Fr*ggin Montana in play?!!!

[Nazgul35]

This latest poll out of Montana show Bush garnering 46.4% against an unnamed Dem with 42.4%......if this is true, watch for unka KKKarl's head to explode as now the Rocky Mountain states must be defended!!!

http://www.billingsgazette.com/modules/200311poll/1national.php#i

Things are looking up a little bit folks....looks like our message is starting to get out as the elections looms closer....boy bubble boy!!!

:evilgrin:

[Davis_X_Machina]

1. I was laughed off some threads at Daily Kos....

...for suggesting that Dean or Clark could carry every state bordering Canada, including both Dakotas.

[GOPBasher]

11. Not Idaho

Part of Idaho touches Canada, and we won't win that state until hell freezes over. However, I agree that we have a shot at the rest, although North Dakota is a long shot.

[Hawkeye-X]

17. Dean has supporters in Idaho

and Dean himself has made several visit there already. It *WILL* be in play -- Expect a 50 state sweep for Dean, once he's nominated.

Dean can help us take our country back. It isn't Bush's.

Hawkeye-X

[jiacinto]

22. Idaho will be bright red next year

No chance in Hell that it will go blue.

[mndemocrat_29]

25. I am an eternal optimist

But there is no way that we'll win Idaho. Maybe we could try taking a House seat (if one ever opens up), but otherwise Idaho will go red in 2004.

[CMT]

2. yep

Montana can be won. Though at 59% Bush's job approval rating in the state is still pretty high. I think Dems can do well in the south. The latest Time/CNN poll of Bush vs. unnamed Dem has the dem doing best in the west. I think dems have a chance at Colorado, Montana, Nevada, and Arizona.

I think our opportunities in the west far outweigh the south--but I'm not advocating w/o the south either.

[jeter]

14. CMT, YES BROTHER YES

Someone who is thinking. The West is the key. Don't give up on the south. Make a play for Louisiana and Arkansas and even Florida. But our real power comes from: Arizona, Colorado, Montana, and Nevada.

People often use results from previous elections as a reason not to try in these states. But consider this, Gore actually polled well in these states AND NEVER spent any time or money there. Imagine had he made a play for some of those southwestern states?

[janx]

19. Colorado will be tough. We have a Repub governor here

(friend of Chimpy's) and both of our senators are Repub.

HOWEVER--there are some centrists here, and if Dean can reveal himself for the pragmatist that he essentially is, I think he'll be able to pick of some votes in Colorado in the general election.

There are many unaffiliated voters in this state.

[Hawkeye-X]

20. Except that Owens has just become extremely unpopular

based on his "blank check" water "drought" rescue plan.

It was defeated. Expect Ken Salazar to kick Owens out in '06. The redistricting plan that Owens and his Repukes have pushed was the last straw and Ken Salazar drew the line there -- it was very unpopular move made by the Rethuglicans, and needed to be rejected in the next few weeks.

Chimpy was here in my state yesterday and despite him being in a military installation at Ft. Carson, he isn't welcome here anymore.

Colorado is definetely in play -- and Dean has made two visits in Denver, he was well-received, and furthermore the demographics has shown that most of the swingers here in Colorado are independents and Dean has been attracting from all sides.

This is good news for the Democratic Party.

Hawkeye-X

[helleborient]

3. Dean has an office open in Fargo...

Maybe Billings will be next!

[LuminousX]

4. A little attention, and Montana will definately be in play

With Kucinich visiting, if a few more candidates make the effort to visit - visit Butte, visit Bozeman, visit Great Falls (Maelstrom Air Force base), visit Havre, and visit Helena. Okay, so there are too few people to really matter, 3 electoral votes won't make a break an election normally, but the mere fact Bush won't be able to securely count those 3 in his pile is a boon for our side. Right now, with so many candidates, each one could visit each of the major population centers and energize the Democratic base as a whole before the General Election.

[jiacinto]

5. Well

MT went for Bush in 1988 by a 52-46% margin. In 1992 Clinton won it 37-35-26. In 1996 it went for Dole 44-41-13. In 2000 Bush thrashed Gore there58-33-6%. It was one of Nader's best states.

In theory, given how close it was in the 1990s and the late 1980s, it could be in play. But it only has three electoral votes; and, if it is competetive in 2004, then we are already winning.

It could be reachable if the nominee could neutralize the issues of gun, the "war on the west", and social liberalism.

[janx]

6. Ever hear of a town called Bozeman?

Sure Montana can be won.

One problem with politicos and the media is that they don't pay too much attention to the West (as opposed to the west coast).

We like that (because we don't want too much attention or more people moving out here), but it's not good at election time.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

7. Missoula is even more liberal than Bozeman -- and bigger. n/t

[LuminousX]

9. Problem with Bozeman and Belgrade... religious whackos

From the standard fundies to the cults. I guess that region, looking like something God personally crafted, attracts them.

[eileen_d]

10. Uh... what state doesn't have "religious whackos"?

Bozeman and Missoula are both fairly liberal. Even Billings (where I live now) is getting more liberal.

I think Montana ("friggin" as it may be :eyes:) could certainly go for a Dem nationally, and hopefully for governor too.

[Vis Numar]

37. Montana

No way does Billings seem liberal. Who would want to live in that smog-pollution-producing city. It's definetely Cheney-land. Bozeman was very cool, Missoula in second. I do agree that Montana is not liking the southern flavor of Republicanism.

As for Idaho, it's all about Boise, which is becoming a big city, and big cities are Democratic, even SLC. The mountain time zone states are all trending Democratic, some just have a bigger ways to go than others.

They are following the west coast states for Democratic majorities in EV's.

First wave: OR & WA, followed by CA
Second wave: NM
Third wave: AZ, NV
Fourth wave: MT, CO
Fifth wave: ID, WY, UT

We will see the third wave in 2004, but not the fifth until a decade later.

[sandnsea]

29. Large Green population

We have to get the Montana Greenies. Are they inclined to go Dem this year? By the way, Kerry has Angela Monaghan (I think that's right) in Missoula heading up the Kerry campaign there. I think I've got her email if you want it. Montana is definitely doable, absolutely.

[LuminousX]

8. I remember when Butte-Anaconda were labor strongholds

You couldn't get more Democratic. I wonder how Martz came out of that environment?

Pay some attention to the 'forgotten states' and they will turn. Montana pivots on a few points, and all of them could be addressed by 'state's right' kind of attitude.

[sandnsea]

30. Democrat, every election for 100 years

Or however long, still vote Democrat. If you look at a county election map, you'll see Silverbow County shining proud! I think Butte would vote Democrat just to be different from the rest of the state!

[LuminousX]

31. Yet they produced Judy...

That had to be a blow to Butte. The first time in a long time they get a governor and it turned out to be a Republican. Ohh, the irony.

[sandnsea]

32. lol, ah, but they still have Pat

I was looking to see if Angela had opened an office in Montana yet and can't find it, but came across this article.

And Williams recommended a simple slogan for any Democratic gubernatorial candidate. “Had enough?”

http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2003/10/07/build/political/ksullivan.php?nnn=6

[LuminousX]

33. A sizeable portion of my family works for the State

"Had Enough?" represents how they all feel. I think "Yep, Fed Up!" would be the correct response.

Pat is great. That one piece you posted could be passed around to every campaign. It is inspiring. It is the realization that we can't write anything off or take anything for granted. Thanks for posting that.

[GOPBasher]

12. If we're close in Montana,

then we're winning in a huge landslide nationally.

[jeter]

13. I've been saying this for two years

YES, Montana is in play. If we actually play there.

[eileen_d]

15. Here is a little Montana anecdote

re: Republicans being anti-Bush --
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=760888

It would be nice to feel like national candidates gave a damn about my state again. ;) Of course I am aware of the political realities in my state; however, Bush is screwing things up so royally that now's as good a time as any for the Dem candidates to check it out.

[Awsi Dooger]

16. Not in play unless our candidate is ahead by 5+ points nationally

In other words, extremely unlikely and even more irrelevant. Montana will be pure electoral gravy if we are up by 5+.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

18. Upon what do you base this statement?

[Awsi Dooger]

23. Check out the numbers from this old DU thread of mine

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=5453&forum=DCForumID22

That thread provides presidential voting percentages from '88 to '00, notably how each state differs from the national average. Montana is one of dozens of states that tilts distinctly toward one party or the other, in this case the Republicans. In fact, since '88 Montana has become a more severely Republican state in each succeeding election, to the tune of a 25 point Bush edge in a nationally dead even race in 2000.

Therefore, I am robustly skeptical that a Democrat can win Montana in '04, minus an extreme advantage throughout the country. Looking back at my numbers, +5 is actually too low in regard to Montana. In virtually every instance, a particular candidate or local issue is not enough to severely dent the partisan tendencies of the state.

There is far too much rose colored electoral optimism on DU, in regard to states we have virtually no chance to win in a 50/50 scenario. Bill Clinton won by 5 points nationally in '92 and 8 points in '96. Too many here do not take those margins into account, when assessing states Clinton won and whether we can retake them next year.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

27. Statistics and trends

can tell a lot, but they don't take into account a lot of things. It's true that here in Montana the Republicans have had a string of victories, but the end result of that is that they have been in charge of the state for a long time -- and they've run it into the ground. We've got a Republican governor who is the most unpopular in history - she is not running for re-election and all signs point to the Democrat (Schweitzer) taking it. People are pretty fed up with the fiscal mismanagement of the state by the Republicans and we have a good chance of making significant gains in the Legislature. Plus, the high rate of people moving here means that we don't necessarily have the same demographics from one election to the next.

If we get some campaigning by the candidate or high-profile surrogates I think we can take it.

[jiacinto]

21. Again PAN is only part of the formula

Look, I don't mean to shoot you down. But PAN, your theory, only goes so far. It dosen't explain every race.

[Awsi Dooger]

24. Explaining every state is impossible with one theory or formula

Jiacinto, I appreciate your input and don't consider it shooting me down. I read some of the political books you recommended this summer, BTW, and found them helpful and interesting. A belated thank you. And good luck in Iowa, or wherever you decide to settle.

In sports betting, my friends subjectively try to win every wager and wind up struggling to break even. For years, I used to be in the same predicament. Not until I developed situational and statistical formulas designed to win 60% or thereabouts did I begin to thrive ($). Now I bet hundreds of games every year that my mind tell me are the wrong side, but the numbers indicate are likely to win. Invariably, the data triumphs.

Likewise, in politics I use PAN to gain an insight or advantage, so I won't get carried away by silly polls that don't fit the recent history of the state. I'm certainly not informed or skilled enough to weigh factors like gun control in one state and ANWAR in another, so I prefer to ignore them and let my PAN assessments correctly forecast the majority of states, but certainly not every one.

[jiacinto]

36. PAN is only one part of the equation

It's a valid point. But I think you need other variables before you can make a comprehensive formula.

[mndemocrat_29]

26. Montana is definitely in play next year

With an unpopular Republican governor, Montana will be looking to elect a Democrat. Hopefully we'll pick up the governor's mansion and the secretary of state's office, as well as the three electoral votes.

[ebw]

28. Re: Fr*ggin Montana in play?!!!

This is important.

We have Blackfeet, Rocky Boy, Fort Belnap, Fort Peck, Flathead, Crow, and Northern Cheyenne reservations, and seven tribal colleges. We're more than the MOE in Montana.

Ironically, one of TL's Montana contributors is an Abenaki practitioner.

Adio, Kitakitamatsinopowaw and Wado,
Eric

[rucky]

34. Montana is Libertarian Country

they don't like Bush's big spending.

Dean would fit the bill adaquately for the gun-toting fiscal conservatives who have minimal social issues.

[sandnsea]

35. That's only 1/2 the equation

The other half are seriously concerned with social issues and the environment. And even the conservatives want the land managed sensibly, land is almost everything to a Montanan. The family farm is also a concern. And don't forget the large Native American population and those Butte Irish. Montana is not a simple place that fits into a nice neat box.