Most people have said that the race could go either way, and they are right. I'm not sure why you are so obsessed with the presidential vote when it is basically irrelevant. This has been discussed before, but unlike in GA-06, Clinton was an awful fit for the state and that result was hardly the norm. Percentage-wise, Trump didn't even do much better than Romney here (remember: that was the year when Tester won fairly easily as well), and he did worse than Bush II either time (again: 2000 and 2004 also being years where Democrats did very well down-ballot).
The statewide Democratic Party is very strong for several reasons and shouldn't be underestimated. Besides, if Democrats are so motivated that Ossoff can get to 48% in an inelastic Southern suburban district, there is little reason to believe that they will stay home in Montana.
My curiosity was because both Romney and Trump won the state convincingly, Daines won the state in 2014, and on the federal level, Tester is the only statewide Democrat who is also a federal officer. The State Democratic Party may be doing well (they hold the governorship) but as I understand, the legislature is convincingly Republican.
The coalition in Kansas 04 and Georgia 06 had unique circumstances that enabled the Democrat to get close. In KS-04, Brownback's unpopularity was a major factor (as well as moderate Republicans voting Democratic) and in GA - 06, there was a natural suburban constituency for Ossoff, because of Clinton's close margins here.
My question here, in Montana, what exactly does Quist have to draw on in terms of a coalition on the federal level? Polarization is especially heavy for federal offices.
I'd predict
Gianforte 52-47% at this point based on the data from Montana. That's the federal margin minus a couple of points to account for Democratic enthusiasm (Daines won 57%, Trump and Romney won 55%, Zinke won 55-56%).
