Montana Going to the Right: Some Evidence

[barfbag]

Other than 1972, 1980, 1984, 2000, and 2004 all of which were Republican victories and 3 of the 5 were Republican landslides, Montana has never really been overly red at the presidential level. Your data is insightful. A lot of us forget about such states.

[barfbag]

Other than 1972, 1980, 1984, 2000, and 2004 all of which were Republican victories and 3 of the 5 were Republican landslides, Montana has never really been overly red at the presidential level. Your data is insightful. A lot of us forget about such states.

Considering Romney lost by about 4%, consider Montana pretty red as it went 55.4-41.7% for Romney. That's 57.4-39.7% in a very close election, and 58.6-38.5% in a Bush 2004-like victory. These are just some trend updates as democrats have always been competitive in Montana when it comes statewide, however that claim is being challenged.  Montana is apparently supposed to be one of the hardest hit states by Obama Care, so that won't help either. in 2008 Obama was elected on hope and promise and performed much better in the Midwest, Great Plains (except Oklahoma), and Mountain West than any other democrat usually does, this kind of explains Obama's massive improvement from Kerry there. Therefore 2008 was an anomaly for many states (Indiana, Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana). Montana is sometimes viewed as a not-so-red version of Wyoming in most cases.

They won't be re-electing Max Baucus or his mistress back to the senate. He's just as bad as Anthony Weiner and the media covers for him.

[barfbag]

Actually. this isn't much of an indication of anything.

Obama competed in Montana in 2008, but didn't in 2012.

You can see the same "trend" if you look at Indiana and Missouri.

Indiana was an anomaly in 2008. Missouri is a true trend if you look at numbers. When Democrats win big, Missouri can be close. Montana is a teaser for Democrats once in a while. Sometimes it's as red as Texas.

[barfbag]

It irks me how Montana and the Dakotas elect Democrats to the senate, but incumbents are judged based on what they do for the state and if all the Democrats know they need to do is a small project or two for their buddy from one of those states, then it will be in the budget to keep the voters happy with their congressman. It's not like there's much gerrymandering to be done to change their constituents.

[barfbag]

I'll just say that you can't base a trend off of one election. Sorry if someone already said that, I just read the first post.

This is very correct. Trends must be continuous throughout the least amount of elections in which both parties have won an equal amount of presidencies. States like Utah trend all the time because there's nowhere else for them to go.

[barfbag]

It irks me how Montana and the Dakotas elect Democrats to the senate, but incumbents are judged based on what they do for the state and if all the Democrats know they need to do is a small project or two for their buddy from one of those states, then it will be in the budget to keep the voters happy with their congressman. It's not like there's much gerrymandering to be done to change their constituents.

Yes, how dare those Montanans and Dakotans expect their elected officials to do things for their state instead of adhering to agendas set by activists in Washington and giving tax cuts to rich people in Texas and New York.

What are you talking about? Why wouldn't I be irked when the other party wins a state that my party is stronger in? You make it sound like I have a problem with how and why voters vote the way they do.