Takeways from Montana

candidate and even with the best candidate we might have lost...Quist said he did not want the DNC...he had Sen. Sanders who helped with his rallies. And if Democrats want to win they need to show party loyalty and vote for the candidate with the D next to his name.

with constant blame and criticism...this candidate was not fielded by the DCCC and was supported by Sen. Sanders who attended rallies and all...he did not want the DCCC help and asked Perez to stay away...Quist welcomed Sanders but, I question how effective Sen. Sanders could be in a state like Montana...on the one hand some weep because we have candidates in red states like Manchin and insists the left can win everywhere...others want pro-life candidates welcomed and endorsed...you can't please everyone. Quist was a bad candidate...the Democratic governor won and they have a Democratic senator...the right candidate might have won. We have won races in red areas where the DCCC stayed away and didn't nationalize the race.

The DNC is going to trot out every banjo playing, weed smoking leftie they can find to run. It's time the DNC renamed itself, at least take the Democratic part out.

The candidates that have already started their efforts are well-spoken, concerned citizens.

Quist was not ideal but he stepped in early when everybody else was running for the hills. He at least came forward to brave the RW storm and did a fair job.

Ossoff in Georgia is the antithesis of your assertion.

In addition, I doubt if the DNC could find the people you speak of. That is a complete stereotype that you are pushing.

and call it being practical. It is not mindless following, it is being realistic.

It is that not enough people voted for him. I'm sure he was the best candidate, who was better? The blaming of the candidate, the DNC, all is a dodge from the reality that there were not enough voters.

candidate, and he also got heavily outspent.

have come in sooner to help financially and in other ways logistically. That's all I'm saying. They could have done a lot under the radar. Gianforte certainly had no problem getting help from national R's. If Quist insisted he didn't want any national help, well then that was his fault. OK. And yes, much as I like Quist as a person and admire that he ran, he wasn't a strong knowledgeable experienced candidate. He should run for local office. He shot too high with this one.

He was the wrong candidate for this state...a centrist Democrat beat the GOP asshat in November of 16...if anything is to blame, it is the unity bullshit instead of fielding good candidates for all 50 states.

Seems like most people voted before The Incident.

Democrats need to understand better what makes the right-wing tick. They loved the guy that body-slammed a liberal reporter. The more it is reported, the more they love him. We need to work within those parameters.

the results might have even been closer. Some early voters wanted to change their vote..Lets say another 2 percent went Democrat....I think given more time, the discussion would have produced another 2 percent..I do believe more would have voted because the "Incident" didn't really have enough time to get the discussion it needed...

.
Would that be progress? If that would have happened, the results would have been
48 percent to 46 percent.....6 percent for the Libertarian.. Yes, there are many who love the guy that slammed the reporter, but there was change...I don't know..The discussion about the body slam needed more time in my opinion..

If anything, while most normal people were repulsed by such violent and unnecessary behavior, a significant number of people were actually ENTHUSED about a Republican candidate behaving this way. I actually think it's possible that body-slamming a reporter motivated Republican voters to come to the polls.

This is why Trump loves to play the victim. His base relates to it because they feel like they are being "attacked" themselves by "liberals" and generally educated people.

We really need to study how to break through this divide. This isn't just a country divided by politics. There are some very selfish, angry, ignorant citizens out there and they have decided to take their frustration out on Democrats. I've always believed there was more of us than them, but now I'm starting to wonder. I'm encountering these Republican people throughout my personal and professional interactions. It's real and we need to do something about it.

Trying to defend one's position for being too lazy to get educated and try to understand life and reality makes for an ugly setup. Who would want to be classified as a roustabout anyway?

I was checking Twitter and Trump fans were not only cheering this fucking asshole, they were encouraging more of it!

I wish a more moderate candidate has run.

But we really need to go back to the drawing board - we have to show that crime doesn't pay. Now Montana has a billionaire with ties to Russia representing them. But maybe he'll go down with the sinking ship. So we can only hope.

a more moderate populist candidate like Bullock or Tester.

I don't have the links... long gone... but they made me rethink my support of mail-in early voting. I guess some significant percentage of the votes for the republican came in early and might have gone differently on election day.

In this case, many early votes were cast that were later regretted.

A Democrat beat Gianforte in November, but that candidate was well suited for the state and articulated his positions well.

We need to stop fooling ourselves, a far left candidate WILL NOT win in the central West and the South. We need to field moderate candidates that articulate their policy proposals well and can stand up in debates.

Democrats...it boggles the mind to do this with Trump; Manchin is one of their targets. Do they really think they can do better in WVA. These folks should be banned from Democratic politics for life if the cause us to blow 18.

as well as he did.

It is a deeply red state and we needed a moderate candidate like the governor who beat the asshat last year. The DNC is in disarray because of 2016, but they need to end all the unity BS and start recruiting candidates for districts we have good shot at winning in 2018.

Give them some time. Unity is not BS. It is necessary. Quist actually did quite well considering his lack of experience. But I agree totally, having watched a debate, that he was out of his league on this. He should run for the state legislature or a local office where he would do well. There should have been a more experienced and more moderate candidate.

Time to get our act together and again,some of the so called reforms make no sense and would lead to Democratic losses. There will never be unity...time to get on with winning which is what is important...we are and will remain the big tent party. Those who can not deal with that will either have to go to the greens which enables the GOP or except you can't always get what you want.

longtime Dems. It is about more progressive Dems respecting more moderate Dems and vice versa. And a party must have some core principles whether more progressive or more centrist (i.e. populist private sector job creation, tax fairness, campaign finance reform, etc.). It is fine to have some difference of opinion on some issues. That should be respected. And yes, you certainly have to recruit candidates that fit the district. So again, unity just means everyone in the big tent respecting everyone else, even if there are some honest disagreements, and working together at the end of the day.

that can win...and the unity tour and the whining about Perez winning the DNC shows clearly, we need to move on and win ...all else is a waste of time and effort...and I will respect those who primary sitting Dems unless criminality is involved...well never.

If we look at past results in the same race, the "populist" Democrat substantially out performed the centrist Democrat who lost the same seat to Zinke less than a year earlier. If we are going to compare races for different offices, the "populist" Democrat (who was outspent 7-1) running against a candidate who had almost unseated an INCUMBENT Democrat Governor less than a year ago lost by less than 7% while the centrist Democrat running for president lost by over 20'%.

Does this show that a populist Democrat with financial support from the DNC can whip a Trump surrogate? Not necessarily. BUT it sure as heck doesn't show the opposite.

asshat only won with 50.1% with a huge financial advantage. That is no huge mandate. However, Quist just didn't have many qualifications and he was a weak debater and weak speaker. They needed someone, at this juncture, more centrist though still populist and with some more qualifications. Quist shot too high for his first time out. If he had other government experience or ran at least a medium sized business or a large business or came with extensive military experience he would have been more qualified. He just wasn't well qualified and prepared for the job and this kind of political race.

Although a "still smarting from 2016" part of me says qualification don't matter.

in Montana.

Denise Juneau

The popular Governor only won by 4% last year.

some people are going not just to excuse the failure of 2016 strategy, but to deny the improved performances when following a more populist approach (and by "populist approach" I am referring to supporting people of all oppressed demographics, workers, people of color, the LGBTQ community, adherents of Islam, undocumented immigrants, etc., and NOT the intentionally divisive recasting of the term as limited solely to the WWC which we continue to see from people who demonstrate an inability and/or unwillingness to discuss the relative merits of leftist and centrist political approaches).

Quist, who had major weaknesses (none of which had to do with being too liberal, like not paying taxes etc) and was outspent 7 to 1, performed twice as well as the 2016 centrist prototype Denise Juneau and three times as well as Hillary Clinton by adhering to populist themes and literally embracing Sanders. In the mayors race in deep red Omaha, a populist outperformed prior centrist candidates notwithstanding what looks for all the world like a deliberate attempt to hurt him by major players in our 2016 coalition. Leftist candidates outright won in red districts in New York and Connecticut.

Trying to simultaneously throw out Bullock as proof of the superiority of the "run centrists" approach while excusing the fact that he barely squeaked by in 2016 AS AN INCUMBANT as the product of a nebulous "bad year" (particularly while ignoring what Quist accomplished) isn't just inconsistent. It is disinformation.

He did better because of Trump's issues. Same thing has happened in other special elections this year.

Sorry but nominating the most leftist candidates​in swing states and red states is a recipe for disaster for the party.

and possibly even accurate, assessment but "it is all Trump follies" is inconsistent with the idea that a centrist with more a moderate stand on the issues would have done better.

A centist would have been able to appeal to more voters in Montana. An ideological candidate by nature only appeals to his or her base only.

This year Dems are doing better because of the national political environment but it was not enough to pull Quist over the finish line. Quist was not a good enough candidate to get over that finish line. I think a centrist might have had a better chance.

IF our improved performance in Montana was ALL due to Trump's clown show, then what our candidate supports, whether a populist theme (as I properly described it above) or a centrist theme doesn't matter.

IF our improved performance is only partially due the the orange freak show, then you are choosing to dismiss a factually undeniable statistical improvement from 2016 in favor of your feeling, belief, and/or speculation that the same prototypical centrist type as Ms. Juneau would have attracted more voters. That is nothing more than restating centrist political theory while totally discounting the importance of known statistical facts.

As I said before, it is possible that Quist's radically better performance than Juneau is indeed due to Trump. To say, however, that the results in Montana show that a centrist would have won is indefensible.

prototypical centrist, the highly qualified Montana Superintendant of Public Education, Denise Juneau, failed twice as badly.

full circle.

I thank you for the conversation

Resist

That's the biggest takeaway. It's happened every time.

because he is so honest and authentic, even though they disagree with him on policy. Sanders coming was probably a good thing. The main problem was Quist was a nice guy but just not well qualified for the job and was not a strong speaker, debater, and campaigner. All in all, he still had a pretty good showing and there was a large vote shift as compared to the presidential race in November.

The presence of an east coast liberal cost us this election.

Quist being a generally weak candidate with no experience, too liberal for the district, personal finance problems and baggage, being heavily outspent by the R's, the fact that this district has been red for 20 years, etc. It seems as though the Sanders rallies drew large numbers of people, and Gianforte had the Trump son come didn't he? Aren't the Trumps east coasters? There are always a number of factors at work, not just one.

If the candidate was picked today I suspect a more centrist and electable candidate would have been picked.

with. He was also accused of fraud by the band he used to play with. Of course, Republicans like Trump get away with this kind of stuff, but Democrats don't seem to. Quist might have won on an integrity campaign otherwise.

actually a good showing.

Montana is a deep red state filled with hard core
Chumpsters.

All things considered he did quite well.