Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Mark Warner's Decision: Bad News or Good News?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 06:28 PM
Original message
Poll question: Mark Warner's Decision: Bad News or Good News?
What do you think of Warner's decision not to run for president in 2008?

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Nite Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
1. I didn't hear of that.
I don't know, never got to know him really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Velveteen Ocelot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. Good news.
Edited on Thu Oct-12-06 06:32 PM by ocelot
One more bland corporatist DLCer out of the way. How about somebody with a vision, passion, and some solid foreign policy experience for a change? Wes Clark comes to mind, or Gore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nam78_two Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Yeah Gore!
:bounce: :bounce:

Way things are going with the environment, we need someone really serious about that issue to be the president....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auntie Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Ditto for post 1 & 2.
Especially your comment about Clark!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Totally Committed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. Ditto...
One less DLC-er is always a good thing.

:hi:

TC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
4. Link? WTF?
I mean if you're going to post a POLL, a little background would be helpful :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. .
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Boy, they really don't want to mention the General, do they?
they even Mention Sen. Dodd, and the whole lot of them, including the kitchen sink.....but no General Wes Clark mention! :wow:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fuzzyball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #8
28. The General has no chance....that is why they don't mention him
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. Yeah....well thanks for providing insight on the democratic process!
what would I do without your added "insight"? :hurts:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Uh, put THE LINK ON YOUR poll.
D'oh :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I think it's pretty common knowledge.
If not, anybody can look on any news source and find it. It's not from an obscure site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. I'm in Virginia, I got THE email......
Your Poll was misleading. Thank you, put the FREAking NEWS link on your POLL.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. are you questioning the accuracy of the OP statement?
i'm not clear what it is you're looking for ... you said you received the Warner email so it sounds like you're not questioning the fact that he did indeed decide not to run ...

here's a link from an earlier GDP thread that stated Warner won't run: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/10/12/warner_may...

here's another link from that same thread: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/W/WARNER_PRESIDENT...

here's another one: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/12/warner.pres/inde...

is that enough? are you on a mission to require all OP's provide a link? i don't get what you're after here ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. It's clear not all DUers are from Virginia
The Poll, imo, was cruel and insensitive to Warner supporters, especially without a viable news link.

I may be one of the sensitive ones, for that I'm sorry.

I'm still waiting for the OP to update s/he's poll to include a little background, instead of creating a Clarkie Feeding Frenzy. D'oh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. no need to apologize ...
just for the record, i'm not from VA nor am i a Clarkie or a supporter of any particular candidate ...

my take is that when a prominent Democrat withdraws from a presidential bid, it's perfectly appropriate to ask DU'ers their opinion ... it's hard for me to see how doing so is "cruel and insensitive" ... in fact, the poll provided two choices, not one ... the OP did not in any way whatsoever criticize Warner ... seems pretty neutral to me ...

as for it becoming a "Clarkie Feeding Frenzy", i'll have to go back and reread the responses ... why would one candidate's withdrawal and a poll asking DU'ers their opinions about it create a pro-Clark bias in the replies? seems odd to me ...

anyway, i hope i've provided the links you were looking for ... if you'd like me to look for others, just ask ... i'd be happy to oblige ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Look at the results.....
What other candidates' supporters dance on these graves? Thanks anyhow :hi: I need to talk to a mod now :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. I have no idea what your problem is.
There's nothing "misleading" in the poll. The information is factually correct and readily available; I posted a link in case anybody missed the news. There is no rule I'm aware of that requires a link in poll OPs, particularly when the topic is common knowledge.

I offered no opinions one way or the other, myself. And I said NOTHING about any other potential candidates!!! :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-14-06 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #22
34. You forgot the rule, Sparkly
Clarkies are never ever ever allowed to voice any opinion from which the supporter of any other candidate might catch the vaguest whiff of negativism. Even something as seemingly neutral as a poll that asks how people feel about a decision made by someone else's favorite is apparently breaking the rule.

Really, get with the program, will ya?

:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #16
27. It is actually within the rules to post a poll without a link in it.
I'm not sure that it's within the rules to tell someone you're alerting on them. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
7. Neither. Dems mainly use the debates to make their decisions, so I don't
Edited on Thu Oct-12-06 06:39 PM by blm
really buy that any one person dominates in a Dem primary until we have a few debates under our belt.

If he thought he could do it, he'd throw down. Anyone would. Anyone can.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jack Rabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
10. Mark Who?
I voted neither.

When one or the other of our DLC DUers suggested Warner sometime last year, I did a Google search. The first three items were about a British travel agent named Mark Warner and the fourth was about the former governor of Virginia.

A guy with that kind of name recognition is less likely to be president than Kermit the Frog.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
welshTerrier2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
12. a limited response
i have not and will not be commenting on specific candidates until after the election and perhaps beyond ... perhaps way beyond ... except perhaps to say that i will not be voting for anyone who is still supporting bush's war ... if they haven't learned by now, they aren't going to learn ...

for me, an interesting way to consider the impact of the Warner announcement is to look at its effect on the primary process ... on one hand, the 9 candidates we had the last time around seemed to be too many ... while i think we should be open initially to as many people and ideas as possible, i think having a large field diluted the message ... viewed through that lens, Warner's early exit may be a good thing ...

at this point, my concern is much less about who and much more about how ... i'd love to see Democrats "take the money out of the primary process" ... we talk a big game about campaign finance reform but then we don't practice what we preach ... let's have a fair fight where ideas, values and strength of character matter more than how much corporate cash our candidates can raise ... instead of fighting among ourselves between candidate A and candidate B, maybe we should spend a little more time talking about the process we would like to see ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WI_DEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
13. both, bad because I think he could have been an interesting '08
candidate but good if he runs for the Senate from VA in '08--he probably could win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoonzang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
21. Really bad
I don't neccesarily love the guy but I think he was our only chance to win the WH in 2008 (unless Gore runs). Lets hope we have the House and Senate....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. yeah......well.....Ok....
what-E-ver! :boring:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoonzang Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #23
32. Right...whatever that means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-14-06 03:50 AM
Response to Reply #32
38. I meant that this statement
of yours in the pure absolute "he was our only chance to win the WH in 2008 " is your opinion to which, of course, you have a right to say....But for me it really didn't mean a damn thing as it wasn't based on any substansive statement and therefore you failed to make your case! K? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
24. I wouldn't have supported him unless it got down to 2-3 candidates
I could see him as a possible second or third choice, but the loss of a candidate of his charisma and ideas is always to the impovrishment of our nomination process. The more faces we have to choose from the better prepared for November we are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 08:56 PM
Response to Original message
25. I applaud mark warner's decision
to have "a real life" but it's no skin off my nose. :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rep the dems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-12-06 09:10 PM
Response to Original message
26. I said bad news.
I know not everybody here likes him, and I don't agree with the idea that he was the only dem who could win in '08, but I think he could have made a pretty good president. Also, I want us to have lots of candidates to choose from in the primaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fuzzyball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 12:05 AM
Response to Original message
29. MW got out of the way of Hillary
Now Hillary has few opponents from the center or to her right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Awsi Dooger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-13-06 04:08 AM
Response to Original message
31. Awful news
Warner was by far our most logical path to 270 electoral votes. Now there's almost no chance to win Virginia unless Warner is the VP nominee and a strong presidential nominee is above him. Otherwise, we're stuck needing Ohio and/or Florida again, which makes us the underdog.

I love how some of you like to ignore that. Thousands of DU threads between presidential cycles yet the basic math of reaching the key number of electoral votes is apparently irrelevant,. Then we'll be sitting here in November 2008 needing one more elusive state, and be baffled when red states Ohio and Florida reject us again.

I want to win. Not to forcefeed a far left nominee who the country will not support in a national race. Liberals are basically 21% of the populous. Conservatives are about 34%. Then you have moderates at a significant plurality of 45%. We can ignore that if we want to and throw out simpleton catch terms like DLC to exclude candidates we don't like, or we can realize the nation is not a mirror of DU and nominate someone who can win.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jai4WKC08 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-14-06 12:58 AM
Response to Reply #31
33. Nonsense
Nonsense, to put it nicely.

#1. Warner is NOT the only man (or woman, at least theoretically) who can win VA.
#2. VA is NOT the only state that could give us enough electoral votes to get past FL and/or OH.
#3. Assuming we get a Democratic Congress to pass some real election reform, there is NO reason to believe FL, OH, or any other battleground state cannot be won by the right candidate.

It is my personal opinion that Warner would have made a lousy candidate: too inexperienced, too boring, and WAY too willing, anxious even, to just "get along" with the opposition -- my God, isn't that last exactly what's been our problem for the last two elections?! He is almost exactly what I do NOT want in a candidate, and I believe he would have only bled off votes and money from whoever will emerged from the rest of the pack with a half-way decent chance at winning.

Now, you may certainly disagree. That's why it is your option to vote "bad news" while I chose to vote "good news." But please, don't be so ridiculous as to suggest all our Democratic hopes for 2008 have been dashed because one man decided to pursue other options.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BoneDaddy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-14-06 01:19 AM
Response to Original message
35. It means one of two things
either
1. It has been already decided that Hillary will be the candidate and Warner was too much of a competition and therefore the Hillary camp either had something on him or persuaded him not to run.
or
2. The republicans had something substantial against him and he chose not to run.


The blah about wanting to spend time with one's family? if you buy that I have a yacht to sell you in NY harbor. Trust me...it is a good ship.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-14-06 01:21 AM
Response to Original message
36. It was neither!
A personal decision made long before the Presidential sweepstakes began.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-14-06 02:48 AM
Response to Original message
37. Not good news...
GREAT news.

After 8 years of Bush, our country is going to need a pro with massive vision and passion to lead our country back from the depths.

Warner simply doesn't have the chops. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-14-06 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
39. Could care less - only glad he's not a possibility...
Another repuke lite...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hijinx87 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-14-06 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
40. devastating news

governors are frequently successful presidential candidates.

and if he could have flipped VA, it would have been all over.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-14-06 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
41. If you're hoping for a progressive, non-neoliberal,
non-coprorate, non-Wall St Democrat to win (or if there is another neoliberal, corporate, or military-industrial complex candidate you prefer) it's good news.

It's bad news if you think a southern, white, male, moderate is the Democrat's bast chance and if you want as many voices and choices as possible in the primaries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Aug 02nd 2014, 01:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC