Reality check- no
However, it might not be as hard as the rational observers believe! This is simply because of their extremely low population. We saw Montana become borderline battleground in 2008. The Dakotas were also competed in but not very close that year. First of all, the Democrats would have to win by nearly double digits nationally. Secondly, an effort of town halls and advertising is needed. However, it's only 3 EV and how would Democrats feel if they went all out for Montana the way they went for Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida last year and still lost. Let's say they win Montana because of lots of money spent on ads, but lose Pennsylvania? Montana isn't a state worth sacrificing for. In reality it's possible but it sounds like another one of those Democrat dreams.
Basically I agree with the points you made.
If reasonable, good-quality polls suggest MT could be closer than expected (meaning a single-digit lead for the GOP candidate), it may be worth to invest money and efforts on a modest level. But usually I would recommend my party to heavily focus on Rust and Sun Belt toss-up states rather than MT with its three electoral votes. I also question that a presence of Steve Bullock would be a game changer. He may keep it closer than usual, but national elections are different than state-wide contests. Nominating Mitt Romney didn’t turn MA into a battleground as well.
