Never be afraid to stand with the minority when the minority is right, for the minority which is right will one day be the majority. - William Jennings Bryan

Saturday, November 26, 2005

Warner-Rockefeller 2008


I was sitting at home today, after having eat some turkey and potato salad, and I came across a pretty good idea. Assuming (and we've got our fingers crossed) Mark Warner would run for, and win, the Democratic Presidential nomination for 2008, what would be the winning combination to defeat the Republican ticket?

I've got it.

Mark Warner for President, Jay Rockefeller for Vice President.


Think about it; For President, a young moderate, expert in fiscal and budgetary issues, relatively little experience in foreign policy, not a whole lot of elected service experience, moderate on social issues (get some swing voters), from a mid-size swing state. For Vice President, an older liberal, one of the nation's foremost intelligence experts, very progressive stances on social issues (keep the base happy), lots of experiecne in the Senate (24 years in 2008) and as a Governor, and from a small, yet crucial swing state.

The way I look at it, a Warner-Rockefeller ticket would bring swing voters into the fray (Warner), shore up the base (Rockefeller), get votes from folks who are worried about the budget (Warner), and make sure red-state union workers are 100% behind the Democrats (Rockefeller).

Think about it this way; assume a Warner-Rockefeller ticket wins all the states Kerry-Edwards won in 2004, then picks up VA, WV, OH, AR, and IA, and we've won the election. And more states could possibly be in play. With Virginia and West Virginia, the at least partial reasons for victory would be the folks on the ticket. With Ohio, the main appeal could be Rockefeller's strong support of unions. Iowa and Arkansas could be picked up on Warner's merits as a moderate.

Leave me some feedback in the comments section. What do you think about this scenario?

Neal

8 comments:

Sam said...

I'm on board for a Warner presidency (and have been for almost a year). Unfortunately SC isn't a swing state like VA (and I think NC will be pretty close next time too), but it is the first primary in the South.
Warner/Rockafeller sounds like a pretty good tkt., but my favorite is Mark Warner / Blanche Lincoln. Some people mistakenly think Hillary would dominate the women's vote, but I would disagree (she would do miserably among married and childbearing women). On the other hand, Mark Warner and Sen. Lincoln would be able to win single, married, childbearing, and non-childbearing women. Plus Lincoln has been an advocate for rural people, elderly people, and our troops (not just lip-service like the Rep. leadership has done). I think both tickets (Lincoln or Rockefeller as VP) would be nearly unbeatable!

Anonymous said...

Lincoln barely, barely won re-election against a nobody in 2004.

Neal said...

Lincoln did pretty well in 2004 as I recall (56%-44%). But it was just a 12 point spread I think because Bush won Arkansas so big. Lincoln would do just as well with the female vote as Clinton (and could likely get the church-going women much easier than Hillary).

But lets also remember that in 2002 Jay Rockefeller was re-elected 63%-37%, and has a higher approval rating that Robert Byrd.

Anonymous said...

My own personal preference would be Mark Warner for President with Gov. Bill Richardson for Vice President. Richardson has foreign policy experience and a knowledge of how Washington and the White House work. His being hispanic certainly doesn't hurt either. Perhaps I'm being naive, but I think the electorate in 2008 will demand more from both parties than a ticket of politically conventional white males.

Neal said...

There's always talk of a ticket of two people who aren't both white guys. I think that they should decide not on race or gender, but on qualifications. In the case of Richardson (or Obama, Lincoln, Clinton, Mikulski, et al), its a very qualified person who just happens to be a minority or a woman. I wouldn't be against a Richardson VP choice, and he would be in my top five, but I do think Rockefeller would be number one.

Politicl.Animal said...

So much for Democrats being the party of the people.

Hooray for rich white men? What?

We can do better than Rockefeller.

Neal said...

Like I said above, I believe Rockefeller would balance the ticket in age and experience.

I'm open to minorites/women, but in this case, I believe the most qualified to run with Warner would happen to be a white guy.

If the nominee were Edwards, Clark, Clinton, Kerry, or anybody else, I would reason out a different pick.

And, as for rich white men, I'm a lower-middle class white guy and I would point out two of our party's most successful presidents were rich white guys (i.e. Roosevelt and Kennedy)

Neal said...

Let me call off my top 5 VP choices (for Warner) just to clear up the confusion.
1-Jay Rockefeller (WV) (We've run through his qualifications.)
2-Barack Obama (IL) (Dynamic speaker, would bring a lot to the ticket in terms of life experience.)
3-Barbara Mikulski (MD) (She is a fiery speaker, and would energize the female vote, plus would be entertaining.)
4-Joe Biden (DE) (Two words: Foreign policy.)
5-Bill Richardson (NM) (The Hispanic vote is growing, and he could solidify them in the D column, plus experience in foreign policy.)