MT-AL: Rob Quist (D) vs. Greg Gianforte (R) vs. Mark Wicks (L), May 25

[Shadows]

NYT

Rob Quist          67,604   49.4%   
Greg Gianforte  61,753   45.1%
Wicks                                 5.5%

Missoula (25/52 precincts)  -


Rob Quist          19.499   61.3%   
Greg Gianforte   10,866   34.2%
Wicks                                 4.5%

Billings - Yellowstone (28/42 in)

[Shadows]

                          Quist vs Clinton

Yellowstone -         36.6       31.4
Gallatin -               53.8      45.1
Missoula -              61.3      51.9
Cascade -              42.8       35.2
Lewis & Clark -       52.8       41
Ravalli -                 37.0      27.6
Deer Lodge -          62.4      48.9
Jefferson -             37.5       29.8
Big Horn -              36.8      49.4
Chouteau -             37.0      28.1

[Shadows]

                         Quist vs Clinton

Yellowstone -         36.6       31.4
Gallatin -               53.8      45.1
Missoula -              61.3      51.9
Cascade -              42.8       35.2
Lewis & Clark -       52.8       41
Ravalli -                 37.0      27.6
Deer Lodge -          62.4      48.9
Jefferson -             37.5       29.8
Big Horn -              36.8      49.4
Chouteau -             37.0      28.1

Quist to Bullock is a better comparison.

Absolutely given Clinton lost by 20% but they don't have that comparison unfortunately !

[Shadows]

Now I'm upset I changed my prediction to 49-47 instead of sticking with 52-45. The lesson tonight: Beet is too optimistic. Need to increase my pessimism.

Are you trying to entertain people here?

[Shadows]

Amanda Curtis would've made this race competitive, tbh.

Are you kidding?

Yeah, I doubt we'd have been hearing a steady stream of oppo dumps about her performing at nudist resorts or shady dealings over her rental homes for a couple of months..

Lost by 18% in 2014, atleast Quist is keeping it close !

[Shadows]

Now I'm upset I changed my prediction to 49-47 instead of sticking with 52-45. The lesson tonight: Beet is too optimistic. Need to increase my pessimism.

Are you trying to entertain people here?

No, why? Although it would be nice if the people constantly attacking me and accusing me of all kinds of BS apologized instead and recognized me as one of the smarter posters on here. But that will never happen.

This "I" think is better rather than talking of yourself as a 3rd person "Beet is X, Beet is Y" !

[Shadows]

Quist' win will not only send a message to Republicans, but Democrats as well.

The message is we need a national popular vote and other electoral reforms for true democracy. Quist would have won easily in DC, but we don't get a seat in Congress. We must also resolutely convince people that this is just. In the meantime, we need to run 3rd way centrists like Joe Manchin, not far left kooks.

You do realize Quist is massively over-performing Clinton's number in a race which Zinke wins by 15-20% every election off. This was a 20% loss seat, Curtis lost by 18% in 2014. Quist is keeping it close, let all the results come in !

[Shadows]

Amanda Curtis would've made this race competitive, tbh.

Are you kidding?

Yeah, I doubt we'd have been hearing a steady stream of oppo dumps about her performing at nudist resorts or shady dealings over her rental homes for a couple of months..

Lost by 18% in 2014, atleast Quist is keeping it close !

Totally different national environment, and that was after the previous Democratic incumbent had to drop out because of a scandal. Quist had a golden opportunity and blew it.

Golden opportunity on a seat Zinke won for 20 years, Clinton lost by 20% to Trump & where Democrats have never even had a 4% victory margin in many years (even in their best performances).

Yea right - Golden opportunity - Alternative facts !

[Shadows]

Greg Gianforte         91,623   47.9%   
Rob Quist                88,590   46.3%

Gianforte pulling had. I guess the initial 5/6 margin of victory will hold true !

[Shadows]

DQ numbers -

Greg Gianforte (Republican)    48.0%   94,360
Rob Quist (Democratic)    46.2%   90,811
Mark Wicks (Libertarian)    5.7%   11,244


Gianforte-Momentum !

[Shadows]

The whole 4/5% margin came true. Anyways, 3/4th of the votes were in - It was naive of atlas to think the remaining votes (many hard right folks) will have so much swing due to the Greg assaulting a "liberal reporter" !

[Shadows]

At this rate it would end up 10% odd, still an improvement over the 20% but clearly not good enough !

Tester has got a tough race in 2018! And lol @ people thinking this will hurt Gianforte, Republicans get a big boost out an assault ! If Trump assaults a CNN or NBC reporter, his ratings will probably move on !

[Shadows]

A reminder that the DCCC spent a tenth on this race what they've spent in GA-6 so far.

Quist has also raised millions of dollars, getting a fundraising advantage over The Piano Man.

Quiet, it just easier to blame the DCCC then to admit that left-wing populism isn't some magic elixir that is going to win over rural voters.  

Is that the new meme, that Bernie can't win rural whites?

All of Bernie-backed candidates (outside of the NH delegate) has lost and in some cases they underperformed Clinton.

You continue to make false statements like Trump. VT LT Gov. was Bernie backed who won when the establishment candidate got Gov. Lost.

Pramila Jayapal won in Washington (for Congress). Nanette Barragan won in CA-44 (for Congress).
Jamie Raskin (1st timer) won in Maryland (for Congress).

And I could go on about Gabbard or Kaptor or Grijavlva or Ellison, but they have been elected before. So let's leave them out.

Rick Nolan won by 2K votes in MN-08 (for US Congress) in a district which Trump won 54-39% in 2016. He massively over-performed Hillary !

Apart from that you people winning multiple elections for State Senate, State Rep, City Council, etc.

But you will keep making false statements like Trump & you will sh*t on Bernie because you are a political hack !

[Shadows]

We can win these voters for sure (here's me being optimistic), but it'll take 3rd way Clintonite centrists like Jim Justice, John Bel Edwards, and Joe Manchin, not far-left purity troll-endorsed candidates who are foisted on the party by the likes of ssuperflash and jfern.

Ah, yes, let's just keep doing the exact same thing we did in 2016. That worked out really well.

Suburban whites across the board are more liberal then rural whites, since a good portion of them are college educated.

If you want to win over rural voters, you are going to have to shift to the right on both economics and  social issues and I know that is something you don't want to do.

You really think Democrats couldn't successfully appeal to rural voters stricken by massive economic anxiety with policies that involved broad wealth redistribution?

History says no.

Just look at the type of Democrats who had any kind of success in those regions. Some on the left don't want to hear it, but left-wing economics isn't some silver bullet that will win over these type of voters.

You have made comments showing very little intellect & continue to make false statements (like Trump) & acting like a political hack.

The Democratic party under FDR & Truman were wild left on economics & won rural white voters & voters everywhere in huge margins. No1 could touch FDR who is considered one of the greatest POTUS' in history.

There is absolutely no statistical or empirical evidence to say rural whites are economically very conservative in which case Rand Paul or Ted Cruz would be the nominee & not Trump. Obama, the so-called Kenya born Muslim socialist communist won the rural votes in Iowa.

As we type, Quist is going to lost by 7% odd, much better than Hillary's 21% margin. KS-04 went from 30% to 6% loss, a massive boost for the Democrats - Both ran as unabashed liberals. Jason Kander who ran a pretty liberal candidacy ran 15-16% points ahead of Hillary or so.

Bernie Sanders was running 10% ahead of Hillary in all polls after a gruelling primary campaign. So you can keep making generalized statements which are completely political hackery & have no business with reality.

[Shadows]

We can win these voters for sure (here's me being optimistic), but it'll take 3rd way Clintonite centrists like Jim Justice, John Bel Edwards, and Joe Manchin, not far-left purity troll-endorsed candidates who are foisted on the party by the likes of ssuperflash and jfern.

Ah, yes, let's just keep doing the exact same thing we did in 2016. That worked out really well.

Suburban whites across the board are more liberal then rural whites, since a good portion of them are college educated.

If you want to win over rural voters, you are going to have to shift to the right on both economics and  social issues and I know that is something you don't want to do.

You really think Democrats couldn't successfully appeal to rural voters stricken by massive economic anxiety with policies that involved broad wealth redistribution?

History says no.

Just look at the type of Democrats who had any kind of success in those regions. Some on the left don't want to hear it, but left-wing economics isn't some silver bullet that will win over these type of voters.

You have made comments showing very little intellect & continue to make false statements (like Trump) & acting like a political hack.

The Democratic party under FDR & Truman were wild left on economics & won rural white voters & voters everywhere in huge margins. No1 could touch FDR who is considered one of the greatest POTUS' in history.

There is absolutely no statistical or empirical evidence to say rural whites are economically very conservative in which case Rand Paul or Ted Cruz would be the nominee & not Trump. Obama, the so-called Kenya born Muslim socialist communist won the rural votes in Iowa.

As we type, Quist is going to lost by 7% odd, much better than Hillary's 21% margin. KS-04 went from 30% to 6% loss, a massive boost for the Democrats - Both ran as unabashed liberals. Jason Kander who ran a pretty liberal candidacy ran 15-16% points ahead of Hillary or so.

Bernie Sanders was running 10% ahead of Hillary in all polls after a gruelling primary campaign. So you can keep making generalized statements which are completely political hackery & have no business with reality.

I know Franklin Delano Roosevelt. My great-grandparents voted for Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Bernie Sanders is no Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

As someone who has does significant amount of research on FDR while studying the great depression (FDR is my favorite politician) & Eleanor Roosevelt (The most remarkable 1st lady & an iconic political figure) a few years ago, Bernie Sanders & FDR are uncanny & strikingly similar in tone, policies, ideology, party conflicts, current political (& somewhat economic climate).

My support for Bernie Sanders is largely due to the fact that he is literally as close to a FDR that one can have. If FDR would have to be re-incarnated, he would probably be born as Sanders today !

[Shadows]

Fellow forum lefties pls stop fighting amongst yourselves and become hardcore misanthropes like me.  Realize that most Americans are terrible

I've known people are terrible since I was a kid. White Americans have been up to now, and even now, better than most people. You guys elected a N_g__ president. How many countries would that happen? Even Sonia Gandhi had to step down in 2004. You haven't seen Chinese people. Their nationalism is off the charts. But I've always known that the masses are not decent, anywhere.

That's why it's always bothered me that for the past 14 years, since Howard Dean's campaign in 2003, you've always had "progressives" -- whether it was Markos or Thomas Frank back in the day, or Sanders more recently -- attack the Democrats for being too moderate and compromising when they should just "stand up for their values." "I'd rather someone who says what they thinks, even if they lose," they always say. If I stood up for my values I'd be crushed. I've known that since I was 13 years old. That's what I think. I think Bill Clinton knew that too, which is why he did what he did. I feel sorry that so many hate him now. The only thing we can hope for is half a loaf of bread and gradual, incremental change.

Bernie Sanders' folks are asking for atleast half a loaf while you are proposing nothing, not even crumbs.

How of this half a loaf - This it total & utter annihilation of the middle class -

[Shadows]

We can win these voters for sure (here's me being optimistic), but it'll take 3rd way Clintonite centrists like Jim Justice, John Bel Edwards, and Joe Manchin, not far-left purity troll-endorsed candidates who are foisted on the party by the likes of ssuperflash and jfern.

Ah, yes, let's just keep doing the exact same thing we did in 2016. That worked out really well.

Suburban whites across the board are more liberal then rural whites, since a good portion of them are college educated.

If you want to win over rural voters, you are going to have to shift to the right on both economics and  social issues and I know that is something you don't want to do.

You really think Democrats couldn't successfully appeal to rural voters stricken by massive economic anxiety with policies that involved broad wealth redistribution?

History says no.

Just look at the type of Democrats who had any kind of success in those regions. Some on the left don't want to hear it, but left-wing economics isn't some silver bullet that will win over these type of voters.

You have made comments showing very little intellect & continue to make false statements (like Trump) & acting like a political hack.

The Democratic party under FDR & Truman were wild left on economics & won rural white voters & voters everywhere in huge margins. No1 could touch FDR who is considered one of the greatest POTUS' in history.

There is absolutely no statistical or empirical evidence to say rural whites are economically very conservative in which case Rand Paul or Ted Cruz would be the nominee & not Trump. Obama, the so-called Kenya born Muslim socialist communist won the rural votes in Iowa.

As we type, Quist is going to lost by 7% odd, much better than Hillary's 21% margin. KS-04 went from 30% to 6% loss, a massive boost for the Democrats - Both ran as unabashed liberals. Jason Kander who ran a pretty liberal candidacy ran 15-16% points ahead of Hillary or so.

Bernie Sanders was running 10% ahead of Hillary in all polls after a gruelling primary campaign. So you can keep making generalized statements which are completely political hackery & have no business with reality.

But the sad truth is rural voters vote on culture issues before economic issues FDR won so well with economics because he didn't touch civil rights with a 20 foot poll. That is Trump's appeal he makes cultural warrior issues his bread an butter

That is 100% true - Guns, abortion, gay rights, religious issues, opposition to affirmative action etc etc - Cultural conservatism is a massive problem for Democrats. Working Class & Middle class folks will vote against their own economic self interest due to socio-cultural issues. That will change as baby boomers die & more millennials come in - Millennials will be 45% of the electorate by 2024.

(There's a reason the GOP has lost 6 out of the last 7 Popular votes & needed a so-called "War President" to win in 2004).

FDR's administration was crazy - It had nothern hippie uber progressives & conservative segregationists from the South being bullied by FDR to support his economic agenda. However, FDR did do something for African Americans - He signed the historic Executive Order 8802 which banned hiring based on race. This massively helped African Americans & shifted them to the Democrats from the GOP. But yes, he could never go forward with legislations related to race & civil rights !

[Shadows]

I know Franklin Delano Roosevelt. My great-grandparents voted for Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Bernie Sanders is no Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

+100. And there is no Great Depression for almost 4 years NOW, as it was by the time of FDR election. I admire FDR, but US now is not what it was in November 1932.... And after depression was ... well, mitigated by 1937-38, even FDR began to have some problems and to lose some "initial supporters" (in the South, for example, which gradually began to doubt him at least..).

Another untrue statement. FDR won every single state in the South in 1940 - To repeat, every single one & had 449 Electoral college votes.

The great depression will never be similar to any even that has happened after that (as someone who has studied it a bit), but the conditions in many ways are remarkable similar - Similar rates of tax rates, falling real wages for the middle & lower class, massive income inequality, stock market crash & slowdown, abuse of power by financial institutions, concentration of economic & political power.

If people are looking for exact replication of the Great Depression, it may never come in human history !

[Shadows]

Democrats got like 20-25% of the vote in ND against Trump so ND will be very hard anyways & saying Heitkamp is favored big could one like one of those NH fetishers.

Anyways, Gianforte has like 90% in Garfield county. The polarization in some of the rural areas is absolutely crazy. Gianforte could have killed a person & they still would have voted !

[Shadows]

I know Franklin Delano Roosevelt. My great-grandparents voted for Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Bernie Sanders is no Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

+100. And there is no Great Depression for almost 4 years NOW, as it was by the time of FDR election. I admire FDR, but US now is not what it was in November 1932.... And after depression was ... well, mitigated by 1937-38, even FDR began to have some problems and to lose some "initial supporters" (in the South, for example, which gradually began to doubt him at least..).

Another untrue statement. FDR won every single state in the South in 1940 - To repeat, every single one & had 449 Electoral college votes.

The great depression will never be similar to any even that has happened after that (as someone who has studied it a bit), but the conditions in many ways are remarkable similar - Similar rates of tax rates, falling real wages for the middle & lower class, massive income inequality, stock market crash & slowdown, abuse of power by financial institutions, concentration of economic & political power.

If people are looking for exact replication of the Great Depression, it may never come in human history !

Naaturally - he did. It was a SOLID South then. But a lot of Southern politicians began quietly (and in some cases - openly) sabotage him and his programseven before. Remember "Conservative Manifesto"? Or "Texas Regulars"?. It was a begiining of end for FDR coalition of 1932-36

It was not just the South, but conservative faction was always opposed to FDR who he bullied, conducted primaries & defeated & connected personally with people to win big & bypass them. Your comments about the South are totally untrue & paints an incorrect picture of history.

FDR won every single Southern state in 1936 (against massive opposition from conservatives & in general  all financial elites, it was FDR vs everyone else) & again in 1940 (when he had a mini rebellion & even turned down the nomination at the convention) & then again in 1948 - Every single time. The Republican won 0 states in the South in 1948 against Truman when Truman was supposed to destroyed in an election where his upset is considered to be far greater than Trump. Truman won every Southern state bar 4 which went to Thurmond, an Ex-democrat, who opposed Truman trying to end segregation! Thurmond as senator would provide the longest filibuster to the the Civil Rights & he was a raging racist. And Truman ran as a raging liberal by today's standards & ran on Single payer (FDR ran as a wild left economic candidate).

Democrats won only 8 states in 1952, 6 of them were in the deep South, the other 2 were KY & WV. In 1956 or 1960 or 1964 - Democrats have won in the South in every of these elections over the GOP - For atleast 30 years on a stretch! This talk of ending of the FDR coalition around 1936 in the South is a completely false statement. The South was a strong bastion for Democrats

[Shadows]

With more of Missoula coming in, the margin is down to 6% (not bad from a 20% loss). Still looks hard for Tester in 2018, but doable considering Quist had some issues. Gianforte without the assault is still a terrible candidate with religious nutjob views & uber conservative stances.

This was too polarized (still 90%+ of Trump's voters still like him). Give him time to fail. This seat will be in play in 2018 & surely in 2020 (when more millennials come in & baby boomers die) ! Montana will be in play for the Democrats in the long term !

[Shadows]

Zinke has held this for 20 years & didn't fall even in the anti-Bush & Obama wave years of 2006 & 2008. If this would fall, it would be beyond a landslide for House Republicans. Republicans hold close to 25 seats in NY & CA alone. Democrats have never needed the Montana House to win a landslide election.

Trump won by 21%, Gianforte by 6%. A 15% Swing is pretty big. And Ryan Zinke won by 15%. If you have a 9% swing everywhere from 2016 House results , then Republicans are facing a landslide loss !

[Shadows]

Greg Gianforte
Rep.
188,580   50.3%   

Rob Quist
Dem.
164,667   44.0   

Mark Wicks
Lib.
21,340   5.7



98% reporting (666 of 681 precincts)

[Shadows]

+100. And there is no Great Depression for almost 4 years NOW, as it was by the time of FDR election. I admire FDR, but US now is not what it was in November 1932.... And after depression was ... well, mitigated by 1937-38, even FDR began to have some problems and to lose some "initial supporters" (in the South, for example, which gradually began to doubt him at least..).

Another untrue statement. FDR won every single state in the South in 1940 - To repeat, every single one & had 449 Electoral college votes.

It seems to me that you are not reading what other people write before beginning to write yourself.

Of course he did - after all it was solid South which was ready to vote for much weaker candidates, then FDR. But have you ever heard about "Conservative manifesto" (written, BTW, by Democratic senator)? About "Texas regulars", which all were registered Democrats? About solid resistance (including - on part of many Democrats) to FDR attempts to pack the Supreme Court or  purge his party opponents (usualy - conservative Southerners) from Senate? If in 1933-36 almost all (even conservative) Democrats supported most of the Roosevelt program - by 1937-38 a wide cracks in his coalition appeared. If not for pre-war (and then - war) situation in Europe, which threatened the whole world, FDR chances for reelection would be lower, as more people would think about "Enough!" line.

Of course party was more economically radical in FDR 1st (and beginning of 2nd) term - out of desperation after almost 4 years of Great Depression. Now you can't have a whore for $1 (or even cheaper) as was the case in many cases then - you will need to spend much more. Generally, economically most Americans are substantially better now, then in 1930th, and middle class is substantially bigger (of course - there are lot of poor people too, but - not as much as then, and social security works better simply because there was only little of it then). And with that comes "reorientation": people, who have something to lose, have different sort of problems and priorities then piss poor one. In short - US became much less radical economically  and much more liberal socially since FDR time (who spoke about "gay marriage" then? Not even the wildest of liberals, usually)

I may look to be Kassandra, but US will have a lot of problems in the next 30 years. So much that it can find itself on the verge of split. Berkely, California and Abilene, Texas were substantially closer then, then now. At least they could talk to each other and understand each other. Not so now..

Again an incorrect picture is being painted. FDR increased the Income tax from 63% to 76% in 1936, then to 81% in 1940, then to 88% in 1942 & 94% in 1944. Minimum Wage, the most radical anti-free market, supposed socialist idea to destroy the labour market was instituted in 1938. In 1937 there was a funding of many Billions of $ for works progress administration. FDR vs party opposition about the SC was not due to economic issues but concentration of power & executive/legislative separation of power  issue (that will happen even today for any president if they propose a radical change including retirement age & what not). In the end, FDR got 7 out of the 9 judges to the SC & won this battle & packed the court. And FDR proposed the 2nd bill of rights (guaranteed healthcare, education, income) etc in 1944 after his election but died soon after. Truman continued on his path campaigning on Single Payer in 1948 where he had the greatest political upset in presidential history.

The so-called Conservative manifesto etc was always there among Republicans & some Democrats (this isn't a new thing considering FDR primaried conservatives). Under tremendous pressure from the entire financial elite & conservatives, FDR abandoned the New Deal & caused a recession in 1937/38 odd. It was dubbed the Roosevelt recession & as soon as FDR reversed his policies & when back to government expansion, introduced the minimum wage & New deal policies, the economy grew at a fast pace. But during the brief recession, FDR was under tremendous assault & his conservative opponents felt bolder & came with their own manifesto - This isn't about the South. Conservative manifesto was largely a Republican thing with some conservative Democrats crossing over to form a bipartisan group. But one of it's key members (possibly most famous & active) was Republican Vanderberg from Michigan (Mid-west), it had conservatives from all over including the South.

But if you look at the South. FDR won Texas with 87% in 1936, 81% in 1940 & in a 3-way race won 71% in 1944 (GOP - 17%, Texas Regulars - 11/12%). The Texas regulars soon disbanded after FDR crushed them. The Texas Regulars were racist segregationist Conservative Democrats opposing FDR not just about New Deal alone but about SC desegregating primaries (FDR had packed the SC with liberal judges). The whole goal of Texas regulars was to beat FDR & FDR destroyed them & the Republicans. And in the next election in 1948, Truman campaigning as a raging liberal & won the national PV by only 4-5% odd in a shock win but won Texas by a massive margin of 42%!

The last 40 years of trickle down has destroyed the middle class & working class & it is hard facts & economic research which says so (not as bad as the great depression but it will never get there)! The idea of less radical is a new post 1980 thing, because the New Deal policies continued till the 1980 Reagan re-alignment (Tax rates were 70-90% till 1980) !

[Shadows]

Yea agree to disagree since you wouldn't accept that your arguments & comments don't paint a true picture in this case. Much of what I said is pure facts n history but sometimes we have an entrenched view of ideology so it's difficult for us to accept a contrarian argument.

I guess "corresponding vision" is a better alternative !