Do you want to learn a little more about Mark Warner? Read this . . .

[dolstein]

Chasing Bubba
Gov. Mark Warner convinced NASCAR dads and rural Republicans to give him a shot in 2001. Now, he may be the Democrats’ best hope to win back the White House in 2008.
by Scott Bass
October 12, 2005

When 40 cars racing in excess of 200 miles per hour pass in front of you, creating a thunderous beehive of screaming engines amid a haze of burning oil and rubber, you’re either awed or unnerved. In the world of NASCAR, you either get it or you don’t. Gov. Mark R. Warner gets it. His eyes widen. He lifts his chin high to see past the pit crews and concrete barriers. In the middle of pit row, at the center of Richmond International Raceway on a balmy Saturday night in September, the governor, wearing a red polo shirt, khakis and brown loafers, melds seamlessly into the stock-car scenery.


These may not be his people per se, but the Democratic governor who made his fortune in the cellular phone business a world away in Northern Virginia understands NASCAR. He knows the economics of the business. He has a rapport with the drivers, some of the most famous athletes in the world. Before the race starts, standing on a ceremonial platform facing the stands, he declares Sept. 10 as “Rusty Wallace Day” in honor of the veteran driver, a six-time winner at RIR, and he later stops to chat and wish good luck to Elliott Sadler, one of the drivers he knows personally. (Earlier in the afternoon, at the pre-race meeting, the drivers presented Warner with a plaque recognizing his relentless promotion of the state’s racing industry through his Virginia Motorsports Initiative.)

. . .


http://www.styleweekly.com/article.asp?idarticle=11175

[LibDemAlways]

1. I like Warner. I just wish he had

decided to go after George Allen next year. Retiring that piece of repuke filth would have been performing a valuable public service.

[Pirate Smile]

2. Both Allen and Warner may be running for President in 2008.

[FSogol]

3. I agree, someone needs to hand Dim Bulb Allen a huge loss at the polls

Warner is exploring running for President.

[dolstein]

17. Warner is too smart to run for the Senate

Seriously, his decision not to run for the Senate is simply more proof that he's a smart guy. He gets nothing out of running for the Senate. If he loses, his political career is over. If he wins, he can't run for president in 2008.

[Zynx]

23. He could have run for president, it just would have been stupid to do so

while sitting in the Senate. That would have been an enormous handicap.

[nickshepDEM]

4. IMO, Warners running for VP. If he lands to top slot...

... thats just an added bonus.

[FrenchieCat]

5. So what's Warner's opinion on Iraq?

I mean, he "sounds" great considering that he has no opinions on any of what we are currently facing. I mean will it all be a secret until the campaign starts? Will he have made a determination as to what he stands for by then?

But I'm glad that he's into NASCAR! That's leadership for ya! :eyes:

That's the sign of a leader and Presidential material? Oooh Boy! how exciting! :sarcasm:!

Monday night saw former Democratic presidential candidate, and four star general, Wesley Clark swoop into Birmingham to raise money and rally the masses. From all accounts Clark gave a rousing call to action to the Democratic faithful. Both the Birmingham News and Mobile Register covered the Clark event.
snip
The most interesting thing to me about Clark is the appeal that he seems to have to Alabama Democrats. Clark's political positioning and rhetoric resembles Howard Dean more than Howell Heflin. Wesley Clark has taken liberal stances on almost every issue from the Iraq War, to taxes, to abortion, and affirmative action.

Clark, though unsuccessful in 2004, has somehow managed to remain not only tolerable but wildly popular among the various wings of the Democratic Party. Clark is one of the few national Democrats with whom Southern Democrats wouldn't mind being photographed. Yet Clark is also the favored candidate of the unabashedly liberal blogosphere of the DailyKos variety. Clark was infamously supported (and subsequently embarrassed) by controversial documentarian Michael Moore, but Clark also was seen as the candidate supported (surreptitiously) by establishment Dems Bill and Hillary Clinton. Even self declared conservative Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS) was on the Clark bandwagon.
snip
I suppose that Clark's military background gives his anti-war stance credibility without appearing weak. And Clark's Southern roots (he was raised in Arkansas) imply he can relate to and fight for Southern votes should he again be a candidate.

But primarily I am amazed at how Wesley Clark is able to stay on such good terms with the various wings and factions in the notoriously fractious Democratic Party. People like Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, Bill Richardson, and other elected officials have gotten the most attention in the upcoming Democratic presidential race. But with his universal appeal to Democrats, an impressive biography, and lessons learned from 2004, you shouldn't look past Wes Clark.
http://alelections.blogspot.com/2005/10/wes-wing.html

[nickshepDEM]

8. And this has what to do with Warner?

Off topic?

Monday night saw former Democratic presidential candidate, and four star general, Wesley Clark swoop into Birmingham to raise money and rally the masses. From all accounts Clark gave a rousing call to action to the Democratic faithful. Both the Birmingham News and Mobile Register covered the Clark event.
snip
The most interesting thing to me about Clark is the appeal that he seems to have to Alabama Democrats. Clark's political positioning and rhetoric resembles Howard Dean more than Howell Heflin. Wesley Clark has taken liberal stances on almost every issue from the Iraq War, to taxes, to abortion, and affirmative action.

Clark, though unsuccessful in 2004, has somehow managed to remain not only tolerable but wildly popular among the various wings of the Democratic Party. Clark is one of the few national Democrats with whom Southern Democrats wouldn't mind being photographed. Yet Clark is also the favored candidate of the unabashedly liberal blogosphere of the DailyKos variety. Clark was infamously supported (and subsequently embarrassed) by controversial documentarian Michael Moore, but Clark also was seen as the candidate supported (surreptitiously) by establishment Dems Bill and Hillary Clinton. Even self declared conservative Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS) was on the Clark bandwagon.
snip
I suppose that Clark's military background gives his anti-war stance credibility without appearing weak. And Clark's Southern roots (he was raised in Arkansas) imply he can relate to and fight for Southern votes should he again be a candidate.

But primarily I am amazed at how Wesley Clark is able to stay on such good terms with the various wings and factions in the notoriously fractious Democratic Party. People like Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, Bill Richardson, and other elected officials have gotten the most attention in the upcoming Democratic presidential race. But with his universal appeal to Democrats, an impressive biography, and lessons learned from 2004, you shouldn't look past Wes Clark.
http://alelections.blogspot.com/2005/10/wes-wing.html

[FrenchieCat]

10. OK....granted. However, what about mention of Warner's positions

in my post.....that you omitted responding to.

Certainly it a great point and worth an OP to showcase that Warner is into Nascar for preparation for the 2008 elections....

But still, all in all, I have no clue as to where he actually stands on the pertinent issues of life and death/War and peace in 2005?

The point, although on its face might be interpreted as OT....was in fact a 10/13/05 article on Clark which demonstrates that Warner is not the only one with "appeal" to Southerners. Come to think of it, I may have been a bit crass in my approach. I do sincerely apologize to Mark Warner, Wes Clark and to you....Please forgive me.

However, the more important issue....not yet addressed is that I'm trying to find out what else does Warner substantially offers for Dems to want to back him aside from the obvious 1992 qualities....southern Governor appeal?

Like what are his take on issues? Can you answer that part of my original post? Thanks!

[nickshepDEM]

11. Im just messing with you because you nailed me in another thread..

I knew Id get you back sooner or later. ;)

Ill respond to the other questions later. Im off to work now.

[underpants]

6. *ahem*

;-)

Yes he is running for the Presidency

[Totally Committed]

7. As long as he's DLC, he's DOA for me...

If A = B and B = C, then A = C.

A = DLC

B = Corporatism

C = Republican

Do the math.

[nickshepDEM]

9. bsudfhbullshitfhdf

[Awsi Dooger]

12. I hope Democrats realize the electoral significance of Virginia in 2008

If we nominate Warner, that puts Virginia in play bigtime. And if we could somehow win Virginia, that changes the entire dynamic, essentially reversing the margin for error advantage from the GOP to our side. Basically, we would no longer need either Ohio or Florida. Kerry had 252 electoral votes. Virginia has 13. The magic number is 270. Admittedly, we would have to hold all of the Kerry states, including New Hampshire which Gore lost in 2000, but if that happened and we also won Virginia, then we would require only ONE of the following: New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, Colorado. Each of those states has at least 5 electoral votes, the magic over-the-top number.

Virginia has been trending slightly our way, but no chance we bump it over the top in 2008 minus a favorite son boost or a national mandate, which would make Virginia irrelevant anyway. Since Virginia has not been represented on a national ticket in quite a while, the favorite son boost should be considerable. Hardly surprising you have a Virginian (George Allen) as a potential nominee on each side. Here is the partisan chart, with relation to the national popular vote margin at right:

Virginia:
'88: Bush (59.74 - 39.23) = + 12.79% Republican
'92: Bush (44.97 - 40.59) = + 9.94% Republican
'96: Dole (47.10 - 45.15) = + 10.48% Republican
'00: Bush (52.47 - 44.44) = + 8.54% Republican
'04: Bush (53.68 - 45.48) = + 5.74% Republican

I'm not sure we can project that 5.74 down another 2 points, or more, by 2008. If so, we might even be able to win Virginia with Warner in the VP slot. But that's doubtful, and would obviously depend on who topped the ticket. The traits dolstein's article hinted at atop this thread are vital to winning a state like Virginia. No one is going to wheel fake the NASCAR types and pretend to fit in. I don't threaten to guess what happens if Allen becomes the GOP frontrunner at the same time we're considering Warner. You would think dualing Virginians would default to GOP advantage, given the base instincts of the state. Warner was wise to forego a senate run versus an incumbent.

[skipos]

13. I realize the electoral significance

Warner and Richardson are two people I have been looking into lately because of that. I still don't know much about them but I am under the impression that Richardson has some bad baggage.

I am a Clark fan but I am not a take-my-ball-and-go-home Democrat, I'd vote for Warner from what I know of him.

[Awsi Dooger]

14. I just hate being behind the 8 ball

And that's where we are in 50/50 races. The permutations for victory are much more numerous and feasible for the Republicans. Unless we can turn an Ohio, Florida or Virginia several points in our direction we'll be on the short end on the likely dispersion table.

[skipos]

19. I'm with you there thats why

I consider a candidate's homestate, their "likeablity" and all that other stuff that seems to matter to Joe Average Voter. I am all about nominating the most progressive candidate that has the best chance of winning the G.E.

I was a little bummed in this last election when everyone rallied behind another New England Senator, and a millionaire at that, after the Iowa caucus. I think ABB fever kept people from considering all of the strikes (home state and otherwise) Kerry would have against him in the G.E.

[Awsi Dooger]

21. Yes, it was very frustrating

I think Kerry would have been an ideal candidate in 2000. The advantages were ours, other than Lewinsky, and no one was really thrilled with Bush. You just needed to run a solid campaign minus implosion. Or sighs.

Against an incumbent he didn't match up nearly as well. Evicting an incumbent seems to require special traits and that's where your Average Joe likeability comes into play. I thought the best shot was Edwards. Last summer I traveled the country and quizzed people I met about Kerry. No one was particularly thrilled. It was ABB, as you indicate.

I would always rather depend on backing a positive than opposing a negative. Like here in Las Vegas, if I'm betting a game I try to bet ON a great team, not AGAINST a lousy team. In the latter instance, you're relying on what others have done to exploit that team, not necessarily what your team can do. Similarly, if I'm going to bet a game based on someone else's opinion, I'll always go WITH a great handicapper, not AGAINST some guy who regularly picks losers. I don't know if those are ideal analogies, but I thought about the basic concepts all last year and it didn't give me a good feeling, knowing we were dependent primarily on anti-Bush and not pro-Kerry.

[skipos]

24. since we are having a levelheaded discussion here

I'd like to know your opinion of Edwards electability. I know that the VP has a lot less pull than the Pres candidate, but I was a little disappointed that the Kerry/Edwards ticket didn't do better (percent wise)than Gore/Joe and Clinton/Gore in North Carolina. I would have thought that if he was well liked in his home state they would have had some kind of bump in votes.

[Awsi Dooger]

28. The North Carolina partisan shift was basically what I expected

Although the raw percentages were almost identical to 2000, the difference between the national margin and the state margin appeared to favor our side by almost exactly what a VP candidate is typically worth in his home state, 3-4 points. That's what I implied earlier in this thread regarding Warner and the VP slot and carrying Virginia. It's iffy, at best, but most likely a loss.

The 3-4 point bump in North Carolina was just what I predicted here last year. It was just devastatingly unfortunate we didn't have a viable VP candidate from Ohio, a John Glenn minus 20 years. Kerry would be president today. Here is the North Carolina chart I use. Admittedly, I tend to rely on these numbers more than they are worth sometimes.The number at right, again, is the difference between the nation as a whole and the state itself:

North Carolina:
'88: Bush (57.97 - 41.71) = + 8.54% Republican
'92: Bush (43.44 - 42.65) = + 6.35% Republican
'96: Dole (48.73 - 44.04) = + 13.22% Republican
'00: Bush (56.03 - 43.20) = + 13.34% Republican
'04: Bush (56.02 - 43.58) = + 9.98% Republican

So, you can see North Carolina was extremely consistent in '96 and '00. So what contributed to the 3.36% change? It has to be Edwards, IMO.

Based on that number, Edwards would have lost North Carolina if he had been our nominee. You seldom can expect more than a 6-8 point favorite son bump even for the top dog. I'm sure Edwards would lose his home state in 2008. In fact, he's actually weakened in terms of 2008 in North Carolina, because after one or more recent appearances on the ticket there appears to be a blase attitude and the favorite son boost diminishes. That's what happened to Gore in 2000. If he had not been on our ticket in '92 or '96, Gore would have had a MUCH better opportunity to carry Tennessee in 2000.

I thought Edwards had the best chance to sway the critical voting block in 2004, white women who were conflicted with national security concerns and homeland economic issues. The two men who have ousted incumbents in my lifetime were Reagan and Clinton. A likeable upbeat populist like Edwards seemed to fit into that group more than Kerry or anyone else. There were indications in the primaries that Edwards had more crossover appeal than Kerry. Looking back, I think Edwards would have lost, but by a narrower margin than Kerry, perhaps half as much in terms of popular vote. Primarily guesswork, admittedly. The party ID shift due to 9/11 was more of a factor than I estimated one year ago today. I'm not ready to project Edwards' opportunity in 2008. An open race and further distant from 9/11 are too much for me to handicap properly, especially not knowing the opponent.

[skipos]

30. thanks for the info. nt

[Zynx]

15. I think not only would he win, he would be a good president.

Sure, he wouldn't lead any great social movement, but he would be a sound fiscal and administrative manager.

[FrenchieCat]

16. So who's gonna tell me what this guy thinks on the topics of the day....

Too many good Democrats out there....I ain't about to give my vote to someone just because they were the governor of a southern state who likes NASCAR and GUNS.....if I can't find out what his views are!

I want a leader who'll lead, won't take any shit, and won't wait to find out which way the wind is blowing to voice an opinion on controversial matters.

So what does Warner think of the Iraq War? Should we have gone in? Should we stay, or leave? What's his proposed plan on this? What about Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia? What's his take on that?
Foreign policies are effecting our domestic policies--What is he gonna do about it?

[BluegrassDem]

18. I want a Dem who could actually win!

It's no coincidence that the last Democratic presidents have been from the South. I don't like that fact, but it's the truth and the truth isn't so pleasant. I'd love to have a Democratic president from the northeast, but it ain't happening folks. We need a Dem from the South or West to win. If we can turn over 2 or 3 southern states, or maybe Arizona, Nevada or Colorado, then we'll win.

[FrenchieCat]

20. I want a Dem who could actually win too!

I don't know if Warner would. 2008 ain't gonna be a repeat of 1992....that's for sho'!

[Zynx]

22. However, 2008 will be a very different animal than 2004.

I think that can be safely said too. Basically, half of people supported Bush's policies going into 2004. That fact alone made it difficult to unseat him, or Republicans for that matter. However, it is clear now that people are beginning to see Bush for what he is and his policies are now minority views.

[FrenchieCat]

25. So are you saying that we should support someone who's

views on a lot of things we know nothing about?

I'm confused. If it will be easier this time because folks are fed up with Republicans and their policies....and know that there is a lot of damage round the world that needs repairin', why go with a DLC Centrist with no foreign policy experience? I don't quite get this! :shrug:

[dolstein]

26. "Why go with a DLC centirst with no foreign policy experience?"

I dunno . . . maybe because it worked for us the last time we tried it?

Seriously, it should't come as any surprise that the last two Democratic presidents were Southern governors.

[FrenchieCat]

27. Like I said....

2008 ain't gonna be 1992, nor will it be 1976!

Personally, I think we need some new ideas and someone with finesse in diplomacy to repair all of the damage that will have been done by 2008!

We need pentagon pork to level our deficit.
Will Warner go there, or will he just propose the same ol' same ol' of raising taxes?

[snowbear]

29. You're right Dolstein.... the guy will do good in '08

And yeah.. he's a member of the DLC, but then again.. so was the last person most of us on here voted for -- Senator Kerry.

Mark Warner is "one to watch" for several reasons. Probably the top reason is his incredible ability to attract voters across party lines. Another is his stellar record as Governor of a very red state.

We may all (personally) want an ultra-liberal as our candidate.. but I know when it comes down to it.. we're going to all want whoever emerges from the pack with the ability to =WIN= in not only the blue states.

I've heard him on the Big Eddie show and I was pretty impressed. :o I had heard from someone on here that he was terrible at public speaking. I was convinced after hearing him myself that they must have heard him on a realllly bad day. He did an awesome job!

I've always been a Clarkie myself, but --- if --- (and in 2005 it's still a big if) ...but IF Warner does emerge as our candidate, I'll bet anything he'll select General Clark as his running mate. If you don't believe me, just as Virginia's Lt. Governor who talks about the duo running all the time! ;)