I've been watching him ever since he said, in a manner the press didn't notice, that he's running for president in 2016. A wildly popular ex-governor of Montana, he's fantastic on policy and would be a juggernaut in the general election. A tougher test is to see if he can get past Hillary. At least, that's the conventional idea. I'm not so sure. I'm not as good on the Democratic primary map as I am the Electoral College map, but it appears he may have even more significant advantages against Hillary than Obama did. As a recap, pretty much the only regions that liked Hillary are heavily urban and heavy on coal. The urban advantage is somewhat obvious; the coal one is partly carryover from Bill doing so strongly on the issue, back before the Democrats became known as the anti-energy party. Other than that, she lost all the anti-war regions (Far West), the anti-big-city-librul-asshat regions (Midwest), and the South (blacks switched to Obama obviously). Schweitzer, OTOH, can easily take these regions as well as potentially take Appalachia (the coal stuff) away from her. Then she'll be left with urban regions and not enough to win the primary.
Then after he beats her, in the general Schweitzer will destroy Scott Walker in every way possible (my pick for GOP nominee. He's got incredible conservative cred, the biggest backers, and that Midwest conventional, tempered, and kind attitude that the GOP base voters love).
I'm unsure as to how liberal the Democratic primaries are. Like if they're so wacky they vote against anybody who is sensible on energy or guns, but I suspect they aren't. They seem to be a much more moderate bunch. Hillary was the more liberal candidate between her and Obama.
Neeways, check it. The Schweizman gives good
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94t0BwkhNzg
Also, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...st_likely.html
