I said it in my diary

And I'll re-iterate it here. Its a very smart move by Warner to announce his decision before Gilmore or Davis. If Warner announces and starts very strongly, Davis will have to consider whether or not he wants to run in this race. Because while I think Davis can win, he will be the underdog.So he has to consider does he want to leave his house seat and run for a seat he wouldn't be favored in, especially when he can run for Governor just one year later.

---

by: safi @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 19:01:24 PM UTC

Tom Davis

Has no interest in running for Governor. Zero. Plus there are already two top-tier candidates (McDonnell and Bolling) plus others waiting in the wings. If Tom Davis doesn't run for Senate, he's going back to the House. Period.

---

by: Unabridged @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 19:04:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't mean to

Sound like a jerk, but how do you know? Are you in his inner circle. Do you attend cocktail parties at his house?

---

by: safi @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 22:01:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

He doesn't have cocktail parties

But I have been to events at his house.

The RPV is pretty small at its top tier, and everybody in each camp knows everybody else and help them along. Right now, Bob McDonnell is the insider's favorite to win the nomination and the Governorship in 2009. This has been in the works since McDonnell won the AG's race in 2005, but McDonnell has been acting and working as a candidate, shoring up support first with the infrastructure, then with down-ticket candidates in the General Assembly, then starting in 2008, more directly with the voters. Tom has been doing the same thing (having been told this Spring that John Warner was retiring), and has been working the same channels to prepare for a Senate bid in 2008.

First of all, it would take a major breakdown in those workings for Tom Davis to pull out of a Senate bid and prepare to run for Governor, and he would find that he wouldn't have a lot of support within the party to do that, if for no other reason than it disrupts the currently laid plans for Bob McDonnell.

Second, in either a convention or a primary, Davis would likely lose to McDonnell, who is a much more palatable conservative than Davis, and someone who hasn't embarassed himself both in the state and nationwide like Jim Gilmore (who is disconnected from the state party, which is another reason why Davis has an advantage over Gilmore for the Senate nomination).

Third, when you look at all the candidates speculating to run (McDonnell, LG Bill Bolling, George Allen), there's no room for another top-tier GOPer like Tom Davis. If there was a vaccuum at the top of the GOP bench, that'd be one thing. That's what you're seeing on the Democratic side, where after Mark Warner there's really no viable statewide candidate, which is why Creigh Deeds and Brian Moran, the two closest candidates Democrats have to such a thing, are being talked about for every statewide race possible.

Fourth, Tom Davis has been raising a shitload of money for a federal race, whether its House or Senate, and it works to his advantage because those funds are transferable between the two accounts, but they are not transferable to an account for a gubernatorial bid.

Fifth, Davis is a legislator, and absolutely nothing in his public statements or resume suggests that he has an interest in running for Governor.

To answer your question, I don't know with 100% certainty. I would not stake my life on it (though I would stake at least $1,000 on it). But the *only* people I have ever heard talk about Tom Davis running for Governor are usually 1) commentors on blogs, and 2) people who don't live in Virginia.

---

by: Unabridged @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 23:00:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Warner's Chances

Unabridged, after the poll showing Warner leading by 27 over Davis, do you still think that Warner-Davis will be a barnburner?

---

by: AC4508 @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 23:29:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Absolutely.

First, Davis's name ID is far below was Rasmussen reported, and the rest of the state has little idea where he stands on important issues. Second, its one poll, and an IVR poll at that, which is 14 months before Election Day. Do you realize the staggering number of polls taken this far out that have one candidate down by this margin against another, only to see the race tied up, effectively, by June?

For purposes of comparison, a live-caller poll in Maine had Susan Collins up 23 points on Tom Allen. Does that mean that Maine won't be a competitive race? Of course not.

---

by: Unabridged @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 00:21:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was wondering how you'd square your answer to this question

with your earlier commentary on the Collins-Allen poll.  I'm very glad you brought that earlier commentary up voluntarily, and glad that you feel it is consistent with what you're arguing now.

I don't remember your argument as well as you do.  My impression was that you were suggesting that the poll indicated that Collins was in a strong position and that, while much could change, she was likely to win.  This poll would seem to indicate a broadly similar analysis of Virginia's race: that Warner is in a strong position and that, while much could change, he is likely to win. 

I don't think that's quite what you're arguing lately; I think you've been calling Virginia a toss-up and Maine lean Republican.  I think it's safe for me to assume that more than just those two polls are going into your calculations there, because if it were just those two polls, it'd be hard not to give them parallel rankings (either Lean R and Lean D, or both Toss-Up).  Or course, you'd be a fool to base your analysis on just those two polls, and I'm sure you're not doing that, but you can see where I'm going: if that poll plus other factors makes Maine lean R, while that poll plus other factors makes Virginia not lean D, then to explain your current position you'd have to explain what those other factors are that cause you to rate the races differently. 

Just as I'd have to cite other factors to explain why I think Virginia is Lean D and Maine is toss-up... although I don't actually know if I think Maine is toss-up.  I go back and forth on that one.

I'll say though, if Tom Allen and Chellie Pingree were in a nasty, expensive primary, then I might rate Democratic chances there as low as I rate Republican chances in Virginia.

28, gay guy, Democrat, CA-08

---

by: texas dem @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 04:34:15 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I just looked it up, cause I was curious...

Kerry beat Bush by NINE in Maine.  Only by 4 in Oregon, and 3 in Minnesota.

I didn't realize Maine was that much more Democratic than the other two.

Given that the entire non-South has trended strongly Democratic since then, and given that 08 will have presidential turnout, including a lot of low-information straight-ticket voters that Tom Allen will not need to turnout on his own... well, I don't think Collins is going to coast to victory, let me put it that way.

28, gay guy, Democrat, CA-08

---

by: texas dem @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 05:31:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A lot of differences between ME and VA

First, Tom Allen has a higher name ID, representing half of the state and campaigning in the other half during 2006. Tom Davis represents 1/11th of the state, and while he has a presence in NoVa and has begun to reach out statewide, still remains a largely unknown figure.

Second, the Maine poll was a live-call poll, while the VA poll was IVR. I will always trust the former over the latter in every case.

Third, Susan Collins is an incumbent, which makes her that much more difficult to defeat. Virginia is an open seat, which means that the horserace will be more volatile.

Fourth, Mark Warner has only won one statewide race before, for Governor and not for federal office, and I've given my reasons why 2008 will be dramatically different than 2001. Susan Collins has won election to the Senate twice, including against Chellee Pingree, whom everybody believed to be a strong challenge. Collins handidly defeated her. Tom Allen will be more difficult, granted.

Fifth, I rate Virginia right now as a toss-up, assuming a Warner-Davis matchup. This is because the dynamics of the race are simply currently unknown. We have no idea how Warner will play as a candidate for federal office, we have no idea how the voters of Virginia will react to Davis's candidacy, we have no idea what the 2007 Virginia races will look like, we have no idea how John Warner's endorsement of Davis will affect the race, and we have no idea who will be at the top of the ticket in the Presidential race. All of these factors, especially in an open seat election, will impact the race.

Sixth, the Maine race has been shaping up for the last half-year, while the Virginia race still hasn't begun to shape.

These are some of the reasons why I consider Maine lean-R and Virginia a toss-up.

---

by: Unabridged @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 12:26:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Wow

That was definitely a crash course in Insider VA GOP politics.

I think the fact that you know that much is great in obvious ways. But it also clearly demonstrates your biases.

You always have some excuse for why the GOP candidate wil do better than any objective polls or analysis shows. Your IVR excuse is laughable. The Dec. 2005 Rasmussen poll that showed Webb down 30 to Allen, I'm not blaming that on IVR. In Dec. 2005, Webb would've probably lost by 20-25 points. Prior to Maccaca he was on his way to a 10-15 point loss.

---

by: safi @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 02:00:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Of course I do.

And one of the reasons why I present my biases as I do, on this site and others in particular, is to present an alternative argument to those who argue that Democratic candidates will do better than any objective polls or analysis shows. At this point, its all speculation, and my analysis is just as valid as others.

---

by: Unabridged @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 02:03:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Of course

But I'm not one of those people your talking about. For the most part I appreciate your analysis, I even do in this instance. The problem is here, you sound like a hack, coming up with laughable excuses for why your candidate is stronger than the polls indicate.

---

by: safi @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 05:27:27 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Someone on here said they were hoping Mark Warner would

delay, and appear equivocal, in order to lure Tom Davis into the race and open up his House seat for Dems.

While that would have been cool from a bystander's perspective, I suppose it would not be in Mark Warner's own self-interest at all.  He'd want to scare Davis out of the race, so he can coast against Gilmore, rather than lure Davis in and have to fight off a considerably stronger and better-positioned challenger (especially because Davis would have regional strength in NoVa, which Warner would rather not have to contend with).

As you said, I guess that's the reason we're seeing Mark Warner declare so early.  Scaring Davis out certainly makes sense for him, and stands a damn good chance of working too.  Does Davis really want to fight Gilmore, and Warner, just for the chance to lose  a Senate race in what looks like a strongly Democratic cycle, and then be stuck outside the House as well?  Sounds like a bad deal to me.  I'll be curious to see what Davis decides.

28, gay guy, Democrat, CA-08

---

by: texas dem @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 20:39:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Also,

I was really taken with something someone said over at DKos in a minor diary a while back.  He/she (sorry, don't know who it was) said that once Warner and Shaheen declare, Democrats are basically guaranteed to keep the Senate.  Cause our worst-case scenario (short of unexpected deaths) is Landrieu and Johnson both losing, but with Warner and Shaheen in, we're more or less certain to win the two seats needed to counterbalance those two possible losses.  So if our worst-case-scenario involves losing two and gaining two, then we'll still be in the majority in 2009, no matter what.

Not bad. 

This is a fun cycle.  Thank god there's the Congress to make up for the boring and uninspiring presidential race. 

Not to mention the size of the Dem majority in Congress matters more to determining how progressive our future will be, than does the question of which of Hillary ObEdwards will win the presidency.  While it's true that Hillary would probably have a more conservative set of appointees than ObEdwards would, in the end I think the size of the Democratic margin in Congress matters more to the next eight years than does this presidential primary.

Or maybe I'm just telling myself that because my candidate, ObEdwards, looks doomed to lose the primary.  Oh well.

28, gay guy, Democrat, CA-08

---

by: texas dem @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 20:47:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Neither is likely

But I think a veto-proof majority is probably as likely as Republicans taking over the Senate. I think there are 6 GOP seats where Democrats are either favored, or its essentially a toss-up those being: Colorado, NH, VA, Minnesota, Oregon, and Maine. Then you have Nebraska where Kerrey puts it in the above category. Then you have a number of races where they can be competitive if they can recruit a certain candidate or because of the relative unpopularity of the candidate those being: North Carolina, Texas, Okahoma, and Alaska

---

by: safi @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 21:59:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Toss-up or Dem Favored

The only three races I would put as toss-up or Dem favored are NH (Dem favored), CO (toss-up), and VA (toss-up). MN, OR, and especially ME are all Rep favored.

---

by: Unabridged @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 23:03:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I disagree on VA and CO

If Warner does enter he will be favored, not guaranteed of course, but still favored over either Gilmore or Davis (moreso over Gilmore, but Davis also has to worry about a bruising primary with Gilmore before getting the nomination).

Colorado leans towards the Democrats (I won't call it a "favored" race, but it's more likely than not that Udall wins over Schaffer). Udall has the better organization and Schaffer still has to worry about a primary challenge.

Politics and Other Random Topics

24, Male, Democrat, NM-01, Chairman of the Atheist Caucus, and Majority Leader of the "Going to Hell" caucus!

---

by: DGM @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 00:29:59 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nope I disagree

Those three are all toss-up's. They will all be decided by a few points and will be about which candidate can better define his/her opponent, that's kind of the definition of a toss-up. Any incumbency and money advantages are offset by the fact that the Democrat will in all likelihood be a member of the majority and all 3 states are likely to be carried by the Democratic presidential nominee.

---

by: safi @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 01:46:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I would disagree, of course

NH and VA are both lean dem regardless if Davis runs or not, Colorado should be put in Chris Bower's tier .5 of toss-up/ lean dem, and at this point time, in light of Coleman's poll numbers this far out, MN would also be a toss-up. Add Nebraska to the lean dem list if Kerrey gets in but Johanns doesn't (which would make it a toss-up). At this point in time, OR and ME are both lean Republican, but I definitely expect at least OR to change to toss-up pretty soon, and ME to change to toss-up as well in the future.

---

by: KainIIIC @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 05:07:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Disagree

Dem Favored
--VA  - Mark Warner can self fund, popular governor, etc.
--NH  - NH is considerably more Democrat than in 2002.  The Political atmosphere is much more favorable for Democrats than in 2002.  Simple as that. 

Toss Up
--Colorado  -Polling has this race rather close right now, it will be interesting to see how the fundraising reports roll out here. 
--Minnesota  - Polling has this race very close right now, so soon, although as time developes I can see Minnesota possibly being Dem Favored due to Ciresi and Franken both being able to fundraise a significant ammount each with a split primary.  Franken's favorables went up considerably between last poll and this poll, it will be interesting to see how they develope.  Unabridged has said all the money in the world can't change Franken's unfavorables.  Well, a couple months of campaigning has DEFINITELY changed his favorables. 

Rep Favored
--Oregon - Lack of name recognition and we have yet to see Merkley's fundraising ability.  If Gordon Smith's fav/unfav's don't stop, this could turn into a toss up soon. 
--Maine - Tom Allen has to keep on doing what he's doing an we'll see if things turn around in Maine.  He isn't known in half the state and will be very competitive financially. 

I can't place Bob Kerrey and Nebraska yet because it's a small state, it wouldn't be too expensive to run an effective campaign there, but it would be interesting to see the polling and whether the Republicans have a bloody primary. 

---

by: JeremiahTheMessiah @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 13:48:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

CO should be ranked as Democratic Favored.

Democratic Favored
CO- Open Seat. State is a battleground state trending Democratic. Democrats have a top tier candidate- (Mark Udall)- Yes he may be too liberal for Colorado. but looking at the 2006 OH Senate Race- Sherrod Brown was considered too liberal for Ohio and still defeated Mike DeWine by a double digit margin. Republicans have a weak candidate in the mold of Musgrave/Lamborn/Tancredo- (Bob Schaffer) a pure wingnut. Udall defeats Schaefer by a double digit margin. 

NH- Blue State in a Blue Region. Democratic Nominee is a popular former Governor. Republican Incumbent is a First Term narrow elected six years due to extraordinary circumstances. Polls show the popular former Democratic Governer defeating the weak Republican incumbent by a double digit margin. Casey vs Santorum Part II

VA- Open Seat- Battleground State trending Democratic. Democratic Nominee is a popular Former Governor. Republicans  have a divisive primary between and another former Governor was is considered an Wing Nut and a Moderate US House Member who is part of the Culture of Corruption that is occuring in Congress. Because voter are too angry with politician in Washington D.C.- mostly Republicans- GOP Incumbent President is Unpopular. GOP members of Congress are corrupt.  Warner(DC Outsider) will have an advantage over Davis(DC insider) Casey vs Santorum Part Two.

Tossup
MN- Republican incumbent is a first termer narrowly elected. Polls show the race to go either way.

---

by: CMBurns @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 16:10:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I think you mean filibuster-proof majority,

that is, a majority of 60.  Veto-proof is a majority of 67, and I don't think that will be achieved in this cycle or in 2010.  The GOP would have to be caught in wide-ranging criminal activity at many levels for that to happen.  And while I think such activity exists, I think the chances of it being exposed are next to nil.

(Before I get called on this:  I think most Iraq War Contracting, and especially the cost-plus and no-bid contracting, was probably criminal.  IANAL, but there's probably some kind of corruption or RICO statute that could cover the shit that went down over there.  After that, I'd probably be looking at the firing of Carol Lam and other prosecutor-muzzling at DOJ, as well as the Siegelman case.  Then there's voter suppression.  Then warrantless wiretapping.  Then widespread earmark abuse, a fair amount of which has already been found to be criminal.  That's all leaving aside any papers that might show the cynical hoodwinking of SoCon voters, which while hardly criminal, would also destroy the GOP electorally if the right kind of documents were ever revealed.)

Anyway, back on point, a veto-proof Senate majority will not be necessary.  We'll have a Democratic president for the next four years, so a filibuster-proof majority would work just fine.  That's all we had in 1964-1966, and we passed truckloads of important progressive legislation.

28, gay guy, Democrat, CA-08

---

by: texas dem @ Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 23:39:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's what

I meant

---

by: safi @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 02:03:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It is official

http://www.markwarne...

---

by: conspiracy @ Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 13:56:56 PM UTC