HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Is Montana more moderate ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 09:42 PM

Is Montana more moderate and purple than most folks give it credit for?

I just find it very curious that they can elect a Dem Gov and two Dem senators, but for president they're pretty red.

Is the Montana brand of Dem much different from mainstream Dem? Or do our national ticket candidates see red where there is purple?

20 replies, 1244 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to NNguyenMD (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 09:46 PM

1. Some parts of Montana are blue...Missoula..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNguyenMD (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 09:48 PM

2. Any of the democrats they elected black?

 

That may be your answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:55 PM

10. and what explains the fact

that Carter lost it, Mondale lost it, Dukakis lost it, Clinton lost it once, Gore lost it, Kerry lost it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #10)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:56 PM

12. How many local democrats

 

were elected when they ran for office? Were those seats republican at the time?

I am not familiar with the local voting patterns but a question was asked. I proposed a possible reason and that is a possible reason whether you like it or not.

Some people who vote for democrats only vote for white democrats and some can't stand the sight of a black man in the white house or any office of power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #12)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:51 PM

13. Baucus

predates Clinton

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:03 AM

14. So one?

 

Wow, they are a real bunch of democratic radicals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #14)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:13 PM

15. that is off the top of my head

Tester was from 06 on. They only have two Senate seats and one was taken by Baucus for a ton of years. According to Wikipedia they had a Democratic governor from 69 to 81, not once voting for a Democratic Presidential nominee (Humphrey, McGovern, Carter) From 93 to 97 their one House seat was Democratic. From 1919 until 1993 at least one of their two house seats was a Democrat except for from 21 to 23. It isn't Illinois or Hawaii but it clearly is a fairly Democratic state. We had two Dem congressman there 75-77, 69-71, 57-61, 43-45, 33-39, 13-17 while some of that corresponds to a very heavy Democratic period others (57-61) decidedly don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #15)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:24 PM

16. The democrats in the state are local

 

and could still be viewed as "one of them" and not "tainted". This is not farfetched and is talked about in the supremacist Bible 'The Turner Diaries'. In it they separate whites into groups that are viewed as being tainted. It is based on where they live, work, who they are friendly with, and their political views. It is possible that democrats outside the state are viewed in an entirely different way. Just one theory.

It would be interesting to see an honest and unbiased study looking into this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #16)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 02:58 PM

19. I think that we get some of the war on coal and gun control problems there

I looked to see what the final results were and we lost by a bundle so I have to take back post 11 where I said I thought we could win it if we tried. I also know ranchers are big time repubicans and Montana has lots of those.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #19)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:37 PM

20. Interesting.

 

Thanks for the information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNguyenMD (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 09:49 PM

3. Montana is a ticket splitting state. The dems had great candidates and the gop did not.

Romney did much better in the state than Mccain did. MT is a great state in my opinion. It just takes so damn long to drive around it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hrmjustin (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:39 PM

7. You just have to drive a hundred miles an hour is all between the towns. Darn those federal

speed limits! (Sorry, that's the only federal intervention for our state I disagreed with!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalLoner (Reply #7)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:48 PM

8. LOL i agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNguyenMD (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 09:50 PM

4. At the family reunion a few years back (at Flathead Lake in Montana)

My Missoula relations were complaining how liberal Mt. had become inour lifetime.
we are nearing our 60's, so we played in Montana in the early mid 50's as carefree kids.

Like Norman Maclean, it is the Montana of my youth, "...a four-count rhythm and the hope that a fish will rise." I like the thought of a liberal Montana!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #4)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:38 PM

6. I bet I know why (in part) Missoula got bluer - I went to elementary school at Target Range

and looking back on it, the teachers were definitely talking about issues and educating us - we kearned about strip mining and pollution and all kinds of things, and that knowledge could easily lead a person to become a liberal. Reality has a liberal bias...

And growing up in Montana (off and on, father was military) in the 60's and 70's was still an absolute blast. Great memories! Such freedom and a feeling of safety! I feel sorry for kids these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNguyenMD (Original post)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 09:58 PM

5. Honestly I can't tell you

I was born and raised in the Treasure State. My family came from immigrant and pioneer stock and were die hard Democratic Party members. My father often vented about how the state could never get ahead when the congressional representation, the governor and the US President were from conflicting parties. So this case of multiple political personalities is not new.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNguyenMD (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:51 PM

9. Obama didn't lose it by much in '08 (less than 3 points)

Gary Johnson did relatively well in the state this time - almost 3%. But Obama did a lot worse in the state than he did in '08.

It's definitely the kind of state where people prefer their independence and little federal intervention. Property rights and guns are very important. I get the impression it's a different sort of conservatism than the south, which is more religious in nature.

I think it has the potential to be a battleground in the future, but the key is finding a candidate that might appeal to the voters there. It's only 3 electoral votes though, so it may not matter that much other than in a very a close election...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNguyenMD (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:58 PM

11. Montana has more union presense than most of the mountain west and great plains

which keeps it closer. Frankly if we put alot of effort into it we might win at the Presidential level but at only 3EV it isn't worth it. On the other hand, the Senate seat in Montana is worth as much as the Senate seat from California so we work our asses off for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNguyenMD (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:58 PM

17. It's a waste of money for presidential candidates to advertise there, only 3 EV's

And 9 media markets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNguyenMD (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 01:07 PM

18. guns?

A lot are members of the NRA just for shooting club rules and on the President level only trust a republican. On a local level they know personal stories of the candidates so have less problem voting dem in state and local elections.

I was home last summer and swear to God Tester's ad sounded like a republican every thing he listed off. He really had to defend that he was on their side and Rehberg really does have a bad rep from personal stories I heard - he didn't relate well. We don't have a lot of people so these personal stories spread quickly.

Plus - Big Sky Big Money on PBS might have done a bit of good too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread