By Tim Craig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 30, 2008

After hosting some of the nation's most fiercely contested U.S. Senate races over the past two decades, Virginia has what has turned out to be a decidedly one-sided affair this year between Democrat Mark R. Warner and Republican James S. "Jim" Gilmore III.

A year ago, pundits were billing the potential matchup between Gilmore and Warner, both former governors, as one of the races to watch as Democrats sought to expand their majority in the Senate.

But Gilmore never gained much traction against Warner, who has opened a 30-point lead in polls as he seeks to replace retiring Sen. John W. Warner (R).

Gilmore advisers say they are optimistic that he can pull off a surprise victory on Election Day. Otherwise, Virginia will have two Democratic senators for the first time since 1970.

The Gilmore campaign has been dogged by poor fundraising, a dispirited GOP base and an aggressive effort by Warner to cast his opponent as fiscally irresponsible when he was governor from 1998 to 2002.

Warner left office in 2006 with record high approval ratings and gained national exposure this summer when he gave the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention.

Both candidates, however, have struggled to get their message out because Virginia is a key battleground state in the presidential contest between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain.

Gilmore had hoped he would be able to latch his electoral fortunes to McCain. Doubting that historically conservative Virginia would back Obama, Gilmore printed up "McCain-Gilmore" signs, anticipating he would benefit from a big showing for McCain on Election Day.

But with polls showing Obama ahead or tied with McCain in Virginia, it appears doubtful that Gilmore can rely on McCain to pull him across the finish line.

A Washington Post poll on Monday found Warner ahead by nearly 40 points in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads and by 2-to-1 in central Virginia, which includes Richmond and its suburbs, Gilmore's political home base. Warner also leads in the rural western part of the state.

Nearly three in 10 self-described Republicans backed Warner, even though there have been some stark differences between him and Gilmore's more traditionally GOP positions on the campaign trail.

But Warner has sought throughout the campaign to portray himself as someone who would go to the Senate to fashion a bipartisan group of "radical centrists" willing to work across party lines to address issues.

In driving home that message, Warner picked up endorsements from several Republican legislators.

Gilmore has run a traditional Virginia Republican campaign, railing against "liberals" on Capitol Hill while warning that Warner would end up being a reliable vote for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) if elected.

This summer, when gas was topping $4 a gallon, Gilmore sought to base his campaign on boosting domestic oil production. He was one of the earliest promoters of the cry "drill now, drill here," which has become a common refrain for GOP candidates across the country.

Gilmore called for more offshore drilling and said he wanted to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

Warner was initially hesitant to back offshore drilling. But he shifted his stance in July and said he would support it once the proper environmental standards were met. Warner remains opposed to drilling in the wildlife refuge. He instead wants to expand investment in alternative energy sources, such as solar and wind.

The candidates have also clashed over the war in Iraq.

Gilmore wrote an opinion piece in The Washington Post in summer 2007 calling on President Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq. He now says that the "surge" that increased the U.S. military presence is working and that troops should remain indefinitely.

Warner said he wants to start bringing troops home in January, although he won't commit to a timetable for when the final soldier should leave Iraq.

On domestic issues, Warner has called for increased spending to repair highways, expand access to health care and develop a new energy policy.

To pay for the spending, Warner said, he would look for savings in other areas of the budget. He has also endorsed a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans, although he has not defined whom he considers wealthy.

Gilmore has vowed to oppose all tax increases and implement a spending freeze to try to reduce the deficit.

In recent days, Gilmore has also sought to gain an advantage from Warner's support for the government-funded $700 billion bailout of the financial industry.

Warner, who made a fortune in the cellphone business in the 1980s, said he would have voted for the bailout because he predicted "economic turmoil" if the credit markets did not get an infusion of cash.

Gilmore said he opposed the plan because it rewards people and businesses that took risks.

Gilmore also warns that the bailout opens the door to future efforts by Congress to use tax dollars to underwrite other failing corporations.

On social issues, Gilmore opposes a woman's right to an abortion after the eighth week of pregnancy. He vows to support the appointment of conservative judges, like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, to the Supreme Court. Warner supports abortion rights and said he would support the appointment of Supreme Court justices who support the right to privacy that is the basis for the court's ruling giving women the right to choose abortion.

But for most of the campaign, Warner's and Gilmore's records as governor have dominated the discussion.

Warner has accused Gilmore of "driving the state into a fiscal ditch" when he was governor. Warner said Gilmore ran up a budget shortfall when he attempted to eliminate the personal property tax, or "car tax."

When Warner took office in 2002, he said, he had to slash spending to try to make up for a multibillion-dollar shortfall that he said he had inherited from Gilmore.

After cutting hundreds of millions of dollars from the budget, Warner said, he was left with no choice but to seek a tax increase.

With the help of moderate Republicans, Warner pushed through a $1.4 billion tax increase in 2004 to balance the budget and preserve money for education and social services.

Gilmore, who denies he left a budget shortfall, contends that Warner's tax increase was not needed. Gilmore notes that Virginia had a budget surplus a few months after the tax increase was approved.