That's cool. It's a long shot prediction but how cool would it be if it was Rice/Rubio for President/Vice President on the GOP ticket?
As you point out, it would be a seriously radical departure from their typical nominee. I think it might be too radical for the base to swallow. Maybe a minority for a single candidate, likely a VP slot if the base pushes the primary system for A Real Conservative (TM) candidate.
Condi has no geographical or ideological base constituency, was never elected to anything, and was a point person for exceptionally unpopular foreign policy.
The memory of that foreign policy is fading fast, though, and look at the media blitz on the anniversary of the start of hostilities in 2003. There are plenty of former Bush officials who are trying to reinvent the legacy of the Iraq War. I think the lack of electoral experience is the real killer--campaigns are difficult things to manage, and if you can't prove you can win them at the state level, jumping to the national level immediately is a huge risk.
This is why I think we should be thinking of Obama as an exception--he only won a single statewide election before going for the White House. And you can get lucky in a wave election, too, so only winning multiple statewide elections can prove a candidate's campaigning skills. That's another reason why I am looking at guys like Warner and O'Malley if Clinton and Biden do not run, both of whom have multiple statewide elections under their belt. I'm afraid a few of these predictions might end up being Pawlenties, though.
Sarah would be better than most of the crap that's being discussed right now. I still probably wouldn't vote for her though, except maybe if she had a genuine liberty candidate as her VP.
I'm certain any Democratic candidate would love to go up against Sarah Palin at the top of the ticket. Her appeal was limited to the Republican base, which is insufficiently large to win national elections at the moment.
Side question: is "liberty candidate" a thing now?
If it's for the identify politics angle, I think there are other candidates from those lists that could provide that without some of the baggage.
Do people seriously buy into the identity politics argument? It always seemed a bit silly to me, and the evidence used to support it is a little murky and intertwined with other factors.
...
Booker and Castro may have bright futures, but I think they're probably too green. I suspect some donors might have fatigue over a "newbie" after the legislative problems with Obama.
Brian Schweitzer has been mentioned again and again as a replacement for Max Baccus in the Senate. I don't know if he'd see that as a stepping stone to a presidential run, but I think we're going to be hearing more from this guy in the next few years.
Agreed on the other candidates. I think Booker and Castro have a lot of life left to plan a presidential run, and they might want to look to 2020/2024 depending on who wins in 2016 at the earliest, or even 2028/2032 for a run. In the meantime, run for the governorship or the US Senate, whichever one gives a greater chance of success. They have a lot of potential and it would be a shame to burn it. Schweitzer might take heat from the Democratic base for his position on gun rights/control/safety/whatever it's called now on the national stage, but that might help him in Montana. A lot depends on how influential these new anti-gun-lobby groups are in 2016, which I think is difficult to predict at the moment.
