Brian Schweitzer Considering 2016 Run

[JRP1994]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/10/18/brian_schweitzer_mulling_2016_presidential_bid_120380.html

Schweitzer seems to be hinting that he may run for the Democratic nomination in 2016, even if Hillary Clinton enters the race.

Schweitzer would certainly bring a different perspective to the race. My three questions are:

1) Would Schweitzer stand any chance of mounting a credible challenge to Hillary?
2) If Hillary does NOT run, how good are Schweitzer's chances of winning the nomination?
3) If Schweitzer wins the nomination, how good are his chances in the general election?

[Mr. Morden]

Yeah, this was noted in the Tea Leaves thread, a couple of days ago, when he said this.  As I said there:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=164982.msg3904944#msg3904944

his remarks were definitely the most pointed against Hillary Clinton that we've seen from any of the other potential Democratic candidates, as he said “There’s a whole lot of America that looks at each other and says, ‘Well, there’s 340 million people living in America. Isn’t there somebody other than a Bush or a Clinton who can be president in these modern times? Isn’t there hope for somebody who’s running a business or who has served overseas or comes from a different occupation to become president? Are we now in the era of royalty again?"

But he seems to swing back and forth on his own viability and desire for higher office all the time.  In April, for example, he seemed to downplay his viability (“In Iowa and Florida, those Democratic voters would ask me about things like gun control and I’d say things like, ‘You control yours, I’ll control mine,’” Schweitzer said. “That’s not going to sell in a Democratic primary.”)....but now he's talking about how he "holds the people of Iowa and New Hampshire in high regard", suggesting that he's still thinking about running.

[Maxwell]

I'm not sure if he could win the whole primary season, but Iowa and New Hampshire are great states for him to start.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Yeah, this was noted in the Tea Leaves thread, a couple of days ago, when he said this.  As I said there:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=164982.msg3904944#msg3904944

his remarks were definitely the most pointed against Hillary Clinton that we've seen from any of the other potential Democratic candidates, as he said “There’s a whole lot of America that looks at each other and says, ‘Well, there’s 340 million people living in America. Isn’t there somebody other than a Bush or a Clinton who can be president in these modern times? Isn’t there hope for somebody who’s running a business or who has served overseas or comes from a different occupation to become president? Are we now in the era of royalty again?"

But he seems to swing back and forth on his own viability and desire for higher office all the time.  In April, for example, he seemed to downplay his viability (“In Iowa and Florida, those Democratic voters would ask me about things like gun control and I’d say things like, ‘You control yours, I’ll control mine,’” Schweitzer said. “That’s not going to sell in a Democratic primary.”)....but now he's talking about how he "holds the people of Iowa and New Hampshire in high regard", suggesting that he's still thinking about running.

Do Iowa Democrats support gun control all that much?

[Lief 🗽]

Isn't he super corrupt or something? I thought that was why he's not running in Montana for Baucus' seat.

[NHI]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/10/18/brian_schweitzer_mulling_2016_presidential_bid_120380.html

Schweitzer seems to be hinting that he may run for the Democratic nomination in 2016, even if Hillary Clinton enters the race.

Schweitzer would certainly bring a different perspective to the race. My three questions are:

1) Would Schweitzer stand any chance of mounting a credible challenge to Hillary?
2) If Hillary does NOT run, how good are Schweitzer's chances of winning the nomination?
3) If Schweitzer wins the nomination, how good are his chances in the general election?

1. Credible challenge, but he won't defeat her.
2. Might be able to catch fire with a win in Iowa and running with a strong populist message.
3. 50/50 against Christie.

[NewYorkExpress]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/10/18/brian_schweitzer_mulling_2016_presidential_bid_120380.html

Schweitzer seems to be hinting that he may run for the Democratic nomination in 2016, even if Hillary Clinton enters the race.

Schweitzer would certainly bring a different perspective to the race. My three questions are:

1) Would Schweitzer stand any chance of mounting a credible challenge to Hillary?
2) If Hillary does NOT run, how good are Schweitzer's chances of winning the nomination?
3) If Schweitzer wins the nomination, how good are his chances in the general election?

1. Credible challenge, but he won't defeat her.
2. Might be able to catch fire with a win in Iowa and running with a strong populist message.
3. 50/50 against Christie.

1. Agreed
2. I actually think his chances are worse without Hillary... our base doesn't really like anti-gun control, or pro-mining presidents.
3. 45/55 against Christie, 50/50 against Ryan, Walker and Bush 60/40 against everyone else

[Cobbler]

He'll probably be the Howard Dean of 2016 if he runs.

[Oakvale]

Isn't he super corrupt or something? I thought that was why he's not running in Montana for Baucus' seat.

Yeah, didn't some huge scandal come out?

[Lambsbread]

I still think he's awesome. Gillibrand would be my top choice, but if she doesn't run, it'd probably be Schweitzer.

[Donerail]

Isn't he super corrupt or something? I thought that was why he's not running in Montana for Baucus' seat.

Yeah, didn't some huge scandal come out?

Some ties to DC dark-money groups.

[Beet]

Apparently the Great Falls Tribune was about to run an article on the scandal, and he pulled out of the Senate race the day before causing the newspaper not to run the story. But now if he's saying he's interested in 2016, he must either be willing for it to come out or have suppressed it somehow.

[H. Ross Peron]

Schweitzer would be far wiser to run for a Senate seat in 2014 first whether he runs for President or not.

[RodPresident]

Schweitzer running for House would be interesting. Democrats need Montana seat to easy path towards majority.

[WalterMitty]

a right winger.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Isn't he super corrupt or something? I thought that was why he's not running in Montana for Baucus' seat.

I haven't heard any such accusations. I'd assumed the reason he wasn't running for Baucus' seat was that he was seriously considering a run for the Dem nomination; running for the Senate seat would mean basically three straight years of campaigning, and leave him no time at all to even pretend to do his job as a Senator.

[Mister Mets]

Apparently the Great Falls Tribune was about to run an article on the scandal, and he pulled out of the Senate race the day before causing the newspaper not to run the story. But now if he's saying he's interested in 2016, he must either be willing for it to come out or have suppressed it somehow.

Wasn't it something that was legally dubious if he was a candidate in 2014? It might not apply in '16.

His main advantage is that he had the talent to get elected in a red state, and that there aren't many rival westerners. But I don't see him being a credible candidate.

As a small state Governor, his experience is limited. His name recognition is low. He burned bridges in Montana, so he's unlikely to get major endorsements. There's likely to be bad buzz due to the circumstances behind his decision not to run for Senate. He's been making a lot of money as a former Governor, so he's unlikely to appeal to the anti Wall Street crowd (and there may be an opening on Hillary's left there.) And there just isn't a rush to nominate another middle-aged white guy for the presidency.

As for his General Election strength, my answer's a bit of a cheat. A former Governor of Montana is a weak candidate for President. A former Governor of Montana who wins a tough presidential primary is a force to be reckoned with.

[DINGO Joe]

Apparently the Great Falls Tribune was about to run an article on the scandal, and he pulled out of the Senate race the day before causing the newspaper not to run the story. But now if he's saying he's interested in 2016, he must either be willing for it to come out or have suppressed it somehow.

Why would a newspaper not run a story, based on whether a person is running for office or not?

[nolesfan2011]

Isn't he super corrupt or something? I thought that was why he's not running in Montana for Baucus' seat.

I haven't heard any such accusations. I'd assumed the reason he wasn't running for Baucus' seat was that he was seriously considering a run for the Dem nomination; running for the Senate seat would mean basically three straight years of campaigning, and leave him no time at all to even pretend to do his job as a Senator.

Same here, I like Schweitzer the best right now of the "serious" 2016 candidates, he is actually a good progressive populist who has won in a red state and governed in a red state while remaining quite principled on the left.  Gun control isn't important to me really at all and his support for renewable energy and standing up to Exxon gives him as much cred as any of his more anti-environmental positions.

Also he has a good diverse career history, he understands the Middle East for one and FP issues, while at the same time he has that Bill Clinton style "white guy in blue jeans" appeal, he could make inroads in the south and mountain west for Dems, while being progressive enough to have support from the base.

as for your questions

1: Only if he wins Iowa and gets close in New Hampshire, then he would have to do well in the South, northeast and west, think a John Edwards style route to victory, but if he can't do well early he won't have the money or the support to keep going.

2: Decent, not the front runner but not a bottom feeder either, middle of the pack and will be able to move up if he debates and campaigns well.

3: Very good imo, again I think he has an LBJ/Clinton style Southern/Western White guy swagger that can relate to common people outside of traditional Democratic constituency groups who would vote for him anyway.

[IceSpear]

Whatever it was that kept you out of the Senate race will also keep you out of the Presidential race. No thanks.

[Mr. Morden]

Whatever it was that kept you out of the Senate race will also keep you out of the Presidential race. No thanks.

What kept him out of the Senate race could simply be that he doesn't want to serve in the Senate, and would rather run for president:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=162921358

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[IceSpear]

Whatever it was that kept you out of the Senate race will also keep you out of the Presidential race. No thanks.

What kept him out of the Senate race could simply be that he doesn't want to serve in the Senate, and would rather run for president:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=162921358

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Both Dems and Reps have said that Schweitzer has a lot of dirty laundry they found while doing opposition research. I'm not willing to risk it. The last thing we need is another John Edwards.

[Mr. Morden]

Both Dems and Reps have said that Schweitzer has a lot of dirty laundry they found while doing opposition research. I'm not willing to risk it. The last thing we need is another John Edwards.

Right, but you said that it would "keep him out of the presidential race", suggesting that he wouldn't run at all.  I'm saying that I'm not so sure about that.  If he never wanted to run for president, then why did he make all those visits to IA and NH in 2011 and 2012?  Why is he still dropping hints about running for president today?