MT-SEN 2020: Time for Bullock?

[Skye]

I don't recall many people thinking the race would be particularly close, but it was.

Well, then those people simply didn’t follow the race very closely. My prediction was Bullock +3, he won by 4. For some reason, Atlas really tends to overestimate incumbents in Montana (Bullock in 2016, Tester in 2018, now Daines).

As for the MA/NH comparison, the thing is that "red" states like Montana (which is obviously nowhere near as Republican as MA is Democratic), West Virginia, Alabama, Missouri, Kansas, etc. are actually very open to splitting tickets, which simply isn’t the case with blue states like MA or NH anymore. Collins is basically the only one left, and ME isn’t even that Democratic anyway. CO wasn’t really all that blue in 2014 either, and yet Gardner is basically DOA in 2020 in a Clinton +5(!) state.

Governor Gonzalez, Governor Jealous, and Governor Hallquist are very happy that blue states don't split tickets, and especially not in a D+9 Democratic wave. And Governor Sutton, Governor Edmondson, Governor Cordray, and Governor Hubbell are thrilled that red states love to split tickets, and that they probably loved doing so even more in a D+9 Democratic wave.

Senator Rosendale, Senator Moore, Senator Morrisey, Senator Renacci, Governor Gianforte, Governor Vitter, Governor Kobach, etc. are all very happy that red states don’t split tickets anymore.

Some blue states might elect a moderate/liberal Republican governor every now and then, but no Republican can win a Senate race in any blue state these days. Scott Brown's special election victory was the exception to the rule, and he got btfo in 2012.

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?

Are you talking about yourself? You are always saying snarky comments about how red states are obviously full of 'hicks' who won't vote Dem anymore, and IndyRep just listed a few Dems that won in red states. Polarization doesn't just work one way.

That said, this race begins as a tossup (w/maybe Daines in advantage). It's clear that Bullock, being an incumbent by the time of the election, is clearly in a better position than Bredesen. But then again, Bredesen was clearly in a better position than Bayh and lost like him.

[Skye]

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.

[Skye]

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1070348041796886528?s=19
This is a non-denial, he probably just didn't think he was on tape.

That wouldn't make sense though? Even if wasn't caught on tape, the statement surely would have found a way to the news?

[Skye]

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.

I’m far from a Democratic hack and I still think this race is a Toss-up. If there’s a Democratic tidal wave like everyone here seems to think, it will hit pretty much every state. There’s a lot of uncertainty in this race, and I’m certainly not going to make the mistake of trusting the same people who unironically told me that AL-SEN 2017 was Safe R, sorry. Could Blackburn win by a lot? Absolutely, but if she does, there’s no way Democrats are holding states like MO or IN, winning MT/WV by double digits, or making TX competitive, etc., and more likely that the Democratic "wave" will be a "ripple" instead. Senate race outcomes are highly correlated with one another, they don’t occur in a vacuum.

The demogaphics for TN (60%ish white evangelical voting population, very white Dixie state, etc) are infinitely worse for Democrats than in states like MO, IN, TX, etc. Seeing MO and IN decided by squeakers while TN votes 8 points for Blackburn is well within the cards.

We’re talking about a candidate who swept every county in 2006 and won by 39 points in said state, when demographics were slightly better for Dems but still very unfavorable. He has the adventage of being able to tap into a reservoir of residual goodwill/nostalgia and is uniquely suited to appeal to high propensity and center-right voters who are fine with Bill Lee but just can’t bring themselves to vote for a "shrill extremist/lunatic" over their Phil Bredesen.

I guess we’ll see on Tuesday, but I guarantee you if Blackburn actually wins by double digits on election night, then Democrats will have a lot bigger problems to worry about than this race.

Is your logic about Montana seriously any different than these arguments you made prior to Bredesen getting completely crushed on Election Day as Dems would go on to win the House vote by 8-9 points?

I don’t know why you’re so unwilling to accept that polarization in senate races is a very real thing since you clearly got egg on your face about Heidi’s retail politics and Bredi’s 39 point 2006 governor win.

I think that, aside from the Tossup rating, IndyRep's analysis was spot on, especially the bolded part (he misjudged TX, like most of us, maybe because we underestimated the strength of the D trend there). And, since he didn't deny the possibility of a big Blackburn win, I'm not sure what you're suggesting.