(Cross-posted from Daily Kos)Tantalizing. There's no better word for my reaction to the prospect of Mark Warner running for Virginia's open Senate seat in 2008. I wrote a diary about it last week. This week, however, there's additional information that moves my attitude from speculative to something a little more concrete.
Follow me for a roundup and requests on how you can help Mark make up his mind and why you should bother.
Mark Warner spoke at a meeting of Southwest Virginia Democrats on Sunday. Here's what he said (in part):
"I think I've got two great options, to either try and run for governor again or try and take Senator Warner's seat in the Senate," Warner said. "What I'm evaluating is where I can make the most difference and Lord knows Washington could use some fixing up."
I think I just had something akin to a Pavlovian reaction.
The encouraging news continues in this article, filed today:
The most likely Democratic nominee is Mark Warner. Mark Warner, no relation by the way, is a former governor and still considered one of the most popular figures in the state. His administration is viewed as one of Virginia's best and he is still held in high regard by members of the legislature in both parties. He even considered a run at the Presidency. But, after looking at the field of potential candidates, and not quite seeing a place for his brand of moderate Democratic politics, Warner decided to take a pass.The Senate has always been the hoped for next step for Mark Warner. But it's not the first time he will have run for it. Way back in 1996, in his very first race for public office, he ran against John Warner and lost. Interestingly enough, it turned out to be one of the Senator's toughest races. But that was eleven years ago, and Mark Warner's position in Virginia politics has vastly improved. If Mark Warner wants this nomination, it's hard to imagine anyone in the Democratic Party offering the slightest objection.
Two thoughts. First, although Mark Warner is no relation to John Warner, several people pointed out in my diary last week that there will likely be some measure of a "confusion advantage". Second, it was a decidedly narrow margin (comparatively speaking) when Mark Warner ran against John Warner: 5.1%. Just for comparison purposes, John Warner's winning margin in 1990 was 61.7% and in 2002 it was 72.7% (source). On a side note, Democrats did not oppose John Warner in either 1990 or 2002 (just goes to show that Democrats should run in every district in every election!). Just to add a little context, Clinton/Gore garnered 45.15% of the vote in the Presidential election that year. Dole/Kemp garnered 47.11% (source). Bear in mind the difference a decade makes: It has seen the excruciating tenure of George W. Bush and his unpopular war, it has seen the wildly successful Governorship of Mark Warner, and it has seen the fall of George Allen, Jr. Not bad, if momentum is something you find important.
And then there's this little excerpt to kick the drool factor into high gear:
Warner could wait until 2009 to make a second bid for governor, rather than stand for the Senate next year. But don't expect it. As ambitious as he is energetic, Warner will be inclined to act on the opportunity rather than wait.
It is absolutely no secret that Mark Warner has his eyes on the Presidency. Do the math - he'll be 54 years old in 2008. IF (God forbid and knock on wood!) a Republican takes the Presidency in 2008, Mark Warner could run in 2012 at only 58 years of age with 4 years of Senate experience under his belt. If things happen as they should happen, A Democrat will run and win in 2008, which would give Mark Warner his next opportunity in 2016. That would make him 62 years of age when he ran for President with 8 years of Senate experience. I don't think the Senate experience desire can be underscored enough: Mark Warner needs these foreign policy credentials for a successful Presidential run (although, of course, LACK of these credentials didn't hinder previous candidates, but the foreign policy expectations were, to my mind, much lower prior to 9/11).
And finally, there's this:
"He left office as governor as one of the most popular in the history of Virginia and he's still polling extremely well. He's still very popular. He will be tough to beat if he is the democratic nominee by the republicans in Virginia," said O'Brien.
Full drool mode engaged. When Mark Warner left the Governor's office in January of 2006, his approval rating was 80% (source). Let me repeat that boldly and with letters: EIGHTY PERCENT. That's quite an approval rating in any state, let alone Virginia, which went for Bush 52.5% to 44.4% for Gore in 2000 (source) and repeated its love preference for Bush in 2004 with 53.68% to Kerry's 45.48% (source).
Some of this will be redundant, but I want to just list a few of the positives going in Mark Warner's favor, as I see them:
* His unprecedented approval rating as a Democrat in a red state
* His considerable personal wealth, which he has shown a willingness to invest in his own campaigns
* His understanding how a Democrat runs and wins in Virginia
* His track record on managing successfully
There's nothing but upside in a potential Senate run by Mark Warner. Now all we need to do is encourage him to back away from a 2009 run for Governor and towards a 2008 run for Senate. Here are a few things you can do:
1. Throw some $$ at him. This is a link to my ActBlue page. Currently it doesn't list Mark Warner as an individual candidate, and only sets aside money for a Democratic Senate nominee from Virginia. Go throw a few dollars at it - when Mark Warner announces for Senate, I'll update my ActBlue change with his information. I would remind everyone that nearly 10% of all money for Jim Webb's successful 2006 VA-Sen campaign came from ActBlue. It DOES make a difference.
2. Sign up for Mark Warner's Forward Together PAC. There's no cost to it, and it will keep you apprised of a variety of things, not the least of which I think would be Mark Warner's campaign decision.
3. Use this form to send a note to Mark Warner. It doesn't matter where you live and whether or not you're a resident of Virginia. Let Mark Warner know that a) you want him to run for Senate; b) you will do what you can to make a Senate run successful; and c) you will support a Mark Warner Senate campaign financially (if possible).
I don't think I need to point out the obvious here - A Mark Warner win in VA would be a HUGE pickup for Democrats in the US Senate. As it stands right now, whoever is nominated as Virginia's Democratic Senate candidate, s/he will be running against either Gilmore (can't STAND that guy) or Rep. Tom Davis. The time to get behind Mark Warner is NOW. Will you meet this challenge?
The liklihood of that sitiuation aside, do folks see Creigh Deeds as the probable appointment?
As you allude, however, the scenario is almost inconceivable.
If Mark was a Senator then elected for as Governor, it is my opinion Creigh would run for Commonwealth Attorney again.
It is also my opinion that the best place for Mark is the Senate and it is also my opinion that he will be the senior Senator from VA in 2012/13 or VP.
Good insight. Picking Kaine would make more sense. Im still familiarizing myself with Creigh and Brian Moran and a host of these other characters.
How would Warner be the Senior Senator in 2012? Because Webb will already be VP? :)
Have to wait and see what discourages him, if he doesnot move to VP.
Having said that, I'd see him appointing Kaine.
But once you gain seniority in the Senate, as John Warner did, you can do a LOT of good for the commonwealth. But that will never happen spending the next few decades flirting with another term as Governor or Pres/VP.
And, let's face it, Senator is the best political job you can have. No term limits and only running every 6 years? Plus, Mark is already from the DC area. Some politicians don't want to leave their home state to go to Washington, with Gov. Warner that's not an issue.
Upside: He extends his success record of campaigning for and winning elected office, both at the state and Congressional levels. He provides himself an opportunity to attach himself to legislation that will garner broader National attention, thereby increasing his name recognition and bolstering any future run for President. He provides himself an opportunity to get seriously involved in foreign policy and intelligence matters, balancing out his political resume in anticipation of a White House run.
Downside: Congressional Democrats continue, in 2009 and beyond, to be viewed with low favorability ratings. Warner will be somewhat associated with that. The process of actually voting will provide a clear-cut record with which he can be attacked.
You'll note that my upside and downside relate directly to any future run for President. I believe absolutely that MWarner wants the Presidency and will choose a Senate run to further that end.
With the programs already lined up for '09 There is no way I can see a low rating. The only way it could be a continued low rating is if the polsters call 60 percent Republicnas 20 percent Indepemdamts and 20 percent Democrats.
In other words FOX news pays for all the polls in the future.