Could Mark Warner have been the nominee as a 2nd term Governor?

[MatthewZD]

There appear to be quite a few fans and supporters of Mark Warner, former VA Governor and current Senate candidate, on this board.  I apologize if this has been asked and discussed before, but I've wondered about this.

I'm sure everyone knows about the term limit for VA Governor, but what if that term limit wasn't there?  If Mark Warner had been able to run for re-election in 2005, he would have won easily.  As an incumbent 2nd term Governor, would he have been in a better position to successfully campaign for the Democratic nomination this year?  Or was this simply a year where it would have been Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama no matter who was running?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I think he would have won the nomination as a first term Governor; as a second term Governor, he would have won easily.

[skoods]

I don't think he would have won. There were too many strong candidates. As it is, I think it's a guarantee that he will be the Democratic nominee within the next 12 years. If Obama wins in '08, then he'll be the nominee in either 2016 or 2020. If Obama loses, then I think it'll be down to Warner and Clinton in 2012.

[J. J.]

He seems hugely popular, so yes.

[Lincoln Republican]

No, Mark Warner would not have won the nomination in 2008.

Early on in the contest, it was clear that Hillary Clinton was a very recognized, strong, viable, and formidable candidate, with a good chance of winning the nomination.

The only way that Warner could have won the nomination at all was if he became the  alternative candidate to Clinton, making it a two person race between Warner and Clinton, instead of Obama becoming the alternative candidate.  However, if it had come down to a two person race between Warner and Clinton, I believe Clinton would have defeated Warner for the nomination.  Obama had the message Democrats wanted to hear, and the charisma to become the other strong contender.  I doubt that Warner would have been able to pull this off. 

[exopolitician]

Mark Warner will be a great Presidential Candidate in 2016

[Albus Dumbledore]

Warner would have been decent. Dems can win if they run moderate, good old boy southerners so...

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Mark Warner will be a great Presidential Candidate in 2016

If he runs, I'll move to Iowa so I can caucus for him.

[Albus Dumbledore]

As I said he'd be decent but I'd prefer Ford or Sebelius or Richardson.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

Warner would have been decent. Dems can win if they run moderate, good old boy southerners so...

Warner is not a good ole boy.  He's a creature of the Northern Virginia/Washington DC military-industrial-corporate complex.

Great guy, too.

[MODU]

Warner took a huge political hit at the end of his term for cutting back DMV hours/wages (hurting employee's income and disrupting services) while unnecessarily increasing the states takes that resulted in a $2Bill tax surplus which the state could not refund.  Depending on who his challenger would have been at re-election, there stood a possibility that he would have lost.

[Psychic Octopus]

No. He is better positioned to run in 2016 and was even better positioned to run in 2012, but that possibility has gone away. likely.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

No, he will have just begun his senate career with only one year.

[Nixon in '80]

No, he will have just begun his senate career with only one year.

I hope you're referring to NiK's post, and not the thread's question. I'll assume you are, and point out NiK seemed to acknowledge that.

I think he definitely could have won, but I don't think it's likely (in that it's never likely to become a nominee for President).

[Lunar]

I don't see a boring centrist doing that well in the Democratic primaries no matter what hat he has on.

[RosettaStoned]

Of course.