" state and then defeating a sitting Senator.

Hey, since it's fashionable to toss around blame these days, can we add Ann Richards to the list? Kidding I love that woman. But Jeb must curse Lawton Chiles (may he rest in peace) every night, knowing that an eccentric Florida Democratic governor may have cost him the opportunity to ever be President.

[progdonkey]

22. not only that...

If Warner beats Allen, then he goes to the front of the pack for first being elected governor of a "red" state and then defeating a sitting Senator (who received an A+ rating from the Christian coalition.)

[autorank]

2. Runs for Senate, takes a shot at VP. Virginians would understand.

He's very popular here. People appreciate what he's done under difficult conditions. He worked very well with the rural, down trodden parts of the state. He is of the Northern Virginia part -- a successful high-tech entrepreneur who got out in a respectable way. I'd like to see him #2 for Clark. Beaucoup smarts between the two of them.

P.A. Gruden stole the Raiders play book which is the only reason the Bucs won the big one. Just because we didn't change a play since he left is no excuse! Appalling sportsmanship.

[PopSixSquish]

10. Sucks Doesn't It

Psssttt...I lived in CA for 15 years and rooted for the Raiders since I couldn't stand the 40-Whiners.

Told everyone that the Super Bowl would be Bucs vs. Raiders, but that I'd have to go with the hometown team.

Do you think the 40Whiners miss Marrucci 'bout now?

[autorank]

13. Once a Raider Fan, Always a Raider Fan!

Raiders Seasonal Affective Disorder (R-SAD) setting in. But at least we have Sap, a classic Raider bad sport if there ever was one.

Keep the faith!

[PopSixSquish]

15. I Was Very Excited About the Bucs Winning Of Course

but I felt really bad for Rich Gannon and Tim Brown. We've got Brown now and I don't think he's going to get that ring here either. Not at least until we get an offensive line.

[Kber]

25. Huge Sap fans

actually my 7 yr old son is. We're Jets folks, but whoever has Sap is always his second choice.

[fujiyama]

20. Now that sounds like a great ticket

I really hope Clark will run again. I think he'd do much better this time.

Hopefully he'll keep in the national spotlight over the next few years.

[MrUnderhill]

3. He has to run against Allen if he wants the White House... but

he can't possibly beat him.

Virginia's one-term Constitutional term-limit is an awful idea in our current political climate. Were Warner able to run for re-election, he would win handily... a SECOND term southern Democratic (reasonably "moderate") governor could be very attractive on the national scene.

Or at least for VP.

But you've hit the nail on the head... he needs to run from SOME office of stature and he's actually out of office in a little over a year. You can't run for the White House as an EX-governor who has been out of his SINGLE term for three years.

If JOHN Warner's seat were up in '06.... THEN he'd have a very good chance of staying a legitimate candidate.

[formernaderite]

18. You're right, he cant' possibly beat Allan..

...he's also not a "real" southerner although he is a real moderate. I don't know how well he'll play in rural America. He did run against a very bad republican candidate...not sure he'd have that opportunity again.

[liberalpragmatist]

19. To be fair, Carter did it

He was a 1-term governor of a southern state (Georgia).

That said, I think the perception, whether fair or not, is that Carter wasn't ready to be President.

So I dunno. I agree that just a single term as governor is a little bit light. At the same time, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and Jimmy Carter all used time out of office to make presidential runs and they weren't distracted from office as a result.

Also, the best thing for Warner's presidential ambitions would be a Senate seat. Again, the problem is that if he wins the Senate seat, there's virtually no way he can immediately turn around and run for President - he'd end up running within months if not weeks of getting there. VP's a possibility, but President? Could be a problem.

So he's in sort of a bind. Personally, I think he may well forego a Senate race b/c it makes it impossible for him to run for POTUS in '08 and if he loses a senate race, he's done for.

[NewJeffCT]

4. When was Dean last governor?

Wasn't his last term done in 2002, after which he started his run? I'm not sure on this, though.

So, taking a page from Dean, if Warner was done in 2006, he could start running after that?

[MrUnderhill]

7. Dean was first elected to a state-wide office in 1986.

Being out of office for a couple years is not as big a deal.

[NWHarkness]

5. I have to disagree with your premise

Nixon, Carter and Reagan were all out of office when they ran for president.

Carter is particularly notable in this discussion, he was a former one term governor when he ran for President.

Being free of the responsibilities of office is an asset, not a handicap. If I were Warner, and I wanted to run, I'd start running full time as soon as my term expired.

[PopSixSquish]

11. You Are Correct...But That was a Different Time

And the Repubs and the media used the "experience" thing to some advantage against both Edwards and Clark where neither situation mattered.

[Renew Deal]

6. Beat Allen and then run for Pres.

[LimpingLib]

9. People might not like him based on 1996 debate comments.

Mark Warner and John Warner disagreed on abortion rights. Mark Warner slammed him in the debates for opposing abortion rights and voting for the 1983 constitutional amendment called "a fetus is a life" (I think)sponsored by Jessy Helms.

Then they got to the issue of Supremem Court nominees and things got interesting. Mark Warner said a President deserves to have his appointments approved and Senators shouldnt have the right to take the Presidents decidion from him. John Warner actually gave him a stern lecture over that but Mark Warner stuck to his position.


That aside , I love Mark Warner. He got 47.5% of the vote against a corrupt elite POS that election and I have admired him ever since. Too bad our party is so shitty that we didnt even bother to oppose John Warner in 2002.

[DaveinMD]

12. Warner should not run for Senate

the Repubs would schedule votes just to embarass him.

[SaveElmer]

14. Allen would beat him

Allen and Warner are both very popular. In a state like Virginia, with everything else being equal, the Republican will beat the Democrat. That would be the case here.

If Warner intends to run for President, he should start when his term is up and not challenge Allen. If he decides not to run for President, he should wait till 2008 and run for John Warner's senate seat. The thinking here is that John Warner will retire after this term. In that scenario, it is a good likelihood that Mark Warner would win that seat as the Republicans have no one else statewide as popular.

[PopSixSquish]

16. Thanks, I Had John Warner's Term Mixed Up

I agree that Mark Warner would win that one since it would be an open seat.

Somebody has to challenge Allen in 2006 though. We've got to start making these guys work for it and not just roll over. The Old Dominion deserves better.

Virginan once-removed here btw. My dad's family has been there since the boat landed. Born right next-door in KY.

[JI7]

17. depends on how serious he is about Pres run in 2008

if he is VERY serious and pretty much knows for sure he wants to run for President in 2008 then try to help ANOTHER democrat beat george allen. if the democrat beats allen, warner gets credit. warner will be seen as someone who has proven he can win in a red state and help OTHERS win, especially senate seats which is where democrats in republican states are having trouble. warner will get national attention, endorsements, money etc for the primary.

if the democrat loses, warner will not be blamed. there is nothing for warner to lose here, only gain.

if warner is NOT too serious or sure about 2008 presidential run then he should challenge george allen himself for the senate seat in 2006.

it will be hard to run for senate and be serious about 2008 pres run since he will have to start the primary campaign as soon as he gets to the senate. and i'm sure he will be forced to answer and promise he will not run for president in 2008 if he were to run for senate.

[ArtVandaley]

23. I think that's a good idea

If he proves that his coattails can get other democrats elected, it will help his stock significantly.

[jfern]

21. Warner 2008

He was winning this poll when I linked to it on DailyKos, and hadn't linked to it on DU.
Hmmm, DailyKos really likes Warner, Edwards, Bayl and DU really likes Dean, Kerry, Feingold.

I say we comprimise and run Warner/Feingold 2008

http://www5.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/andru/civs/results?id=E_b68e4e08defc93c4

[loudsue]

24. 'Scuse me??' Are you asking IF WE HAVE FAIR ELECTIONS could

Warner run and win? Then, SURE!! But you're talking about "elections" as if votes had anything to do with them, or as if the will of the people, or the popularity of the candidate had anything to do with them...

THEY DON'T!! The machines, and the crooked operatives who count the votes, will decide whether Warner is worthy. So we can discuss strategy all we want to, just to keep our brains from grasping the idiocy of that discussion.

Until we have a vote that counts, talking about "the next election" is spinning Fairy Tales.

:kick::kick: