I was quite sure it was bad news when Mark Warner announced he was running for U.S. Senate. We Democrats have been counting on Warner’s gubernatorial coattails ensuring a majority in time for redistricting in 2011. Though I don’t doubt we can hold onto the governor’s seat, it won’t be the cakewalk it would have been. On reflection, though, I think that Warner’s decision to run for Sen. John Warner’s seat is actually better for Democrats in both the short and the long run.
Governor Warner was famously bipartisan in his approach to governance. Three of his cabinet members were Republicans, he worked closely with Republicans in the General Assembly, and he left with an enormous amount of support from Republican voters. That’s going to pay dividends in putting together his Senate campaign: Warner will enjoy support from some key Virginia Republicans. Some will support him in obvious ways, such as endorsing him or hosting events for him. Many others will support him in quieter ways, by failing to support the Republican nominee and encouraging other Republicans to do likewise.
The degree to which this will be so depends on the nominee. The farther to the right the nominee, the more pronounced the effect will be. If Gilmore is nominated (please please please) then I expect something closer to open rebellion than if somebody closer to the center is the Republicans’ man.
Why would they do this? First and foremost, Warner has formed friendships with Republicans throughout the state, from legislative aides to state senators, friendships that transcend political boundaries. Second, Warner has political capital to burn. Third, and I think best, Mark Warner is more likely to follow Sen. John Warner’s style of leadership than anybody else, Republican or Democrat.
The RPV will be furious. If all of this has any effect on the Republican nominee, it will be that the process will result in an even more conservative nominee than would otherwise have resulted. There will be calls for party purification and declarations of war on the incumbents supporting Warner. It will be enormously ugly. As they always, always do, Virginia Republicans will manage to drive the most sensible, electable Republicans out of the party, leaving them with an ever-shrinking group of ideologues who are still willing to sign whatever pledge is necessary to show that they’ll toe the party line.
Consequently, Warner will win, and the current narrative will then seem inevitable fact: Democrats are retaking Virginia, and there’s nothing Republicans can do about it. The 2009 elections will be a cakewalk for Democrats, with primary-weakened incumbent Republicans unable to defend themselves in the general election and the primary-triumphant, fresh-faced extremists not standing a chance. At this moment, internal DPVA polls show Dems up eight points in a generic poll. After a Warner victory and a Republican purge, we’ll be up twice that.
It doesn’t matter whether Republicans see this coming, because there’s nothing they can do about it. As we saw during this year’s primary season, the party is in the hands of people so far to the right that they’re quite incapable of moderating. They’d consider any suggestion that they do so to be nothing short of treasonous. And would surely greet this blog entry as an elaborate trap, concluding that they should do precisely the opposite of whatever I say. (Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows.)
Mark Warner will win a lopsided victory, and he’ll do it with the essential support of key Virginia Republicans. It will take decades for the RPV to recover.
You certainly have it all figured out. As I’ve noted before when you go off on one of these delusional rants, if the Dems can win J. Warner’s open seat, take back just one of the GA Houses, and manage to carry the Commonwealth for the Dem Party presidential nominee (which they haven’t been able to do since 19frickin64) then you can talk about about how Democratic Party is ascendant in Virginia. Failing these, please feel free to do so only to make yourself feel better.
You pretend that Democrats have made no gains by naming only what remains to be done, and not what has already been done. We took back and held the governor’s seat, we took back a U.S. Senate seat last fall, and we’ve had a strong increase in the number of seats held in the HoD. Heck, even you’ve said that “there’s a clear pattern showing things tilting to the Dems in VA.” But, yes, if you ignore all of the gains that we’ve made then, true, we’ve made absolutely no gains.
Clearly, though, this is the sort of thing about which either I will be wrong or I will be right, and we’ll know in a year or so. The only discussion to be had right now is on the merits of my argument, which you haven’t managed to put a dent in.
I hope you’re right, Mr. Jaquith.
But I get nervous when I hear the word “cakewalk.”
Just as Democrats needed a long period of humiliation for supporting racism 30-40 years ago, Republicans today need a long period of humiliation for supporting treason, racism, bigotry.
I don’t so much consider modern Democrats as ascendant, but as common sense and reason returning to politics. Sadly the Republicans have accelerated the process, not by being reasonable, but by being extreme.
Warner is very shrewdly trying to get sensible and reasonable leaders from both sides of the aisle to lead the state and disregard the extremists (on both sides). That is the harder path, but wow – by far the worthier one.
I confess I’d not be able to build those bridges so filled with venom about the wedge issues some members of the Republican party bring up…. Thank goodness Mark Warner is a better human being than me.
Absolutely correct analysis Waldo. You could take this further and color-in the scene where Warner’s election coincides with a fractured Republican Party losing the Whitehouse in 2008. The angry religious right blames the sodomite appeasers in the middle, and the two tumble the Republican Party into the basement where their unholy alliance was formed. In 2009, Virginia becomes the test-bed for a renewed push by the rightwing fringe to re-assert it’s dominance of the Republican Party…bringing the final General Assembly shift to the Dems (and likely the Governor’s office). In 2010 the election conversation is led by the combined leadership of Senators Webb and Warner, along with Governor Deeds and Majority Leader Moran. It is a good time to be a Virginian.
Again, Republicans are falling victim to the classic blunders. The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia; but only slightly less well known is this: never go against a Warner when control of the Senate is on the line!
Good luck with you crystal ball, Waldo. It’ll be interesting to see how close your predictions come to reality.
Anyway, I always get a kick out of people telling us conservatives what we think and why we think it. Straw men are so easily kicked around, right Bubby?
I think that Mark Warner is one of the most capable and decent men in Virginia politics. This rest of your theory is a democrat’s wetdream. The religous right is no longer as strong as they once were. The party will re-balance or a become a minority party. The left will demand more power and moderates will wait for something else.
As for 2009 predictions, it sounds just like my republican friends telling me about George Allen’s presidental run about two years ago. What if there is a recession, military base closings, another terrorist attack, or a really ugly scandal involving Gov. Kaine. The road to the future is never the one you highlight on the map.
I don’t think that the religious right is particularly relevant in Virginia w/r/t their woes. The trouble for Republicans in Virginia is that the party is dominated by people who are at the far right fringe of the party, and who ardently believe that there is no room for anybody in the party who is to the left of them.
I’m not psychic. There are bajillions of ways that this could prove not to be so. All of this only proves to be true if Warner remains on his path, Democrats remain in our path, Republicans remain on their path, and nothing bizarre happens between now and 2009. If the capitol is blown up by Christian terrorists or the governor is caught sodomizing a goat then, sure, all bets are off, but isn’t that true in just about any political forecast?
I would be thrilled to see a pragmatic leader like Mark Warner in the Senate… my only worry is that he would chafe at the inability to make decisions/progress at the same speed as when he was governor. As long as he doesn’t succumb to the boredom that struck George Allen, he’ll do fine…
My fear is that a gubernatorial pragmatist in Virginia may well be an unwitting patsy in the Senate. I like and appreciate Warner for what he did in VA, but his (apparent) tendencies make me fear that he’ll be another DLC useful idiot in the Senate. Virginia politics are not national politics, and I’ve no interest in voting someone in so they can tell me to be patient and just understand that we can’t offend the good people of Middle Earth.
Anyone who fears Mark Warner is going to be anyone’s “patsy”, or fears that he would chafe under the details or minutiae of the Senate needs to take a good look at the man’s history and accomplishments.
Before he became rich and powerful, he worked as an aide in the Senate. He’s seen how the place works, and he wouldn’t be trying for a seat at that table, if he didn’t have game.
MB-
If finding common ground is akin to being someone’s patsy, then I fear for the future of the republic.
The condescending attitude of our party toward the good people of “middle earth” that you so aptly demonstrate with your comment (are you a citizen of upper earth or just eastern earth?) is a big part of what has lost us the last two elections.
By forming a centrist coalition with moderate republicans Governor Warner may (stress may) help to end the gridlock that has brought Congress to this sad point in history.
In any event, it can’t hurt to try. Compromise doesn’t mean weakness and I’ve no interest in a “purist” Senator blowing against the wind.
Really, Carrington, it’s not an opposition to finding common ground that should make you fear for the republic, it’s the what’s gone on in service of “finding common ground” over the past six years that should make you fear for the republic.
I know it’s so much easier to pretend to be wise by just plopping yourself between A and B, but that’s a fools game when B realizes that hey, I can set these commongrounders wherever I like by running even further away! That’s what happens when you value compromise over good judgment.
~
As to my particular condescension, yes, I’m pretty goddamn tired of being told (by people like Warner, among others) that some of us will have to wait for the same basic rights as others (i.e., marriage/civil unions) until the good people of Middle Earth get more comfortable with it.
Who are these people? I keeping hearing you and others describe them (and define them) in your own terms, but nobody ever actually identifies them.
…
MB, every citizen has the right to get married. Everyone enjoys the same basic rights as everyone else.
The simplest example is here in Albemarle. The party faithful have been driven out by Keith Drake, the (relatively) new chair because he’s so very far to the right of them, and won’t tolerate their viewpoint or any middle ground. He and a small cadre of supporters have reinvented the county party, to its great detriment. Drake, of course, was one of the party chairs who endorsed Scott Sayre over conservative incumbent Republican Emmett Hanger. Sayre got relatively close to victory, which would have prompted a tough Democratic challenger and a reasonable likelihood that a centrist Democrat could defeat Sayre.
We’re seeing that pattern throughout the state. We saw it with some of the nutty candidates who were nominated in 2005, knocking out incumbent Republicans.
Ah, yes Publius, that is a pretty ?
I could really have used a lot more gridlock between 2002 and 2006. I wouldn’t blame gridlock for getting us to the sad point we’re at today. Sure, I’d like the democrats of this congress to be able to get more done, but I’d rather everyone have a harder time passing legislation. But then, I’m in the rare position of enjoying it when the congress has a hard time getting anything passed.
Yes, every citizen has the same right to get married to someone of the same race the opposite gender. It’s equality!
Blast!
“The same race” was supposed to have been struck through, but this blog doesn’t accept the “del” HTML tag. Sorry for the difficult reading.
Indeed, and somehow I lost half the text of my comment, which made the same point Ben did – that Loving v. Virginia reasoning sure is popular!
MB-
If you believe, as a tactical matter, that electing a candidate like Jim Gilmore or Tom Davis will do more to move marriage rights down the field than electing Mark Warner or another similar “centrist,” we’ll have to agree to disagree. In my mind, a middle of the road D who actually gets elected will always be better at moving the ball down the field than a screaming purist who garners 30%.
If, on the other hand, you feel that Virginia is so blue that at this point in time a liberal true believer could be elected in a statewide Senate race, I’ll call you on it. On certain issues (this one included), I wish we were at that point in Virginia’s history but we’re not–and statewide Virginia consensus regarding marriage rights for gays and lesbians is, sadly, a long way off.
If you’re just stating a general disenchantment with centrists because they sell out some of the valuable tenets of liberalism in order to reach consensus, I hear you. If you think there is a viable alternative in the short term, I disagree.
I’ll have to go with number three, tho’ I don’t think that the sellout is necessarily in the service of consensus so much as the appearance of consensus (to go back to my original point about one side manipulating the goal posts).
And I’m not the one bringing up anything about “purists”. I’m not pushing any ideological purity test – I’m pushing the concept of someone who doesn’t cave whenever there’s an important fight to be had. (That said, I picked the wrong word in “patsy” when talking about Warner. I’m sure that Warner would know exactly what he’s doing.) I think that Webb’s a good example of this. I’ve certainly got my share of ideological and tactical disagreements with him, but I respect his willingness to dig in and do the right thing (one area where I think we’ll really see the value of that is his emerging work on incarceration, where the “compromise” is usually between two strikes and three strikes and you’re locked up for life.)
Waldo,
Your analysis is sharp and your scenario is plausible. There’s no doubt in my mind that Mark Warner made the right decision to run for the Senate, mostly because the Democrats should run the best candidate they have every time they get the chance.
After Warner wins in 2008, and he certainly should, I think 2009 will take care of itself.