The Brian Schweitzer for Pres thread

[boneyard bill]

I agree he was a puzzling choice - I did not see him as bringing much to the table.
I think you are overestimating the power of the vice-presidency. I mean sure, it can help the right guy over the top like Gore or elder Bush. But with these two you are already back 20+ years and going back further you get Mondale (lost), Ford (ascended due to resignation), Johnson (ascended due to death) and Nixon (lost then won 8 years later) and you are already back in the 50s. 6 VP candidates in 60 years and only 2 won outright.

Like what? As I said, he has no independent appeal. Dropped due to scandal in 88 before the primaries, dropped after Iowa in 08 because he got 0.9% of the vote. And that is before he became ancient. He is very much comparable to Dick Cheney as far as electoral chances are concerned.

I think there will be a lot of competition in the primaries and I think there is a strong likelihood someone new, a fresh face, will be nominated. An economic meltdown would favor Republicans so much they could nominate Jesus H. Christ and still lose. Likewise I do not think anything like that is necessary for someone like Schweitzer to emerge. For example Keystone XL is popular and Schweitzer has been supportive of it for a long time, while Hillary failed to approve it white SecState.

If Hillary's in, it will be very tough for the other guys. She's got too much money, too much name recognition, and too many contacts. An economic meltdown could change that scenario but, as you noted, it would also make it very difficult for a Democrat to win.

 

[boneyard bill]

That's the problem with being in power. The old guys get all the attention. After eight years of Reagan, Republicans gave us George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole. Now Republicans have the young guys with Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Paul Ryan all in their forties. Of course, there's still Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee who are a bit older.

It's time for the old folks to get out of the way, and let a new generation take over. But it may take the Dems a little longer because all their old guys have the attention-getting jobs.

I don't think George Bush was very popular in 2004.

I wouldn't blame it all on the media. Obama has made his decisions on cabinet choices and those have been mostly old guys, but I don't think the motivation there has been political. But then you have Reid and Pelosi hogging all the limelight. Look at McConnell in the Senate. He's given a pretty free reign to guys like Paul, Cruz, and Rubio to do their thing. Likewise, Boehner has not stifled Paul Ryan or even Justin Amash. A big reason for this is that the GOP does not hold the White House. Republican leadership has no particular reason to stifle critics of Obama even if the leadership does not agree with them. But Reid and Pelosi have to keep House and Senate Democrats in line to support the administration. It's a problem you face when you have the majority. Only the undisciplined gadfly, like Allen Grayson, dares to speak out.

But you have another problem. The party that holds the White House tends to lose governorships. There aren't very many Democrat governors and the most important of them aren't that good. They have septegenian Jerry Brown in California, and maybe Andrew Cuomo of New York if he doesn't have too many skeletons in the closet. Then there's Duval Patrick in Massachusetts but from what I've heard he's a bit of a joke. Martin O'Malley of Maryland is said to be considering a run only because he can't run for re-election and Maryland's Senate seats are all taken. But he also doesn't have a really star track record either. Schweitzer may very well be the best of the Democrats governor class, but he's from Montana, a very small state. That leaves him with little name-recognition and no access to big money contributions.