General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy isn't Montana in play for Dems more often?
The state has two Democratic Senators, a Democratic Governor. Shouldn't the state be more of a purple battleground state than the reliably red state its been during recent presidential elections?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)There are a lot of liberals there. It think it will turn blue one day.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)Present Senators are beholden to the big ranchers,miners and coal interests. Read some of the local newspapers,it's all Blue-dog and Joe six pack crap.
Dokkie
(1,688 posts)aka libertarian type liberal.
Mr.Turnip
(645 posts)Wouldn't mind him taking on Baucus when he's up again actually, we need more populist Dems in congress and he's probably the best we can get from Montana.
Hell the guy has spoken in favor of bringing Canadian style single-payer to the state of Montana, that isn't exactly a libertarian idea.
aaaaaa5a
(4,667 posts)On this board its seems the south is always getting ripped. But what about the plain states and mountain west?
If you look at a place like Kansas, especially their state legislature, they are just as bad if not worse than Alabama. Its funny how some regions get bashed while others are ignored.
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)The south used to be where the base states were for the Old Democratic Party. When they won elections, all the old confederate states carried. Now that the Republicans flipped and that their base is in the south ... when they nowadays win the presidency, the old confederacy carries. But like the Old Republican Party, today's Democrats win the presidency by having carried the north/northeast, winning out west (the pacific states of California, Oregon, and Washington; not counting for now both Alaska and Hawaii). And then today's Democrats, like the past Republicans, win a select few states from the south.
If you look at a place like Kansas, especially their state legislature, they are just as bad if not worse than Alabama. Its funny how some regions get bashed while others are ignored.
Today's Democratic Party isn't liberal. They should be winning in that middle strip everything but Oklahoma.
North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas have voted the same since 1920. Franklin Roosevelt, in 1932 and 1936, and Lyndon Johnson, in 1964, were the last Democrats to carry them. Though Barack Obama, in 2008, won an electoral vote in Neb., statewide vote carried for John McCain.
N.D. and S.D. have been willing to have Democratic senators. So has Neb. Kan. votes for Democratic governors when the president of the United States is a Republican.
I think these four states have an aging population combined with a Democratic Party that wrote them off as unwinnable. And when that happens, the people of those states figure, "I'll vote for what I'm used to." Which is too bad. In 2008, Obama won over Indiana. And that state, along with those four, voted the same from 1920 to 2004. The way it's going -- the most feasible way to win all five in 2012 is if President Obama were to get re-elected and carry more than 40 states. (Which I wouldn't mind seeing happen.)
B Calm
(28,762 posts)it could be.
guitar man
(15,996 posts)Great quarterback though, one of the best that ever played the game 
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)I don't think anyone is going to pour money into Montana for its 3 electoral votes.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Certainly nobody is going to pour a lot of money there, but it makes more sense to put money there than just about anywhere else.
Montana has about 1 million people, or 333,333 for each electoral vote. California has about 37.5 million people and 55 electoral votes or 682,000 for each electoral vote. So from a voter perspective, each vote in Montana carries twice the weight of each vote in California.
The Democrats should be hitting states with 3-7 electoral votes much harder than they have been. On a per vote basis it's easier to win in those states.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)So you don't really need 682,000 votes per electoral vote. It doesn't work like that. You just have to win the state.
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)California's electoral votes blue.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)About 491,000 people voted in Montana in 2008. It takes roughly half that to win or 245,500 votes to get those 3 electors. In California, 13,743,177 people voted in 2008. If you figure roughly half that, it takes about 7 million votes to win California. In order to compare apples to apples with California, you have to break it down by how many people you need to get each electoral vote. In California you need to get 254,545 people to the polls for each electoral vote. That's more than you need to get all three in Montana.
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)The Democrats should be winning beyond 400-vote electoral landslides. They would include Montana.
Montana, over the last 100 years, has been strongly reliable in voting with the winner:
1912: Woodrow Wilson (D)
1916: Woodrow Wilson (D)
1920: Warren Harding (R)
1924: Calvin Coolidge (R)
1928: Herbert Hoover (R)
1932: Franklin Roosevelt (D)
1936: Franklin Roosevelt (D)
1940: Franklin Roosevelt (D)
1944: Franklin Roosevelt (D)
1948: Harry Truman (D)
1952: Dwight Eisenhower (R)
1956: Dwight Eisenhower (R)
1960: Richard Nixon (R)
1964: Lyndon Johnson (D)
1968: Richard Nixon (R)
1972: Richard Nixon (R)
1976: Gerald Ford (R)
1980: Ronald Reagan (R)
1984: Ronald Reagan (R)
1988: George Bush (R)
1992: Bill Clinton (D)
1996: Bob Dole (R)
2000: George W. Bush (R)
2004: George W. Bush (R)
2008: John McCain (R)
How close was Montana in the years it didn't vote for the winner? And what was the national result (in parentheses)?
1960: R+2.50% (D+0.16%)
1976: R+7.44% (D+2.06%)
1996: R+2.88% (D+8.52%)
2008: R+2.38% (D+7.26%)
In the losing years, with the exception of 1996 (when Bill Clinton lost it to Bob Dole after having won it over in 1992), Montana has been within 10 percentage points of the national margin. (Note: Clinton, in 1996, was a re-elected Democrat who did not win Mont. The other three election years were ones in which the presidency was a pickup for the Democrats, but the losing Republican held on in Mont.)
My guess is that the Democratic Party hasn't been pursuing the state of Montana as hard as it should.
But, look -- the state of Montana voted 21 of the last 25 elections with the winner. Given how close it was last time; that it was one of three states in which President Obama won over the female vote; and that U.S. Sen. Jon Tester (D) is trying to win a second term (and the Democrats want him re-elected) -- I see no reason, if it turns President Obama wins re-election, not to absolutely go after and win over Mont. for 2012.
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)Which is why no significant money well be spent there by the Democratic party in pursuit of those electoral votes.
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)The Democrats are going to want Jon Tester (D-Montana) to win a second term this year for the U.S. Senate. So, it wouldn't make sense to spend only on Tester and not go after Mont. Tester unseated Conrad Burns in 2006. (All the Democratic pickups, for winning over majority control, resulted in incumbent Republicans who were defeated.)
In those same "13 of the last 15 elections," Mont. voted the same as Colorado from 1952 to 2004. That's 14 elections. But they also voted for Harry Truman in 1948 -- So Mont. and Colo. voted the same in 15 cycles (1948 to 2004).
2008 margins were just 11 points. Colorado was a Democratic pickup, for Obama, by 8.95%. With Montana a Republican hold at 2.38% (after it voted in 2004 for George W. Bush by 20.50%), that means -- if Obama wins re-election -- he can pull it into his column. If we get a 3- to 5-point increase, nationally, Mont. should be able to turn blue.
provis99
(13,062 posts)That's pretty much it.
