« The More You Know | Main | The Family »
October 12, 2006
Warner Bows Out
You've heard all the armchair commentary, but it's still a surprise. Did Warner decide, given Hillary's rightward tendencies, the new, pro-Edwards calendar, and the possibility of Gore that he lacked a fighting chance, and shouldn't sacrifice the next two years of his life atop the altar of unlikely ambitions? Is there a scandal lurking in the back? I'm an optimist, so tend to go for the former, but as a friend of mine insightfully pointed out, "politicians can never tell that they can't win...any politician smart enough to deduce that he can't win from where Mark Warner is at this point should actually stay in the race, since he'd be way smarter than any of the others and could probably pull it off."
So who knows. The obvious winner here is Edwards, whose position just keeps on improving. Warner may well have dropped out because the primary schedule -- first Edwards-loving Iowa, then the union-heavy Nevada, then New Hampshire, then Edwards' birth place of South Carolina -- looked likely to favor a candidate who wasn't him. The big shadow over all of them -- Warner, Hillary, and Edwards -- was and remains Gore, who would instantly suck up both the anti-Hillary support and, if my talks with DC establishment types are indication, a fair amount of Hillary's backing.
In any case, Warner was a candidate from a different time. As my boss points out:
Hillary’s decision to position herself in the center-right of the party set the stage for Warner’s fall and John Edwards’s rise in this year’s sorting of Democratic presidential hopefuls. Her positions on the largest economic questions, particularly her advocacy of education, broadly defined, as the solution to the dislocations of globalization, anchor her firmly in the Robert Rubin wing of the party. Her don’t-rock-the-boat-too-much-capsizing-though-it-be position on Iraq, while by no means close to Joe Lieberman’s embrace of administration policy, still puts her slightly right of the mushy center of Democratic opinion in the Senate.
So what were the issues and where were the votes that Warner could have picked up to Hillary’s right? He could not have plausibly run as Gary Hart to Hillary’s Fritz Mondale, first because Hillary isn’t Fritz Mondale, second because slot Hart occupied -- the champion of the entrepreneurial and somewhat more deregulated new economy -- is no longer a slot, what with the economy now deregulated up the wazoo.
There just wasn't space this year for a bipartisan, economically centrist, technocratic executive type to capture the soul of the party. Whether that's the reason Warner actually dropped out, it's precisely the reason he should've, and it makes it a good idea either way. Now Warner can remain involved in politics, campaign nonstop for Webb, and set himself up for the Senate in 2008.
October 12, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
A nit:
then the union-heavy Nebraska
I assume you mean Nevada.
Posted by: Antid Oto | Oct 12, 2006 3:49:42 PM
I did, thanks.
Posted by: Ezra | Oct 12, 2006 3:50:41 PM
Your friend's observation is similar to one from THHGTTG, whoever wants to be president is the absolute last person who should be allowed to do the job.
Posted by: SP | Oct 12, 2006 3:58:01 PM
It's possible that he decided he just didn't want to be stuck with the mess that GWB will leave, too; I'd consider that an even more compelling reason, for a sensible person, than either the political landscape or the loss of family time. Whatever the reason, it looks like he decided that he considered the price too high and/or the rewards too painful to follow that path.
It ought to be an interesting 16 months or so starting this November, though-- we don't have that many governors in the pipeline, our biggest fundraiser is a senator, and we have several prospective candidates whose government resumes are thin and/or dated. I'd like to say that the debate will be a useful one-- after all, how often do we really get an opportunity to redefine ourselves?-- but the odds are better than even that it'll just be another circular firing squad.
Posted by: latts | Oct 12, 2006 4:35:01 PM
Now Warner can remain involved in politics, campaign nonstop for Webb, and set himself up for the Senate in 2008.
Would that be a Warner-Warner race?
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Oct 12, 2006 4:53:44 PM
The (R)Warner is said to be retiring, and the likely opponent for (D)Warner would be congressman Tom Davis.
Posted by: sprocket | Oct 12, 2006 5:33:43 PM
Unless John Warner retires, yes.
I think Hillary has simply soaked up too much of the money. Clearly Edwards has the best shot, if he can absorb half the non-Feingold folks. If he can get a bunch of the Warner donors to give to him he'll be in the best shape he can hope for.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Oct 12, 2006 5:35:39 PM
John Warner would retire? That surprises me (although if the GOP loses control of the Senate - or looks like it will - I could see it).
I don't buy the "family" excuse that was offered, but I can't begin to guess why Warner dropped out - he seems like he'd have made a big splash doing it. I think, like others it may be a demonstration of how unstoppable the Hillary machine is. Unlike others, I find that prospect at least disconcerting, if not down right terrifying.
Posted by: weboy | Oct 12, 2006 5:39:51 PM
Well, the family excuse would be weak if his alternative was to go back to the family convenience store and work the evening shift ... !
However, since the actual choice is between a fairly long shot race to enter the 2008 Presidential race and a much more winnable 2008 Senate race, I don't know that its that implausible. I mean, you only need to win three times and you'll be a Bona Fide Important Person for 18 years. That has temptations of its own.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Oct 12, 2006 6:03:51 PM
Gore Gore Gore Gore Gore.
This has been your "the environment is the most looming issue" moment.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | Oct 12, 2006 8:14:05 PM
"I think Hillary has simply soaked up too much of the money."
The 2004 nominating process should have conclusively proved that all the money in the world can't necessarily buy you love.
"If (Edwards) can get a bunch of the Warner donors to give to him he'll be in the best shape he can hope for."
I noticed elsewhere that Neil also mentioned the Edwards getting Warner donors concept, but I think this is a misreading of the situation.
The Warner-type donors are likely to be turned off by Edwards' populist economic rhetoric, which is pretty diametrically opposed to Warner's economic rhetoric.
As others have been noting, Warner's demise should be a windfall for Bayh's fundraising, not Edwards.
I think Edwards is counting on trial lawyers to provide early seed money, along with a bit of a Deanie networks of small donors. With his name recognition, and his union support, he'll need fewer 2007 dollars than someone like Warner or Bayh. In short, I don't share the CW consternation about Edwards' potential money woes.
Posted by: Petey | Oct 13, 2006 4:41:35 AM
"The big shadow over all of them -- Warner, Hillary, and Edwards -- was and remains Gore"
I agree entirely that Gore would be an 800lb gorilla in the primaries if he were to run. And I don't question the journalistic validity of maintaining a GoreWatch™.
But I'm befuddled why folks don't listen to what Albert actually says on the topic.
- He says he's not planning to run.
- He says he doesn't think his strengths lie in elective politics.
- He says he thinks he can accomplish more in regards to climate change by not being a candidate.
Dude simply ain't running. Seriously.
Posted by: Petey | Oct 13, 2006 4:52:27 AM
Petey, I'm guessing that some of the potential Warner donors were Hillary electability skeptics who just wanted to win.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Oct 13, 2006 5:58:50 AM
I'd point out that it's simplistic to narrow Hillary's advantage to fundraising; she hasn't just locked up key money people, she's locked up a number of behind-the-scenes advisor and communications types who are generally sought after in this stuff. And that, it seems to me, IS the point of 2004, when Kerry locked up many of the same people and gradually everyone else fell out because of his organization (it surely wasn't because he was that great a candidate), and the most high-profile outsider (um, Dean) flamed out spectacularly. There is a Dem establishment and they like what they like which is often what they know and not what they don't. And they don't know that people can win without these fundraising and advisor types, and as many problems as Hillary has, they will likely wind up behind her. I don't like this scenario anymore than anyone else does - probably much, much less - but some of the alternatives floated here are just unrealistic, particularly a realistic challeneg by Feingold or the ever present spectre of Al Gore. I guarantee you I am not alone in saying that Gore should not sunnot run, but should he get into it, he'll lose. Warner represented a faint best hope at throwing Hillary off her stride, and now he's gone. I have not heard a good alternative yet. Yes, it's early, but time is running out.
Posted by: weboy | Oct 13, 2006 9:33:58 AM
"Petey, I'm guessing that some of the potential Warner donors were Hillary electability skeptics who just wanted to win."
Perhaps. But I'm guessing the early money Warner folks were Zort Muckerman Democrats who aren't a natural constituency of Edwards.
Don't get me wrong - the Warner declination is amazingly good news for Edwards - but I'm just not sure that good news has much to do with money.
Posted by: Petey | Oct 13, 2006 10:29:41 AM
I agree with Weboy. For all the talk of liberals looking for people outside the establishment, there is an aweful lot of evidence that the Democratic Party, as a whole, doesn't.
Posted by: Adrock | Oct 13, 2006 10:32:12 AM
"Yes, it's early, but time is running out."
Of course, it's not early at all.
The '04 nomination race had settled into Kerry and Edwards in the 1 and 2 spots by March 2003. And that's exactly where it ended up. We're less than 6 months away from being in the same place of the '08 calendar.
"Warner represented a faint best hope at throwing Hillary off her stride, and now he's gone. I have not heard a good alternative yet."
The Warner declination is actually pretty bad news for HRC. Warner never had much of a chance of dethroning Hillary - he was running for the #2 spot, barring lightning striking.
And by withdrawing, he has greatly strengthened the one candidate with a chance of actually taking down Hillary down in a head to head matchup.
Posted by: Petey | Oct 13, 2006 10:37:02 AM
I agree this is bad news for Hillary, if only marginally. If nothing else, it means one fewer upper-middle-aged white guy in a dark suit flanking her on a debate stage. As far as Team Hillary was concerned, the bigger the glut of white boys running, the better.
But it's already been suggested, and I have to agree, all Warner's withdrawal could mean is that Evan Bayh is gonna step up and take his place. The media is always on the lookout for a new flavor of the month, a new "anti-Hillary", and they haven't really covered Bayh yet. Expect a boom of such coverage this coming November/December/January.
Posted by: Chris | Oct 13, 2006 12:08:31 PM
"all Warner's withdrawal could mean is that Evan Bayh is gonna step up and take his place."
While I think this is correct, Bayh will be a much weaker candidate in that slot than Warner would have been. The Warner dropout means Bayh will get significantly more press than he would have otherwise, but it doesn't mean he'll get taken seriously as a topline candidate.
And importantly from an Edwards perspective, Bayh isn't a Southerner. In terms of field positioning, that matters a lot. Just as Hillary benefits from being the only chick at the table, Edwards benefits from being the only Southerner.
-----
One interesting question from the post-earthquake landscape is whether or not Team Hillary will change course. They had been positioned to prevent Warner from getting by them on the right, and with Bayh posing far less threat to them, it'll be interesting to see if they alter that strategy in any way.
Of course, they're still greatly constrained from moving left by the general election, given her weak public perception.
Posted by: Petey | Oct 13, 2006 12:32:35 PM
The '04 nomination race had settled into Kerry and Edwards in the 1 and 2 spots by March 2003. And that's exactly where it ended up.
I suppose this is true, but it doesn't really give much insight as to the dynamics of the race. Wasn't there some other guy who became the frontrunner and dominated the race for a while? And looking at past races, I don't think that Clinton was the March 1991 frontrunner.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Oct 13, 2006 12:46:21 PM
Speaking of field positioning:
If Warner, Clark, and Gore all sit the race out, the stars will be very favorably aligned for an Edwards victory.
Posted by: Petey | Oct 13, 2006 12:48:48 PM
I don't think Kerry got the nomination because of better staff. He got it because pundits and voters thought his war record would bury Bush, and he didn't scream. I think Gore could win the nomination, but I don't know that he'll seek it. Feingold can't win the nomination because it seems too obvious (fairly or not) that he couldn't win the general election. I don't think many believe Hillary can win the general either, and that will be an albatross for her. Edwards has things set up well for him, and though I don't see him as a terribly strong candidate (not yet), I don't see much else out there. Evan who?
Posted by: Sanpete | Oct 13, 2006 12:49:07 PM
"And looking at past races, I don't think that Clinton was the March 1991 frontrunner."
The March '91 frontrunner chose not to run. Weird dynamic.
"Wasn't there some other guy (in '04) who became the frontrunner and dominated the race for a while?"
You must have been watching the shadows on the wall of the cave.
In reality, the guy in the 1 spot avoided attacking the supposed "frontrunner" because he was always conscious that the real threat to his nomination was the guy in the 2 spot.
Posted by: Petey | Oct 13, 2006 12:57:11 PM
And importantly from an Edwards perspective, Bayh isn't a Southerner.
Culturally, Indiana is a lot closer to the South than the Midwest. Bayh also has the fresh-faced, smooth-talkin' thing going on.
I don't think Bayh has much of a chance of actually winning the nomination, given the likely shape of the field, I have to agree. That's just sort of a longstanding Bayh family fantasy. But I do think he could bring Edwards down with him.
Posted by: Chris | Oct 13, 2006 1:22:38 PM
"Culturally, Indiana is a lot closer to the South than the Midwest."
I hear what you're saying, but it ain't the same thing. Indiana is simply a Republican midwestern state.
Delaware has aspects of Southerness too, but I'm not worried about Biden stealing the Southern spotlight either.
There's going to be a real crowd of upper Midwesterners in the race - Bayh, Vilsack, and Feingold.
"Bayh also has the fresh-faced, smooth-talkin' thing going on ... I do think he could bring Edwards down with him."
Again I know what you're saying, and I've pondered the issue myself.
Bayh should play well in Iowa, specifically. And Bayh should play well among Edwards' electorate in Iowa, even more specifically.
But he doesn't scare me the way Warner scared me. Unlike Warner, Bayh will get blown away by the first stiff wind.
Posted by: Petey | Oct 13, 2006 1:54:27 PM
