MT Congressional Redistricting

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Why would California lose a district and Montana gain one?

Because it was on the border for the 53rd seat and its growth rate this decade has been slightly slower than the US as a whole which matters a lot when it comes to 53 seats.

And California, being one of the largest states in the nation, has a disproportionate effect on that growth. The larger you are, the harder a state has to work to hold onto it's seats. There is a reason why reapportionment last century saw the Midwest/Mid-Atlantic drop tons of seats each decade.

I have a .02 difference in favor of Montana right now but it's pretty stupid that more people in California lose representation than people in Montana gain.

Montana voters are the best though, can you imagine those Trump-Gianforte-Tester voters determining control of the US senate in 2020?

No, I'd rather imagine DC getting actual representation. Montana does not deserve two congressional districts for their tiny, homogenous population. What a farce.

So incredibly racist.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Why would California lose a district and Montana gain one?

Because it was on the border for the 53rd seat and its growth rate this decade has been slightly slower than the US as a whole which matters a lot when it comes to 53 seats.

And California, being one of the largest states in the nation, has a disproportionate effect on that growth. The larger you are, the harder a state has to work to hold onto it's seats. There is a reason why reapportionment last century saw the Midwest/Mid-Atlantic drop tons of seats each decade.

I have a .02 difference in favor of Montana right now but it's pretty stupid that more people in California lose representation than people in Montana gain.

Montana voters are the best though, can you imagine those Trump-Gianforte-Tester voters determining control of the US senate in 2020?

No, I'd rather imagine DC getting actual representation. Montana does not deserve two congressional districts for their tiny, homogenous population. What a farce.

So incredibly racist.

I didn't say anything about race. Nice try, though.

Btw, it's your party not supporting DC statehood that is racist.

Bullsh**t.

Why would California lose a district and Montana gain one?

Because it was on the border for the 53rd seat and its growth rate this decade has been slightly slower than the US as a whole which matters a lot when it comes to 53 seats.

And California, being one of the largest states in the nation, has a disproportionate effect on that growth. The larger you are, the harder a state has to work to hold onto it's seats. There is a reason why reapportionment last century saw the Midwest/Mid-Atlantic drop tons of seats each decade.

I have a .02 difference in favor of Montana right now but it's pretty stupid that more people in California lose representation than people in Montana gain.

Montana voters are the best though, can you imagine those Trump-Gianforte-Tester voters determining control of the US senate in 2020?

No, I'd rather imagine DC getting actual representation. Montana does not deserve two congressional districts for their tiny, homogenous population. What a farce.

Why tf is it an issue if Montana is homogenous? Do their being white invalidate them from proper representation?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Why would California lose a district and Montana gain one?

Because it was on the border for the 53rd seat and its growth rate this decade has been slightly slower than the US as a whole which matters a lot when it comes to 53 seats.

And California, being one of the largest states in the nation, has a disproportionate effect on that growth. The larger you are, the harder a state has to work to hold onto it's seats. There is a reason why reapportionment last century saw the Midwest/Mid-Atlantic drop tons of seats each decade.

I have a .02 difference in favor of Montana right now but it's pretty stupid that more people in California lose representation than people in Montana gain.

Montana voters are the best though, can you imagine those Trump-Gianforte-Tester voters determining control of the US senate in 2020?

No, I'd rather imagine DC getting actual representation. Montana does not deserve two congressional districts for their tiny, homogenous population. What a farce.

So incredibly racist.

I didn't say anything about race. Nice try, though.

Btw, it's your party not supporting DC statehood that is racist.

Bullsh**t.

Why would California lose a district and Montana gain one?

Because it was on the border for the 53rd seat and its growth rate this decade has been slightly slower than the US as a whole which matters a lot when it comes to 53 seats.

And California, being one of the largest states in the nation, has a disproportionate effect on that growth. The larger you are, the harder a state has to work to hold onto it's seats. There is a reason why reapportionment last century saw the Midwest/Mid-Atlantic drop tons of seats each decade.

I have a .02 difference in favor of Montana right now but it's pretty stupid that more people in California lose representation than people in Montana gain.

Montana voters are the best though, can you imagine those Trump-Gianforte-Tester voters determining control of the US senate in 2020?

No, I'd rather imagine DC getting actual representation. Montana does not deserve two congressional districts for their tiny, homogenous population. What a farce.

Why tf is it an issue if Montana is homogenous? Do their being white invalidate them from proper representation?

I didn't say anything about being white.

I don't understand how you as a Californian can stand by and watch other people in this country be told that they deserve more representation and political power than you.

The 5th largest economy, as strong and diverse of any nation of equal population, contributing far more to the country than we get back, and we barely get a say. DC contributes more tax dollars per capita than any other administrative division and they get jack sh**t. When they were predominately a white populace at least they received electoral votes. They barely even get to govern themselves.

Why are Republicans so fixated on race and ethnicity? It's tiresome.

You're literally repeatedly bringing up race. Why is it important that California is diverse? Why does it matter that Montana is not?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

You're literally repeatedly bringing up race. Why is it important that California is diverse? Why does it matter that Montana is not?

There is more to diversity than just race. Montana doesn't have Hollywood, a tech industry, wineries, theme parks, beaches, a diverse terrain, as diverse of ecosystems, among many other things.

They already have an outsized voice in the Senate. The people of California deserve to be properly represented.

Bullsh**t. That's not what words mean. You said that Montana didn't deserve a seat because it was homogenous and California was diverse. There is no mistaking your meaning for anything other then what it is.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

You're literally repeatedly bringing up race. Why is it important that California is diverse? Why does it matter that Montana is not?

There is more to diversity than just race. Montana doesn't have Hollywood, a tech industry, wineries, theme parks, beaches, a diverse terrain, as diverse of ecosystems, among many other things.

They already have an outsized voice in the Senate. The people of California deserve to be properly represented.

Bullsh**t. That's not what words mean. You said that Montana didn't deserve a seat because it was homogenous and California was diverse. There is no mistaking your meaning for anything other then what it is.

No, I said that Montana doesn't deserve a seat because we are talking about taking representation from 800,000 people to give it to 600,000 people.

No, you said:

Why would California lose a district and Montana gain one?

Because it was on the border for the 53rd seat and its growth rate this decade has been slightly slower than the US as a whole which matters a lot when it comes to 53 seats.

And California, being one of the largest states in the nation, has a disproportionate effect on that growth. The larger you are, the harder a state has to work to hold onto it's seats. There is a reason why reapportionment last century saw the Midwest/Mid-Atlantic drop tons of seats each decade.

I have a .02 difference in favor of Montana right now but it's pretty stupid that more people in California lose representation than people in Montana gain.

Montana voters are the best though, can you imagine those Trump-Gianforte-Tester voters determining control of the US senate in 2020?

No, I'd rather imagine DC getting actual representation. Montana does not deserve two congressional districts for their tiny, homogenous population. What a farce.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

No, but also yes.

MT's western district, as a blue collar, rural white grouping, is shifting rightwards, but still has a significant amount of Democratic backbone. Still, politics changes. My prediction is that it is still wave territory in 2022-2026, but by 2030 is probably Safe R.

Under, say, this map for instance, (pop deviation of 5), my point is made very clear.



While Tester still won this district by 8.5 in 2018, and Obama actually won it in 08, it was also double digits for Trump and 90% white, and in context of its past partisanship even a number like Tester's starts looking a lot less impressive. If, as some posters on this forum certainly believe, we will see 20-25 point swings in districts like TX-26 between now and 2030, is it really so hard to believe that MT-01 here swings another 10 points to the right and becomes R Presidential +24 and R local +1.5 or something?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

How is Western Montana trending?
I know some of the mining towns are clearly going one way while college towns are going the other, but which one has more sway?

Every county but Gallatin both swung and trended right between 2012 and 2016.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

How is Western Montana trending?
I know some of the mining towns are clearly going one way while college towns are going the other, but which one has more sway?

Every county but Gallatin both swung and trended right between 2012 and 2016.

It's not even "the college towns" -- the college towns are trending rightwards too!

[Libertas Vel Mors]

How is Western Montana trending?
I know some of the mining towns are clearly going one way while college towns are going the other, but which one has more sway?

Every county but Gallatin both swung and trended right between 2012 and 2016.

One election does not constitute a long term trend. Otherwise we may as well argue Vermont is going to eventually become a swing state.

Obviously, there is a difference between a state where a favorite son US Senator got 6% of the vote and one where you saw normal two party swings. But, ok -- if you want to look 2012 too, every county both swung and trended rightwards.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

How is Western Montana trending?
I know some of the mining towns are clearly going one way while college towns are going the other, but which one has more sway?

Every county but Gallatin both swung and trended right between 2012 and 2016.

One election does not constitute a long term trend. Otherwise we may as well argue Vermont is going to eventually become a swing state.

Obviously, there is a difference between a state where a favorite son US Senator got 6% of the vote and one where you saw normal two party swings. But, ok -- if you want to look 2012 too, every county both swung and trended rightwards.

Montana has a well-documented trend of both being elastic and swinging against the incumbent party, so unlike Texas/Arizona, it's very unclear if it's actually trending to the right. Things might get more clear after 2020.

Texas/Arizona -- trended leftwards for one election after trending rightwards previously, in large part due to specific elected President

MT -- trending rightwards several elections in a row, went from being wave win in 90s to wave loss in 08, +20 for Trump, in line with national demographics for right trending places

But sure.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

No, but also yes.

MT's western district, as a blue collar, rural white grouping, is shifting rightwards, but still has a significant amount of Democratic backbone. Still, politics changes. My prediction is that it is still wave territory in 2022-2026, but by 2030 is probably Safe R.

Under, say, this map for instance, (pop deviation of 5), my point is made very clear.



While Tester still won this district by 8.5 in 2018, and Obama actually won it in 08, it was also double digits for Trump and 90% white, and in context of its past partisanship even a number like Tester's starts looking a lot less impressive. If, as some posters on this forum certainly believe, we will see 20-25 point swings in districts like TX-26 between now and 2030, is it really so hard to believe that MT-01 here swings another 10 points to the right and becomes R Presidential +24 and R local +1.5 or something?

You clearly aren't aware how elastic MT is down ballot.

I am, and referenced that in my post. There's a reason Tester won by just 3 in 2018, while Baucus won by 31 18 years ago.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Western Montana is not trending rightwards. Hillary was just a horrible fit here and all the Berniecrats sat out the general (the disdain for Hillary was palpable and Bernie dominated the primary). Let's see the Biden numbers before we call anything a trend. I bet Biden wins it.

Bozeman is shifting leftwards quickly, as is Whitefish. Missoula is basically Portland and it will dominate the Western half the way Billings will dominate the East.

Furthermore, Butte is solidly D, as is Dear Lodge and West Yellowstone and Livingston (depending on how they draw it). Columbia Falls is drifting that way (It has chosen Democrat Zac Perry the last 2 cycles). Whitefish went 70% D for Dave Fern in the last election. Quist even won Kalispell and made it interesting in Hamilton (the two red Hamlets). Shrill Neo Liberals could still lose it of course but guys like Tester, Bullock, Quist will win it all day.

Even Tester won by a smaller margin in W MT than Baucus did statewide. But sure, it was just Hillary. Oh, and Obama. Oh, and every D politician who keeps winning by smaller and smaller margins, when they win at all. Yep. So long as Dems keep nominating  populists who make you fall in love with their big bad helicopter smoke ads like daddy Bullock instead of muh shrill neoliberals like that evil, election losing Hillary (who you thought was great until Nov 6), rural white westerners will be glad to vote for abortion on demand and giving up their healthcare systems to washington bureaucrats.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Western Montana is not trending rightwards. Hillary was just a horrible fit here and all the Berniecrats sat out the general (the disdain for Hillary was palpable and Bernie dominated the primary). Let's see the Biden numbers before we call anything a trend. I bet Biden wins it.

Bozeman is shifting leftwards quickly, as is Whitefish. Missoula is basically Portland and it will dominate the Western half the way Billings will dominate the East.

Furthermore, Butte is solidly D, as is Dear Lodge and West Yellowstone and Livingston (depending on how they draw it). Columbia Falls is drifting that way (It has chosen Democrat Zac Perry the last 2 cycles). Whitefish went 70% D for Dave Fern in the last election. Quist even won Kalispell and made it interesting in Hamilton (the two red Hamlets). Shrill Neo Liberals could still lose it of course but guys like Tester, Bullock, Quist will win it all day.

"mIsSoUlA iS bAsIcAlLy pOrTlAnD"

Missoula: Obama +17.8, Clinton +15.4, less than 65,000 total votes, 90% non-Hispanic white, median family income $45,000

Portland: Obama +54.7, Clinton +56.3, 400,000 voting residents, 66% non-Hispanic white, median income $63,000 (none of this includes suburbs either lol, which just add to the disparity)

While I get the compulsion to hope that your state is flipping to your party, hear me out from a Californian Republican (Ex) to a Montana Democrat: sometimes it just ain't so.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Western Montana is not trending rightwards. Hillary was just a horrible fit here and all the Berniecrats sat out the general (the disdain for Hillary was palpable and Bernie dominated the primary). Let's see the Biden numbers before we call anything a trend. I bet Biden wins it.

Bozeman is shifting leftwards quickly, as is Whitefish. Missoula is basically Portland and it will dominate the Western half the way Billings will dominate the East.

Furthermore, Butte is solidly D, as is Dear Lodge and West Yellowstone and Livingston (depending on how they draw it). Columbia Falls is drifting that way (It has chosen Democrat Zac Perry the last 2 cycles). Whitefish went 70% D for Dave Fern in the last election. Quist even won Kalispell and made it interesting in Hamilton (the two red Hamlets). Shrill Neo Liberals could still lose it of course but guys like Tester, Bullock, Quist will win it all day.

"mIsSoUlA iS bAsIcAlLy pOrTlAnD"

Missoula: Obama +17.8, Clinton +15.4, less than 65,000 total votes, 90% non-Hispanic white, median family income $45,000

Portland: Obama +54.7, Clinton +56.3, 400,000 voting residents, 66% non-Hispanic white, median income $63,000 (none of this includes suburbs either lol, which just add to the disparity)

While I get the compulsion to hope that your state is flipping to your party, hear me out from a Californian Republican (Ex) to a Montana Democrat: sometimes it just ain't so.

Also, before you pull the Berniecrats thing: looking at just one of your "rapidly left" examples, Whitefish, here are the voting stats:

2016   
R: 63.7% 30,240
D: 28.0% 13,293
I: 8.3% 3,963
2012   
R: 64.5% 28,309   
D: 31.6% 13,892
I: 3.9% 1,708

The Democratic number of votes remained relatively static (ie, no evidence of some kind of mass berniecrat defection even in one of Montana's bigger cities like this), but it was the Republican vote total that actually increased. Pretty much every single one of your propositions here is simply pure conjecture -- that kind of analysis is not worthy of this forum, and you should do more data delving before you make such further statements that simply do not have factual backing.

It is perfectly fine to take a reasonable stance of "MT is trending rightwards, but based on the national environment/the stages of where it's trends are currently at, Steve Bullock has a real chance to win this year."

What is not okay is to offer inane ramblings about how MT is only trending rightwards on the data because of shrill neoliberals, and then offer baseless assertions about MT, one of Bernie's actually worst states for the upper west, is secretly trending leftwards because of missing Berniecrat turnout (as if the state of Max Baucus and Jon Tester is some kind of socialist hub?).

It's as simple as that.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Look at the Whitefish '18 numbers though. A lot of the new residents have arrived since 2016. For example Dave Fern (D) from HD 5, which is all of Whitefish.

2016
Dave Fern 56.7%
Opponent  43.2%
D+13

2018
Dave Fern 69.1%
Opponent 30.9%
D+38

So that's a 25 point swing in 2 years. They are building houses in Whitefish like crazy and the majority of residents moving in are hipsters from Washington and Colorado etc. and they bring their progressive voting patterns with them.

Tester won Senate District 3 (Whitefish and N. Kalispell) in 2018 by 4 points whereas incumbent Keith Regier won it by 13 points in '16. That's a 17 point swing in 2 years.

And IL-10 voted red in 2010.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

I think it is the best case scenario for Dems:

That is not even remotely going to happen.