I dont believe George Allen has any interest in running for the US Senate again.  If he is to at all attempt to redeem himself, he needs to do it out of the Governors mansion. 

For scenario 1 - throw in Bill Bolling who has recently hinted that maybe Washington is in his future. 

For scenario 2 - I think our best candidate, who can raise money and maybe spend a little of his own money and is possibly one of the best on the stump is Don Beyer. 

For scenario 4 - I think everyones odds of winning are the same.  It's hard to know who will actually be the Dem nominee and the republicans will kill themselves in their little squabble.

Scenario 5 - Jim Webb being on someones ticket is unrealistic.  He can get more done for all Americans by staying in the Senate and I think he knows that.  Plus, he isnt the best candidate on the stump and didn't run the greatest campaign in the world last year so anyone will be very hard pressed to pick him.  But if by chance it were to happen, Kaine could appoint his successor and I think the name at the top of the list is Don Beyer - possibly someone else, but I honestly have no idea.

That's the only acceptable option for him.  Brian Moran or Creigh Deeds will run for J. Warner's Senate seat in '08 and the other one will run for Gov in '09.

would probably be political suicide.  It was tried some years back in Minnesota - the sitting Governor resigned and the Lt. Governor appointed him to an empty Senate seat.  Voters weren't impressed, and voted the guy out when the Senate term expired.

I gather it has been done in other states as well.

If Kaine wants the Senate, he needs to run for it himself.

  Yes, that was after Mondale's election as VP in 1976. Gov. Wendell Anderson resigned, and the new governor, Rudy Perpich, appointed Anderson to the Senate. Hubert Humphrey's death in early 1978 led to a Republican rout that November, when they took the governorship and both Senate seats.
  If a governor wants to fill a Senate vacancy, the way to do it was demonstrated by David Pryor, when Sen. McClellan died in 1977. He appointed an unknown, Kaneaster Hodges, Jr., to the seat. Arkansas law prohibited an appointed senator from seeking election, and Pryor was easily elected to the seat in November, and held it for 3 terms. His son, unlike Wendy Anderson's, holds his father's seat today.

I hope. 

Slightly off topic, but I still think if Hilary wins the nomination that we're looking at a Wes Clark selection for the VP before Webb (Maybe even Biden, or Richardson would be prior options?). 

As far as Obama goes, I really don't know -- it's a real long shot, but I think an Obama/Colin Powell ticket would be absolutely unbeatable.  It might not get the Democratic base geared up but it would dominate in the center and cannibalize GOP support as well. (e.g. right now Obama is running #3 among likely REPUBLICAN voters in Iowa behind Guiliani and Romney and ahead of Thompson and McCain -- he clearly has cross-over political appeal).

On this issue of the VA Senate race, if Mark Warner runs, odds are he wins. (Barring a massive implosion).  I guess that's fairly obvious.

If Gilmore runs for the Senate and beats Davis it means that the Virginia GOP has officially splintered as a party.  I would actually not be surprised to see this happen given the fact that JOHN Warner has nearly lost his seat on a couple occasions based on intraparty fighting.  Social conservatives dominate GOP politics in Virginia and they will probably not warm to a guy like Davis who tends to be less ideological and more pragmatic.

As far as Governor in 2009 goes, it's anyone's guess.  Allen could be a formidable opponent.  Moran would really need to have very strong turn out in population centers in the state in order to beat someone like Allen.  Deeds would likely cut into Allen's margins in rural parts of the state -- and would very well beat him in some areas -- but I don't see him getting folks really excited in population centers.

Bolling and McDonnell?  McDonnell now has the Regent U. Law School merit badge hanging around his neck -- he didn't have this baggage in 2005 (this was pre-Goodling).

As many remember Bolling beat Leslie Byrne who is a Northern Virginian, a liberal, and a woman, which remains a toxic political combination in some parts of the state. 

However, Bolling and Gilmore are the same politician.  They are to conservative politics what McDonalds hamburgers are to the palate.  It doesn't matter where you find them, they're the alternative a person turns to when there are no other good options.

The only way McDonnell, Bolling, or Gilmore wins Governor in 2009 is if you stacked up an equally uninspiring alternative on the other side.

I wouldn't underestimate him.  He's a highly effective retail politician, and that's nothing to sneeze at.

McDonnell is a charismatic politician.  He also has a highly energized core constituency within the state--social conservatives--who have the ability to raise money nationally.

Having said that those alliance are a double-edge sword these days -- especially in NoVA.  This is true to a degree that simply wasn't the case in 2005.

1. The Republican brand itself is badly damaged.  (Tom Davis has mentioned that in some areas within his district George W. Bush is polling at a 5% approval rating.  Those numbers have consequences for the party as well).
2. The particular brand of Republicanism that is aligned with the far-right -- the social conservatives -- are fairly toxic in parts of the state.

The simple association with Regent University Law will have a negative resonance in Virginia that you wouldn't find in other parts of the country, that weren't present in 2005 -- especially in reference to those who've seen what's happened at DoJ in terms of the lowering of standards, the poor record of performance, and the rock-bottom standards of integrity (The problem here wasn't JUST with Goodling either).

If you add to this fact that McDonnell himself has essentially been a career politician -- that he does not have Mark Warner's background for example in business; that he has not established any other sort of "excellence" in the public realm outside of politics (e.g. in a professional discipline or in the military) --  a lot of political independents are likely to give him a cold reception -- even if he's matched up against another career politician wearing a "D" label. 

I'm not saying that McDonnell couldn't be a formidable opponent.  I am saying that he has some very real vulnerabilities -- both in terms of his resume and in terms of his party's standing within the state.  He's running against a head-wind that did not exist in 2005 when he barely eked out a win against a socially moderate Democrat.

Lets take the Richardson route.  Richardson become the VP nominee, as soon as he is selected and confirmed, the ghost of Tom Eagleton will haunt the Democrats.  Not because Richardson has had shock thearopy or whatever forced Eagelton off, but for the t&a, s&m stories that will immidiately surface, when Richardson really becomes a player player. It'll happen just as America's Mayor image shred that is happening with Rudy as the chickens always manage to come home to roost.  But after the era of Bill Clinton, does anyone really care?

I don't think his pluses will surpass his detractions. 

...he's an independent thinker and actor, and refreshingly tough and unpredictable.  The typical VP is someone who's willing to subordinate and repress his politics, personality, and, um, manhood for 4-8 years while kissing up to the heinie right above him in hopes of it all paying off when he's left in the best position to take over the presidency.  Think George H.W. Bush, Dan Quayle, the "old" Al Gore, Walter Mondale, Hubert Humphrey, etc.

Does any of this sound like a description of Jim Webb?  Yeah, right!!!

Like Mark Warner running and winning the Senate, then runs for Gov in '09 and appoints Kaine or someone else to his seat.