Senator John Warner (R-VA) not running

Mark Warner probably wins this, provided he runs, of course. And with the caveat that 14 months is a long time in politics and campaigns are funny things. None of Warner's potential opponents (Davis, Gilmore or even Allen or Gillespie, but I think the latter two are waiting for 2009 and the Governor's race) are walkovers and while Warner would be expected to beat any 55-45, anything is possible.

But this whole thing has other factors and larger implications.

Warner would be on Clinton's VP shortlist. Indeed, I've long argued that he should be at the top of that list, as he puts Virginia in play. If he still has Presidential aspirations, that's his best route. Plus, he's wanted to be with his family and a VP nomination only requires 2 1/2 full months of running, whereas a Senate campaign starts, well, today. And if Warner starts a Senate campaign, he will NOT be picked to be VP next August because that will effectively surrender the seat back to the Republicans. So Warner has to determine whether or not he wants to take the gamble and wait for the call as VP, or if he wants to run for the seat and then potentially spend the next 6+ years of his life in the Senate.

As for the implications, no matter what happens, this puts Virginia in play more in the next Presidential election. It's been trending slightly Democratic, but not heavily so (if you examine the numbers, the southwest states are trending Democrat faster and the Great Lakes states are trending Republican faster, but it, nonetheless, is a potential Democrat pickup in 2008). A marquee Senate race with a wildly popular Democrat Senate nominee energizes the Democratic base and increases turnout, thereby helping the Democratic Presidential nominee. Of course, a marquee race also means that the eventual Republican nominee will have to travel there more, which could help the GOP Senate nominee but it also hurts the GOP Presidential nominee overall (less time in other states).

Bottom line, Virginia's going to be where a lot of electoral focus is in 2008. The Senate race will be THE race and, though it is far out and impossible to guarantee, it looks like Virginia could turn into a battleground.

Edit: for my money, Davis will be the nominee... he'll beat Gilmore in a relatively heated primary. Gilmore has the conservative base, but Davis will have the money, staff, consultants and, potentially, crossover appeal

 

Exactly, but that won't stop Davis. He's got no hope in GOP House leadership (though he was successful as NRCC Chair, he's too moderate for the rank & file) and he's coveted this seat for awhile. In the Washington DC establishment, he has a lot of people lined up behind him. That's what would make a Davis v. Gilmore primary so interesting.

 

Your statement paints with far too broad of a stroke.

Plus, I don't think many would argue that Kerry was seriously trying to win North Carolina with Edwards. Anyway, the two big differences between a Warner selection and an Edwards pick are these: 1) Warner is wildly popular in his state and would easily be elected there right now; that wasn't the case with Edwards, whose re-election prospects were probably around 50/50 & 2) Democrats have a real shot at winning Virginia--not so with North Carolina.

Anyway, as to the whole "VP nominees don't get picked on regional basis" thing. That comes and goes, so saying that nobody does it "anymore" is wrong. Candidates, at the end of the day, pick a VP to sure up their perceived weaknesses. If that's in a certain policy area or with a certain wing of the party they are in, or even just to sure up the support of a defeated rival, then so be it. And, yes, that's how it's happened lately (Quayle, Gore, Kemp, & Edwards all, in some way, fall into that category--Bentsen does to an extent, but that was more of a regional thing, as was Lieberman [Florida]).

But if the weakness that is perceived is regional (as it probably will be on the GOP side this time--not necessarily the Democrat side), then that calculation will certainly go into the selection process.

If you game out the likely scenarios for 2008 right now and assume a Clinton nomination, you probably have to say that Arkansas, Louisiana, Colorado, & Ohio could all switch to the Democrat column, with Arizona and Nevada having shots, too. Republicans will look to pick off Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota & New Hampshire. Yes, there could be a landslide one way or the other, but if you do the math, and the right combination of those states switch, you're back to a deadheat again. So if Democrats have the chance to put Virginia in serious play by adding Warner to the ticket, they'll do it. If Democrats win Virginia next year, there's almost zero chance of them losing the White House.

Now, with that being said, the reason Warner is in a very tough spot right now is because he won't be the VP if he starts a Senate campaign. If he starts that campaign, he's got to finish it, because winning the Senate seat back is too important. If he got picked mid-campaign next August, it would effectively surrender the seat back to the Republicans.

 

From the Republican side, I can only hope so. Obama is Edwards 2004, Redux. A popular, charismatic young senator who has no foreign policy experience and adds nothing electorally to the ticket. All Obama would do, like Edwards, is energize the base and unite the party if its fractured a tad after the primaries. In 2004, maybe that was smart/needed. In 2008, I'm not so sure that will be an issue.

And yes, Strickland does, theoretically, have to be considered. He'll definitely be on the list of "the great mentioned" and possibly make a shortlist. That being said, to me, at least, he just doesn't have the "Presidential feel" that a Warner or Richardson does; in a different year, with a stronger Republican candidate, Strickland doesn't win Ohio so convincingly, if it all. Another huge wildcard, it should be noted, is Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, who instantly puts Tennessee back in play and causes larger issues in the South if the Republicans don't nominate Thompson (which I obviously don't think they will).

The real question for Clinton when she picks her VP is whether or not she feels the need to strengthen her own foreign policy experience (in which case Richardson and Wesley Clark will be at the top of the list) or she wants to go after a particular state or region (Richardson is still in play here, but so are Warner, Strickland, Bredesen, and a couple of other longer-shots like Vilsack, Bayh, Salazar, and Schweitzer). Also, don't underestimate an Ed Rendell selection--actually, I think that might be the number one choice against a Giuliani nomination (which, again, from my perspective, I don't think will happen).

 

Would a significant amount of people who would otherwise not vote for the Democrat ticket vote for it if Obama is on it? Would that number, spread out nationally, help in enough particular states/regions to be worth it? Would it be a more beneficial calculation than targeting a specific state/region where Democrats could win states they otherwise might not (Southwest, Upper Midwest/Great Lakes, particular Southern states [Virginia/Tennessee])? And is the obvious charge of foreign policy inexperience, when there are other options to take, too great of a risk?

We may have different answers to those questions, but don't doubt that those will be the questions asked. It won't be a case of, "well, we just beat this popular guy in February and some of our base is ticked off so let's placate them," which is essentially what Kerry did with Edwards. A Clinton vice presidential selection will be far more methodical and calculated than that, and I personally think there aren't many realistic scenarios where it will add up to an Obama nomination.