Answer me this: Why was Warner the strongest Democratic candidate?

[kentuck]

All the "experts" are saying Warner would have been the strongest Democrat in the race? Why? Would he get more of the Democratic "base" than any other candidate? Would he get more of those voters in the middle that "tend" to vote Republican? Will those folks now change their minds and vote for the Republican candidate? I'm attempting to understand the logic behind this claim that Warner would have been the strongest candidate? Can someone explain to me why he would be stronger, than say, a John Edwards?

[wtmusic]

1. Because "everyone" said he was

Heaven knows where that meme came from. I wouldn't be surprised if it was of Rovian origin.

[unblock]

2. i thought it went without saying

that if you withdraw from the race, you're NOT the strongest contender.

duhhhh.

[msongs]

3. some people think he is pretty on TV

if we want pretty we would get howard dean to run again because his SUBSTANCE is his prettiest part!

Msongs
msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Eric J in MN]

4. He was governor of a red state in the South and probably could...

...have been re-elected in Virginia, if they didn't bar governors from consecutive terms.

[aquart]

8. How delightful. An incumbant could have been re-elected.

I've never heard anything so unusual.

[aquart]

5. In whose opinion. Certainly not mine.

I love it when they tell us who we like before we've seen the slates or even voted.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. Damned if I know.

I always thought he was a rather bland, underwhelming DLC type with all the charisma of a bowl of oatmeal. I know he is regarded as a capable governor, but I never could imagine him as a compelling Presidential candidate. I don't think Edwards is actually any more qualified, but he does have better stage presence than Warner. Neither of them has a lick of foreign policy experience, which I consider to be a real problem, considering the massive clusterfuck Bush will hand over to his successor. Bush, by the way, had no foreign policy experience either, and it shows.

[TomClash]

7. He's a successful, "moderate" Governor from a Red State

and he's a likeable guy.

Wait. Isn't that how they marketed . . . W?

:crazy:

Seriously, he's more intelligent and engaged than W. But I'm not sure he's ready for prime time.

[Time for change]

9. In my opinion it's just a corporate media thing

For some reason, it was just a story that they wanted to go with. Maybe they see the writing on the wall, and know that the Republicans can't stay in power much longer, so they're trying to use their influence to build up a moderate candidate who they thought would have a good chance.

I can see no logical reason whatsoever why Edwards wouldn't be a better candidate, except that the corporate media will be all over him if he runs.

[KoKo]

10. It's the old "Some Say" syndrome. Lots of us didn't even know who

he was and the only time I tried to watch him on C-Span he put me to sleep.

I have no idea who was pushing him and why...and what they thought was so great about him. But, then...I couldn't imagine who the hell thought that Macaca would get the Repug Nomination or even try to run for President.

I think I have some political savvy having devoted my whole damned life to politics since 2000 Selection...but I never got it with Warner. I don't get it with Obama, either...but I guess it's "different strokes..for different folks" these days. :eyes:

[skipos]

11. A 75% approval rating is a good start

Ask Virginia why they liked him so much, and you will probably have your answer as to why people think he was a strong candidate.

Edwards approval ratings in North Carolina weren't great.

A senator hasn't been elected president in 40 years. And Warner would easily win VA against anyone. Kerry's 252 EVS plus VA's 13 EVs means 5 more EVs to be President.

I don't blame anyone for thinking he was a strong 08 candidate.

[kentuck]

14. Assuming every other state is like VA and he would be just as popular...

everywhere else in the nation? That's a giant assumption, in my opinion. Where is the passion that surely must be necessary in these times? "Bi-partisan" in todays world means to bend over and let the Repubs stick it to you. No thanks.

[skipos]

24. The poster asked why he was a popular 08 contender.

He had some of the highest approval ratings of any Governor ever, and that had something to do with appeal, wouldn't you say? If he was a loathed in Virginia, he probably wouldn't have been a popular 08 contender.

"Bi-partisan" in todays world means to bend over and let the Repubs stick it to you. No thanks."
That's what it means to you. That is not what it means to me.

[mitchtv]

16. 75% approval in Virginia

is pretty much a black mark to me.Lotsa hate down there in Jesusland

[skipos]

20. Oh sweet Jesus

If you want to dismiss a Governor's high approval ratings, but lay off the "everyone in the south is a racist idiot" shit. California is plenty blue and about to re-elect Arnie. Feingold's approval ratings there are the same as or better than Boxer's. Connecticut is plenty blue is about to re-elect Lieberman.

[mitchtv]

44. Not everyone in the south

Just VA "Virginia is for Haters"
a particularly venomous entity

[biscotti]

12. He always seemed like

an empty suit to me.

[LostInAnomie]

13. Governors don't have voting records.

That is the problem with running a Senator. They have voting records that can be twisted to make them look bad.

Plus, the fact that he's a moderate, Red-State governor.

[kentuck]

17. No, it's the "twisting" of the record that is permitted...

to make any Democrat that runs look bad. It wasn't Kerry's voting record in the last election - it was his record as a war hero in Vietnam. Did he deserve all those Purple Hearts or was he lying and flip-flopping about them? That was the problem.

[LostInAnomie]

36. They did distort Kerry's record though.

Remember the adds that said Kerry had voted to raise taxes something like 300 times, and cut military funding a gazillion times.

It is a lot harder to do that to governors.

[Jim Sagle]

15. Because the Republican media said so.

Fuck them and fuck him.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. Projection and/or vested interests explain the aborted Warner boomlet

There was reason to believe that Warner might have emerged as our strongest candidate I suppose. That's fair, I mean who really knows? Answer; not those pundits. The track record of pundits guessing who will be the strongest candidate for a Presidential candidacy this far out is HORRIBLE. Last time around at this point Joe Lieberman figured prominently in speculation, followed by people like Dick Gephardt.

The non conspiratorial option is that these pundits are like "Top 40" record producers who keep looking for a brand new band to back THAT SOUNDS EXACTLY LIKE the last band that they had a hit record with: Hmmm, moderate Democrat who was a popular Governor of a Southern State, have we ever had a hit with one of them????

The more conspiratorial option is that there are certain candidates who the powers that be can agree on in advance that they can safely back, and then they get the word out to hype them like hell!

You raise Edwards as an alternative to Warner. I would raise Clark, others perhaps Gore or Feingold. All of these men in varying ways have had to perform on at least a national stage in the past. Although Feingold never has run in any race beyond his state's borders, he has spoken to a national constituency for years now at least. There is some basis with those men to extrapolate how they will address national issues, and how they might connect with voters outside of their own region. That was never the case with Warner, but he was declared a front runner none the less virtually before he even admitted that he was interested in running for President. That doesn't mean that Warner might not have done well and emerged as our strongest candidate, but it speaks to the absurdity of him being crowned a front runner almost before he ever opened his mouth outside of Virginia (yes I know that I am exaggerating here). How transparent can it get?

You know part of it may be that most of the pundit class works inside the Beltway and live in bedroom communities in places like, um, Virginia. Warner got lots of opportunities to schmooze them up. But mostly I think it is arrogance if not worse. These people are full of themselves and confident they can sell Bozo the Clown to the public if need be. Didn't they already do in 2000 and 2004?

It is the classic inside the bubble disconnect from the rest of America. Conventional wisdom is almost always a rear view mirror vision. Did you notice that at about the same time Warner withdrew, a NH poll was released that had Warner polling 1% (it might have been 2% but I really think it was 1%). Warner trailed Clinton, Edwards, Gore, Biden, Clark, and I think maybe Richardson (not sure about Richardson). This after almost a solid year of non stop media hyping of Warner AND some campaigning by him in places like, yup, New Hampshire.

[kentuck]

26. I agree with your "alternatives"...

Clark, Gore, or Feingold. I like them all.

[napi21]

19. You need to listen to some of the info out there.

Warner was a very successful Governor of a Southern State...VA. Most everyone who met him liked him. He met with the NASCAR folks, and he said he didn't know anything about NASCAR, and one of the drivers invited him to "let me teach you!" Honest or not, he's been a NASxar FAN ever since.

You may not want to, but the Dems rally do need to appeal to the Southerners. We really ARE ONE USA! I thinkWarner would have had what it takes to blendthe north and the south, same as BC did, but alas, he's not a candidate anymore. We now have to find another candidate who can do the same thing.

Who can that be????????

[KoKo]

25. Who can that be.....wellllllllllllll

There's our President who was elected in 2000... And a Vice President who was elected in 04,
If a Southern ticket is the answer.

Possibilities.......

[napi21]

27. People here wantedto know why Warner was so popular?

You got it!

[Aviation Pro]

21. Because he has good hair....

...in our American Idol process of electing Presidents, it's not how well you can govern or how much command of the facts you have or your ability to delicately balance a myriad of issues that vie for your attention, but how good you look for your close up.

If our country wants to save itself the first order of business is to mandate three hours of civics classes per day from Kindergarden through 12th grade.

[karynnj]

22. Their THEORY was that Warner fit the Bill Clinton pattern better:

he was a southern governor who stood a good chance turning his own state.

My guess is the strongest candidate can't be picked by looking at demographics of the small number of winners in sufficiently modern history. So, based on 2 southern governors winning when there was no incumbent Dem President of Dem VP, they assume that that is what wins.

To see how illogical this is, consider the following. With a fair media and a fair election, Senator Kerry would have won - then there would be 4 winners since 2004 - in years where their was no VP or President.
2 Southern Governors

and

2 MA Senators with the initials JFK

Now, no one in his right mind would argue that only MA Senators can win - so why southern governors.

Seriously, the problem is that there are not enough data points. IU would say that Carter won because after the slease of Nixon a moral man was wanted and Carter was clearly that. Clinton won because he was Clinton.

[FrenchieCat]

40. I agree....and Last time someone won when there were no incumbents at all

running from either parties in our modern history, a General took that race. Oh yeah....and we were in the middle of a war at the time, I believe....and folks wanted to get out, and he got them out.

So if history is supposed to be a crystal ball (and it ain't exactly) than Wes Clark should be the frontrunner...and I'll tell you now, that ain't nothing the "pundit Class of crap" will ever predict.

[karynnj]

46. Nice catch - and Missouri is not far from Arkansas

You should use this on the constant "you need a southern governor" folks.

[godai]

23. Not a sitting Senator

History has shown that Senators nominated by the Decocrats generally don't win. Their voting records provide fodder for flip-flop nonsense that apparently works. Beyond this, Warner was a popular Democratic Governor of a 'southern' state, a la Bill Clinton.

Have you noticed that republicans tend to nominate Governors etc, not Senators?

Edwards is not a current Senator but he does have the trial lawyer anchor which would be exploited, but he's got my vote if nominated.

[elperromagico]

28. A lot of people are looking for Clinton Part Two,

which accounts for at least some of Hillary's support.

The problem is you don't get a Clinton that often. He was a masterful politician and a very capable administrator. Usually, you settle for one or the other. You get somebody like Kerry, who likely would have been a good administrator but was less than thrilling as a candidate, or you get somebody like Bush, who is good at campaigning but is a tenth-rate administrator.

[Awsi Dooger]

29. Obviously it's subjective but I agreed with it

Right now it's an incredibly polarized era on the presidential level. Therefore it's idiotic to look at blue states and claim some of them won't vote for a moderate Democratic nominee like Warner, as opposed to someone more liberal. Whenever I read posts in that regard I hear the Monty Python theme song. Yet there are many states which will give a moderate a look while rejecting the progressive, or at least voting in lesser numbers for a progressive. I live in one of them, Nevada. Florida. Ohio. Virginia is another. Warner had surreal numbers in his '01 gov race among demographics we normally lose. His approval rating was 74% when he left office, and his success allowed his handpicked successor Tim Kaine to win the gov race last year. He had strength among the pro-gun crowd and also the NASCAR dads, while not turning off women or traditional segments of the Democratic base.

Yeah, yeah. I'm sure posters here will say he turned them off. Newsflash: I studied the Virginiia vote totals in key regions and demographics and the people like you ended up voting for Warner when it counted. It would have happened again if he got the Democratic nomination. From posting on balanced sites, some people, especially men, seem to think Edwards is a bit of a phony. I've seen that for years. There was nothing like that in regard to Warner. Obviously his background has been questioned in regard to experience and foreign affairs. No one was claiming he didn't need to prove himself during the long debate season beginning in '07.

Sure we have the birthright to nominate liberals in certain states and districts. A national race trying to get to 270 electoral votes is another matter. Warner accurately called it the "triple bank shot" approach of nominating someone who can only compete in maybe 16 or 17 states, needing to win virtually every one of them. Fact: 21% of the population self describes as liberals. That soars to 34% as conservatives. And a significant plurality of 45% listing themselves as moderate. Hey, I'd like to elect the most liberal candidate in every race but I'm not stupid enough to ignore the numbers, and what they mean trying to get to 270.

Virginia's 13 electoral votes are an absolute trump card. That is never properly emphasized on DU. If we snag those votes it reverses the margin for error to our side for a change. Winning Florida or Ohio is not longer an absolute necessity. We could hold the Kerry states, add Virginia, then need only ONE of the following: New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, Colorado. But only a native son can win Virginia. The state is still 4-5 points red leaning on the presidential level, moving slowly our way but we are doomed in Virginia in '08 unless Warner is on the ticket. Atop the ticket those 13 electoral votes were a pickup. At VP it is very iffy. A VP is worth maybe 3 or 3.5 points. As the nominee, Warner would have won Virginia by 5 points, somewhere in that range. That is assuming a 50/50 national popular vote. If it erred one way or the other then Virginia would tilt by similar percentage.

I backed Edwards in '04 but switched to Warner for '08. IMO Warner as a southern governor has a superior resume, a more logical path to 270 electoral votes. Edwards may be more charismatic but that's not as vital in an open race, as against an incumbent. Edwards can't win North Carolina even atop our ticket. An Edwards/Warner ticket would be life and death to win Virginia, but seems like we prefer it that way so that's the way I'll root.

[jenmito]

30. Because Wesley Clark hasn't made it known yet...

that he'll be running. :D

[elperromagico]

31. If he's going to get into the race,

he'd better announce something before October of next year. Waiting that long killed his chances. If he'd been on the ground in Iowa, he might have been able to capitalize on the Dean implosion. As it was, he not only didn't capitalize but he got knocked on his ass in New Hampshire by the Kerry momentum.

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. Well over a year ago he talked about having learned those lessons well

Clark won't repeat any of the mistakes he made in his rookie year. Clark is a very quick learner and he takes serioulsy mastering the things that are important to him. He'll either make an effort that gives him a realistic chance of winning, or he will do something different with his life and energy.

So Yes, you are right and Clark knows that.

[jenmito]

37. Exactly.

He knows what he did wrong and he will NOT repeat those mistakes.

[jenmito]

35. I agree...

And I think he knows it, too. I'm SURE he would've won if he campaigned in Iowa. Right now, though, he's doing all the right things for both himself AND for the Dems. in '06.

[NCarolinawoman]

32. Both are lacking in foreign policy experience, but

Warner was at least a popular, successful Governor of a red state. So he has executive experience, was good at it, and would probably be able to carry Virginia in a general election. He was also a successful businessman, which highlights the executive experience in a very positive way.

Edwards is not all that popular in his home state and odds are he could not carry North Carolina in a general election. He also does not have executive experience, which is usually considered a plus for a President.

By the way, from what I gather, the Shrub's role as Governor of Texas was kind of like a figurehead with little real responsibility, unlike being a Governor in Va. and NC. "W" was also a failed businessman, (he was cut out to be a middle manager of a lawn mower parts company, IMHO)

[blm]

34. Because the pundits never listened to him try and craft an answer on Iraq

that dealt with the reality of Iraq. Part of that reality was how it happened, and Warner said we shouldn't go back and examine what Bush did, even after the Downing Street Memos show malice aforethought.

And I would guess that Warner tired of the constant questioning about what he would do in Iraq - how does he answer consistently when he really did not have the depth of experience in foreign policy or military affairs to craft a strong answer in the first place?

And so he took himself out. He came to grips with the reality that it is a lot tougher to run for president than it looks, and dealing with the world that Bush has now created makes it a thousand times harder.

[Warpy]

38. Because party conservatives adored him

He was a southerner, a conservative, and he could speak in public without disgracing himself.

Party conservatives will always favor southern candidates. They're still trying to counter Nixon's southern strategy--and failing miserably.

[Texas_Kat]

39. Warner was being hyped by the DC pundits

It's a lot like the hype for Hillary that's still going on.

Warner spent millions and millions of dollars without making much headway out here where the voters are, but made a big splash with the DC pundits. They are bound and determined to pick someone to push on us already -- even before the 06 elections are complete. Lord it feels like seeing Christmas displays at Labor Day.

Take one example.... Chris Cilizza from "the Fix" at WaPo. He'd been rah-rah-sis-boom-bahing for Warner for almost a year. Warner drops out. Now he's banging the drum for Evan Bayh. Heaven on earth! Set the snooze button.... BAYH!

All I can say is that if we'd listened to the DC talking heads, there would be 5-6 House seats in play (because Dems wouldn't have bothered to file in as many races as they have) and 1 seat in the Senate.

These guys aren't 'experts'... as Tweety let slip the other day.... they're only interested in ratings... and revenue.

I'm sooooo over the 'conventional wisdom' of the DC experts -- as far as I'm concerned the only one that's not a complete fraud is Charlie Cook.

[MiniMe]

41. 80% approval in a red state. n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

42. If Warner was the "strongest"...

candidate Dems could field, we are more fucked than I ever imagined.

And no, there is no sarcasm tag missing.

[TankLV]

43. He wasn't by a long shot - that premise is wrong from the get go...

[Totally Committed]

45. Uh, he wasn't. Ever.

"Hillary is the EXPECTED candidate." "Warner was the STRONGEST candidate." The DLC markets their products well and the CORPORATE MEDIA is only too happy to push their candidates for them. Period. If we've learned one thing from the Republicans, it's that if you say something often enough to the American people, they believe it's the truth. The DLC exploits that lesson well.

TC