Talk Elections

Q4 If Brian Schweitzer were the Democratic
nominee for President in 2016, would you vote
for him or his Republican opponent?

Brian Schweitzer ............................................. 42%
Republican opponent ...................................... 38%
Not sure .......................................................... 21%

Q5 Do you think Brian Schweitzer should run for
President in 2016, or not?

He should run ................................................. 26%
He should not.................................................. 55%
Not sure .......................................................... 19%

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_MT_050412.pdf

A majority saying he shouldn't run suggests its not likely he would do that well.

This.

Wouldn't even carry his homestate.

I don't see how it says any such thing.

Q5.

He probably means the 2nd part of the statement: That people don't want him to run has nothing to do with how he would actually do in the General Election.

Yes, that's what I meant.

Maybe people in Montana wanting to have Schweitzer in Senate to replace Baucus.

The home state argument is pretty weak. Should Democrats nominate Marion Barry over Rocky Anderson because Barry could win DC while Anderson would lose Utah?

Montana is nothing like Utah.

Voters rarely ever say that they want their home state politicians to run for national office.  They often say they don't want them to run, but then support them when they do so.  The relevant point here is that the poll has Schweitzer leading (in a state that's fairly Republican in presidential elections), even though supposedly people don't want him to run, thus showing that the voters "not wanting him to run" is irrelevant.  And even if he did lose Montana in the general election, who cares?  It's only 3 electoral votes, and usually goes to the GOP anyway.

I really don't see what Democrats' fascination with this guy is - not that I have anything against him, I just don't see what all the hullabaloo is with him.

It's because Schweitzer is a populist, and one of the few Democratic politicians that "speaks truth to power" and actually criticizes the GOP, instead of going "I wouldn't do that, but..."

Plus, his folksy persona and his support of gun rights is seen as very useful for winning or at least disputing traditional red states.

Personally, I like all of the above, plus his efforts to bring renewable energy and universal healthcare to his state.

I tend to think his "raghead" comment from years ago would come back to bite him in a strong way.

Pretty certain his opponent made that comment (or was it Conrad Burns?)

Yes, my bad.

If the Republican-dominated House is capable of frustrating President Obama at very turn for the next four years, then he might be the one to shake things up, especially if the Democrats take over the House of Representatives in 2016.

It's because he could expand the map and is more reasonable on gun rights.

I bet Waltermitty hates this guy.

Wouldn't help much in Montana, but do think he would help a ticket in other western states like Colorado.

Montana has only three electoral votes, and three electoral votes would not have made a difference in any election in over 100 years. Not even 2000. (Four would have -- Gore should have gone for New Hampshire in case something went awry in Florida).

Colorado was the tipping-point state (although Pennsylvania was close to being that) in 2012. Pennsylvania probably will be in 2016.  Schweitzer likely solidifies Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico, and could put Arizona in play. 

I feel like Hickenlooper provides everything Schweitzer does, only better.

Not charisma; Hickenlooper is boring. Schweitzer isn't.

Pretty underwhelming for Schweitzer. I understand Montana is tough sledding for a Democrat, but still.