2006 VA Senate: Warner within the MOE

[Erc]

For some reason, Rasmussen has been polling VA like crazy lately.

Their latest poll shows Allen beating Warner by 4 (47-43), despite the fact that those surveyed seemed to like Warner more [65/26 for Warner, 59/29 for Allen].

Essentially confirms what we've been saying all along...Warner is the only person who has a chance of beating Allen, but it certainly won't be easy for him.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Virginia%20Senator.htm

[Moooooo]

Oh well.  Like Auh20 said, Warner is an exectuive not a legislator.  I think he's gonna' make a run for president.

[Frodo]

For some reason, Rasmussen has been polling VA like crazy lately.

Their latest poll shows Allen beating Warner by 4 (47-43), despite the fact that those surveyed seemed to like Warner more [65/26 for Warner, 59/29 for Allen].

Essentially confirms what we've been saying all along...Warner is the only person who has a chance of beating Allen, but it certainly won't be easy for him.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Virginia%20Senator.htm

all the more reason for Mark Warner to challenge Allen, then.  whatever happens, even if Allen does manage to eek out a win, and win a second term, he must not go unchallenged -and by that, i mean he should have to earn his stripes by facing a Democrat who isn't a sacrificial lamb.  Mark came remarkably close to beating Sen. John Warner in 1996 -against Allen, it seems he could do even better even if he still loses.  he has a fighting chance to oust George Allen, and i see no reason why he should pass up the opportunity to earn more electoral experience.  he may have to pass up running for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination if he wins, but considering the pay-offs in terms of adding legislative experience to his executive experience, he will have a better chance of winning the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 or 2020 then he will in 2008 (if he seeks two terms as senator, to avoid John Edward's fate). 

let's face it -he cannot win the Democratic presidential nomination with only four years of electoral experience under his belt, let alone the general election. 

[Moooooo]

Warner is a business man and execuitve.  Not a legislator. 

[Jake]

And if he loses, he loses all chance of further political office.

[Frodo]

Warner is a business man and execuitve.  Not a legislator. 

is Mark Warner so rigid in his thinking (as you seem to want me to think) that he cannot adapt to the legislative process?  sure he is an executive -is that any reason to think why he can't become a legislator?       

[Moooooo]

Im not saying he couldnt adapt to a legislative position.  He just seems like an executive to me.

[Frodo]

And if he loses, he loses all chance of further political office.

says who?  if the race is going to be as close as the poll above would lead us to think, and the election results bear it out, how would that somehow doom Mark Warner from running for any political office?  while i am sure that would doom his chances of winning the Democratic presidential nomination (which he is unlikely to win anyway, given his shortage of electoral experience, as i have already mentioned), how would that somehow crimp his chances of, say, running for John Warner's senate seat in 2008 if he retires, or a congressional district (presumably the 8th -if Jim Moran retires)? or maybe running a second time for Virginia governor in 2009?

keep in mind, he lost to John Warner in 1996, but scored close enough that he was able to win the governor's mansion in 2001.  i see no reason why losing a race to George Allen -which isn't a certainty- would be the be all and end all of his political career.     

 

[Jake]

A one term governor who lost in a Senate race 6 months before the primary campaign begins would lose terribly in the primary.  Plus, I doubt he wants to run a constant campaign from late 2005 to late 2008. 

[AuH2O]

Yes, a loss ends his Presidential aspirations, such as they may be. So he won't run unless he thinks the Dem primary would be a lost cause.

[Frodo]

A one term governor who lost in a Senate race 6 months before the primary campaign begins would lose terribly in the primary.  Plus, I doubt he wants to run a constant campaign from late 2005 to late 2008. 

he would have a better chance of winning George Allen's senate seat than he does in winning his party's 2008 presidential nomination, given his experience -or lack thereof.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Losing a race in your home state doesn't rule out winning the Presidency. For example Lincoln (yes, I know it the Senate race wasn't a direct election, but Lincoln and Douglass were convincing people to vote for the people who would vote them), and Nixon.

[A18]

Those weren't right before the primary.