2014 MT US Senate Race-No Senate run for Schweitzer-D.

[NPolitics1979]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/284359-schweitzer-denies-interest-in-senate-run

Baucus-D has an easier time against Edmunds but a tougher time against Stapleton.- The Republican version of Tester. Stapleton could do to Baucus in 2014 what Tester did to Burns in 2006.

[Hard Assets]

1. Schweitzer is making a mistake not running against Baucus.

That is one asshole from our side that needs to be primaried HARD.

Brian Schweitzer was a perfect candidate. Why the fuck would he turn it down?

[BlueStater]

2. Maybe he's not interested in being a senator? N/T

[NPolitics1979]

3. Schweitzer first ran for the US Senate- his first run for elected office in 2000 against Burnsie.

Schweitzer narrowly lost the same year Bush-R carried MT by a 25 point margin. 4 years later he becomes Governor, serves 2 terms.
Schweitzer probally wants to show the Democratic Leadership loyalty waiting until Baucus decides not to seek re-election.

[brooklynite]

14. Schweitzer is musing about a Presidential run...

I know because I talked to him about it in Charlotte.

[dsc]

4. this is hardly a shermaneque statement

and he says he has an announcement next week.

[tarheelsunc]

5. Running for President? eom

[dsc]

6. He won't announce that soon

It would be crazy early.

[Drunken Irishman]

7. But I do see him running for president...

And that would be reason enough to not run for senate. He's not Obama - Obama was afforded a lot when he bailed on his six-year term halfway through to run for president because he felt like a once in a lifetime candidate. I like Schweitzer ... but I'm not sure he could afford to run for senate and then up and run for president two years later (and even Obama waited four years).

[BlueStater]

8. If he wants to run for president in 2016, he won't run for the sentate.

He was a popular two-term governor of a red state. That's more than enough on your resume to be taken seriously as a presidential contender. Running for the senate just to abandon that office two years later would be pointless.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. Correct...he's the Democratic version of Chris Christy...and neither will be the nominee

[BlueStater]

10. Or the Democratic version of Bill Clinton.

Oh...wait.

[Drunken Irishman]

11. Possible...tho, I think Bill had some things going for him that might hurt Schweitzer...

1) There was a very weak field in 1992 because all the major Democrats, specifically Mario Cuomo, decided against running since they thought Bush would sail through to reelection. This go around, if Hillary runs ... she'll be nearly impossible to beat and if she doesn't, Biden will certainly give it a go and he'll be very tough to beat ... if neither run, I see Andrew Cuomo running ... probably Martin O'Malley of Maryland and potentially a few other heavy hitters (though, the Democratic bench beyond Clinton/Biden is weaker, so, he could benefit from that).

2) The Democratic Party as a whole was different in '92. They were a downtrodden party ready to accept a centrist candidate. Democrats had lost five of the last six elections - with a few coming by landslides - and were looking for a new figure ... someone different than the McGoverns, Mondales and Dukakises of the world. Clinton was different. He was southern, but not southern conservative like Carter. He was young - but not a stereotypical young bleeding heart. That all worked in his favor because he offered a new direction ... a successful direction. Schweitzer will be inheriting a strong party with a fairly popular (assuming) incumbent Democratic president - he won't need to really 'change' the party ... but will the party embrace his pro-gun and pro-coal policies? He's also been evasive on gay marriage, not outright coming out in favor of it, tho, like Obama in '08, beating around the hedges a bit. That could work in 2008 - not in 2016 with the party actively embracing gay marriage. The next nominee will be for gay marriage and who knows, Schweitzer could come out in full support of it.

But I think it's also important to point out how little known he is on so many issues because he hasn't been in the national spotlight. That is a favorable comparison to Clinton, since Clinton was just a governor and they generally don't deal with national campaign issues like gay marriage (unless it's on the ballot in the state) or abortion rights - or war and peace.

Schweitzer could be the guy ... but I think the Democratic Party is tilted in a different direction and I don't know if he'd have the ability to win over the base ... but he could certainly win over the general election electorate. So...

[Ptah]

12. One issue we know about - He supports the Keystone pipeline. nt

[BlueStater]

13. Perhaps but I really don't think being a red state governor will work against him.

I actually think Chris Christie would stand a very good chance of winning the Republican nomination if he were to run as most of their other potential candidates (Rubio, Ryan, etc.) are total numbnuts and would be embarrassing as GE nominees. It's the same reason Romney won the nomination despite the Repukes not liking him all that much personally.