Since the political winds seem to be blowing in the direction of Hillary running again, Schweitzer getting elected to the Senate wouldn't be a bad idea. He's still young enough to conceivably run as far into the future as 2024, and as a Senator, would have a means to stall relevant in the mean time. 

That is unless, he decides to challenge her in 2016.

Right now, I'm betting on it being either Ouellet, Turkson, or Scola. And among those three, I'm betting on Ouellet.

I'm probably being too generous, but maybe something like this?

Scott was sorta right... just had the wrong Romney.

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2013/02/tagg_you%E2%80%99re_it_gop_senate_hopes

I don't know why he'd consider running in MA, where he would be vulnerable everytime he was up for reelecting.

She'd be better off keeping her eye on McCain's Senate seat instead.

Inspired by the similar thread devoted to the Democrats.

So obviously the party has a problem with these two groups. And while simpy having a woman or minority on the ticket wouldn't deliver the women or Hispanic vote to whoever the nominee is, it may help weaken the image of the Republican party being the party only for middle-aged white guys.

So will they do it?

Depends entirely on who the nominees are, but the demographics do favor the Democrats unless the GOP can find a way to appeal to women/minorities in the next several years.

GOP:

Christie
Rubio
Ryan
Santorum
Paul
Perry
Jindal
McDonnell

Dems:

Hillary
O'Malley
Villargosa

I still think that he would need an elder statsman in the Cheney/Biden mold. So I'd agree that Huntsman would make a lot of sense. The other name I've heard suggested being Daniels.

I think major names like Biden, Cuomo, Schweitzer, and Warner would sit it out, but I think we would still one or two names challenging her, like Bradley in '00 with Gore. Given how obvious he has been in his own interest, I could see O'Malley still trying. Villargosa could be a possibility.

I don't think she would scare anyone away in the GOP, but I could see their candidates each trying to make their case as to why they would have the best shot at beating her.

The only thing that complicates this a bit is Hillary, though I could actually see her loosing to Christie. 
Possible Democratic Reagans:
Elizabeth Warren
Tammy Baldwin
Kyrsten Sinema
Van Jones (maybe when Pelosi retires he can run for her seat)
Ben Lujan

Boy, I can't wait for 2020

If he challenges Walker and wins, I could see a Russ Feingold being another possibility.

While Snyder's approvals are low, he'll probably turn it around, and I think she senses that.

I'm no so sure. Snyder has never been particularily popular, and a good Dem candidate could beat him

We'll have to wait and see on who and how many of the other names bow out, but part me wonders if maybe a path for Gary Peters is being cleared.

http://www.freep.com/article/20130130/NEWS15/130130046/Gretchen-Whitmer-Rick-Snyder-governor?odyssey=tab

That's too bad as she would've been one of the strong candidates.

I'd love to see nothing more than McConnell getting defeated, even if that meant him being replaced by a Tea Partier.

I'd say Hillary/Tester (or Kaine) vs Christie/Cruz.

Tim Kaine
Brian Schweitzer
Jon Tester

I agree with this, but I'd swap Schweitzer out of place in place of Deval Patrick. Schweitzer doesn't strike me as being someone who'd be interested in being VP.

So under this scenario could the next three presidents be:

45. Chris Christie 2017-2021
46. Elizabeth Warren 2021-2029
47. Michael Bennet 2029-2033

Against someone other than Christie or possibily Jeb, Hillary would probably see a decisive victory for her.

Otherwise, I expect a smaller victory for the victor this time around.

While I think Joe is keeping his options open there is possibly another reason for his coyness on answering questions and his visits to the IA and NH delegations. Biden wants to be seen as a potential future candidate by people on the hill. Think back to Bush and Cheney, they were lame ducks as soon as they got their second term. Biden wants the Dem House and Senate members to see him as someone they need to deal with as he may have big influence over their futures. This way he can be a more effective VP to Obama who increasingly is using him to get things done on the Hill.

Agreed.

Considering that he'll be 74 on Inauguration Day 2017, I think it's very dubious as to whether or not he'll the plunge. Besides, I personally think being one of the most influencial VP's in history isn't a bad career capper.

Christie. Mainly because I see history repeating itself again once with the conservative wing once again not being able to unite behind one candidate.  Allowing Christie to follow the McCain/Romney path to the nomination.

I'm not sure how strong the Democratic bench in Kentucky is, but Paul strikes me as being someone who could be vulnerable in a neutral vulnerable. Depending how the landscape looks in 2016, I could see him pulling an Edwards ala '04 and simply deciding to retire after one term and focus on a Presidential campaign instead.

I think 2008 was probably his best shot honestly. Granted his chances against the combined might of Hillary and Obama may not have been that great either, but due to his personal fortune, he may have been able to be more competitive than Edwards ever was.

Rubio would need to find his own equivalant of Dick Chenney or Joe Biden. 

The problem is that the GOP is kind of lacking in elder statesman who would be good options at the moment.  Who is the equivalent of Biden of Cheney now?

I guess two names that come to mind at the moment are Daniels and Huntsman.  But I'm not sure Daniels would be interested, since his wife seemed to veto his potential 2012 presidential campaign, and she might well veto a VP campaign as well.  And Huntsman comes with his own baggage within the party.

Yeah, that's why I was at a lost to name anybody. I just don't see how Rubio wouldn't face the 'is he experienced enough?' like GWB and Obama in both did. Though Daniels and Huntsman would make sense to me. I agree with whoever it was that said Huntsman seems like a good fit, espcially if Rubio was trying to moderate his image somewhat. Though I'm not sure the base would allow it.

A generic problem for the GOP in 2016 is that many potential VP candidates are Senators who'll be running for reelection: Rubio himself, Ayotte, Portman, Thune.  How many of them could actually pull off running for VP and Senate at the same time?  Thune maybe, since he'll likely only face a token opponent for reelection, but the others probably can't.

Thune is the only name you mentioned here whose name I really see being tossed around for that reason.

GOP picks up LA, SD, and WV. Begich pulls off an upset in AK, while Collins ends up running again and winning in Maine.

Deval Patrick, Brian Schweitzer, and Mark Warner would probably be Hillary's short list.

I'd probably swap out Schweitzer and Warner with Tester and Kaine.

Rubio would need to find his own equivalant of Dick Chenney or Joe Biden.