MT-SEN 2020: Time for Bullock?

[lfromnj]

Likely r bordering on safe to tilt r. Bullock will need a dem friendly environment in 2020 but as an incumbent governor in a D friendly state he can win. He could run for president if he gets a solid record.

Also testers populism in leaking by accident is showing.

[lfromnj]

Now all we need is for Orman to declare as a Dem against Roberts and Mark Begich in Alaska. Then the Democrats can dump insane amounts of money on the Atlas Red State Dem fetish, only to lose them all by 10% while GA, TX and AZ end up within the MoE Republican victories.

I would consider Bullock competetive as he is a popular governor who is known widely and Montana just relected it's dem senator despite him being a fake blue dog who is basically a generic D and also the fact trump hates him. Incumbent governor's can win when fundamentally a normal candidate wouldn't. See florida and nh senate 2018 and 2016

[lfromnj]

I think anyone who is predicting auto wins and stack wipes in what is likely to be a Trump by 20% state is way too overconfident.

Mt Treasurer is just panicking but you could even ask ice spear and he would admit it isn't safe r and he would be one the first to claimants. Red state race is safe r

[lfromnj]

Yeah no one should be calling him bayh 2.0. We just saw with presidential turnout a dem senator win again. I'd say with a D plus 5 or greater environment Bullock wins

[lfromnj]

Despite the politico article I had a feeling Bullock wouldn't be a complete idiot. Anyway I expect cook to move it out of safe r nkw.

[lfromnj]

https://twitter.com/Zachary_Cohen/status/1070305804782329856
Its clear he is running for president or senate. There is no way he just exits politics. Now Cortez Masto has to kidnap his family and children until he runs for senate in 2020.

[lfromnj]

Only one of those people lost in a landslide though, which was exactly my point. As opposed to those three Democrats who just lost in a landslide in the deepest of blue states in a blue wave a month ago.

I thought you'd have gotten over your PTSD about red states electing Democrats after Bredesen, Heitkamp, and Edmondson got destroyed, Espy, McCaskill, Donnelly, Sutton, Hubbell, and Cordray got thumped, and Manchin and Tester had close calls and probably would've lost too if the GOP was more competent. And all this brutal carnage in the midst of a D+9 Democratic wave. Won't be satisfied until there's not a single red state Democrat left, huh?

Who cares by how much they lost, it’s totally irrelevant. The mere fact that these Democrats managed to win in Trump +40, Trump +28, Trump +20, etc. states despite "polarization being at a historic high" or whatever is telling in and of itself. McCaskill and Heitkamp are pretty bad examples because they were extremely weak and unpopular incumbents who ran godawful campaigns which essentially threw away two very winnable races, and if anything they should have lost by more than 11 and 5 points, respectively. Sutton certainly didn’t get "thumped", in fact I don’t remember the last time a Democrat came within 3 points of winning a gubernatorial race in SD (the state hasn’t elected a Democratic governor since 1974, the longest-running streak of GOP governors in the country). Espy getting "thumped" is also news to me (and most other posters, I would assume) since pretty much everyone except you would agree that he did a lot better than he should have done, and Hubbell literally only lost by 3%, lol. Donnelly's 5-point loss was a little more surprising, but let’s not forget that he actually did 13 points than his party's last presidential candidate. When was the last time a blue state Republican did that well? Yeah.. exactly. Any Republican incumbent in a Clinton +18 state would have been DOA and headed for a 12+ point loss from day one, even in a GOP wave.

Also, comparing Senate (Tester, Manchin, etc.) with gubernatorial races (Baker, Hogan, etc.) is a disingenuous and deliberately misleading apples to oranges comparison. Baker and Hogan would have lost by 25+ points if they had run for Senate in 2018 (or any other year, really), and you know it.

Maybe Atlas is right and Daines is really heavily favored and I know nothing about my state's politics, but given this forum's (poor) track record when it comes to predicting Montana elections I’ll happily stick with my prediction. Underestimate Bullock/MT Dems to your heart's content, Republicans, but don’t say you weren’t warned when the first poll of this race shows Bullock up by 8 points or something like that.

Its clear Bullock makes it competetive but I can't remember the last time a president carried a state by double digits and an incumbent senator from the same party of the president
Ted stevens doesn't count as he was literally FOUND GUILTY of the charges. Polarization is just super high.


However what makes Bullock relatively popular in Montana. I don't get the populist feeling from him and more like a neoliberal generic white D feeling. For exampel Tester literally has ads about stupid haircuts which persuade the swing voters along with his 7 fingers. Brian Sweitzer literally vetoed bills with a veto brand. What is Bullocks #populist part?

[lfromnj]

I don't know why so many folks think he has no chance to get the nomination. The list of pros for a Bullock nomination is far longer than the cons, even from a neutral perspective. Because he is a white male? Wouldn't this be the very definition of identity politics? Sure, he's from a state with just a million people, but it's not that only large state governors have ended up in the Oval Office. In early 1976, nobody knew who Jimmy Carter was for example.

Because people want someone progressive and they think montana is a rural hicks state so Bullock is John bell edwards

[lfromnj]

I don't know why so many folks think he has no chance to get the nomination. The list of pros for a Bullock nomination is far longer than the cons, even from a neutral perspective. Because he is a white male? Wouldn't this be the very definition of identity politics? Sure, he's from a state with just a million people, but it's not that only large state governors have ended up in the Oval Office. In early 1976, nobody knew who Jimmy Carter was for example.

Because people want someone progressive and they think montana is a rural hicks state so Bullock is John bell edwards

Well, it's not that Steve Bullock is a conservative Democrat as some people think. He's socially as liberal as you can get in Montana (pro-choice, unlike JBE) and implemented campaign finance reform, which is an important issue for progressives. He also supports labor unions and has moved to the left on gun control.

Yeah but the first impression is montana is a rural hicks state and that's what matters. No white man will be the nominee imo besides biden beto or bernie

[lfromnj]

If Bullock can't see the simple political reality then I'm doubtful he'd actually be a good Senate candidate.

he may not understand the national political climate but he can understand Montana's politics being a popular incumbent governor
Anyway who would be a better candidate?

[lfromnj]

I think you missed the point of the Racist Hick comments. I'm simply pointing out facts, not celebrating it. I supported Bredesen, Edmondson, Heitkamp, etc. MT Treasurer hates most red state Democrats but still tends to overestimate them, I guess to keep his expectations low because Republicans were burnt so many times in red states in the past. But it's pretty obvious at this point that things have changed considering the slaughterfest 2018 was for red state Democrats even in a D+9 Democratic wave.

I think you were the one that missed my point? I obviously know that you, as a fairly partisan Democrat, support these candidates. And I'm well aware that you believe that your "hicks" narrative is a fact. I'm simply saying it's not a fact. Let's not forget how you so adamantly denied the possibility of a Senator Doug Jones until the last moment.

And in regards to the bolded, no, that was not clear at all. Bredesen was running in a better environment against a weaker candidate but in a far more hostile state. The latter won out, which was always a very strong possibility.

I should have worded that differently. Bredesen was running a stronger campaign, which is what I meant. It was due to the fact that he was running in TN, a far more hostile state than IN for Dems, that didn't make his position better than Bayh's, which is why I thought Blackburn would win back then.

Oh, how could I forget Alabama? A literal pedophile losing by 1 point isn't exactly a strong rebuttal to the theory. I mean, it was a literal pedophile...and he only lost by 1 point. Because it was a psychotically partisan red state. So if anything it adds to the polarization/Racist Hick narrative, not takes away from it. The only error was that my theory was a tiny bit too aggressive in the case of truly exceptional circumstances, otherwise it was pretty much spot on. Luckily, unlike many people here, I can learn from my mistakes. Which is why my upgraded mind model now takes into account pedophilia if it is present (except in Oklahoma, where the Republican would win even if they were a pedophile.)

In short, if your argument for why red states aren't extremely partisan and polarized is "a pedophile Republican lost by 1 point in a red state", well...all I can say is I rest my case.

Anyway, I also remember ND-Sen, TN-Sen, OK-Gov, etc, races in crimson red states that Atlas insisted were toss ups and said I was insane for rating them safe R, only for the Democrats in those races to get BTFO by double digits. Seems the latter might be a tad more relevant due to recency, plus the fact that it's unlikely there will be any pedophile Republican candidates in 2020.

Don't forget it was also a special election
Roy Moore would have won if it was with presidential turnout.If Roy moore wins the nomination in 2020 I would still bet on him.

[lfromnj]

Tester has a few thoughts on Bullock not running for Senate in 2020.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/10/2020-elections-senate-presidential-1093341

He might have fire in the belly, but if he thinks he's Presidential material, he also has sh*t for brains.

Got to love those #populist quotes

[lfromnj]

Anyone else think former Russian Ambassador Michael McFaul would be a good candidate?

lol

Anyway the only good candidate is Bullock. Cortez Masto should basically focus all her effort on recruitment for senate races on trying to recruit Bullock and then perhaps Beto.

Any other state

Georgia-I think Abrams isn't that great and basically a generic D but she isn't a bad recruit for fundraising ability but she already seems interested

Colorado- Gardner is basically doomed anyway.

NC- NC dems do have a lot of random benchers like Jeff Jackson who all seem interested

AZ- They could try for Mark Kelly but Gallego is a good enough candidate(Charismatic and a veteran)

Tx- Beto would actually make a diff due to his INSANE name rec advantage against lazy Cornyn

KY- Honestly the best thing Cortez Masto could do is to recruit an awful dem candidate. D's will be desperate to take out Cocaine Mitch despite it being Safe R so if she recruited a large socon and blocked everyone else it would atleast prevent any money given to him.