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

[smoltchanov]

Senate President-elect Scott Sales (R-Bozeman) is also running:

http://www.krtv.com/story/34088260/state-sen-buttrey-of-great-falls-will-vie-for-zinke-seat

IIRC - Sales is much more conservative, and has extensive connections with Koch brother's political network...

[smoltchanov]

ugh the Baucus family sucks

You have more achievements? Or judge people by names, not deeds?

[smoltchanov]

ugh the Baucus family sucks

You have more achievements? Or judge people by names, not deeds?

Well Baucus was a pretty worthless Senator when he was in office, even by "moderate hero" standards, and he tried to get his wife confirmed to an office she wasn't confirmed. I have little confidence "Zeno" is going to be much better.

yes i know your schtick is to defend every single conservative democrat or liberal republican regardless of how worthwhile they actually are because that's what you do. and then act superior about it.

And i know your - accuse anybody you dislike with rather worthless accusations, pretending to be a sort of Supreme Court judge at least.. A freedom of opinion and speech doesn't give anybody right to slander..... It's not for you to judge who is worthless and who is not. First - do something HIMSELF - get a degree in serious science, get elected to somewhere, or something like that. AFTER that your opinion will have some weight. Before - zero.

[smoltchanov]

Glad to see Quist won, hope he can pull this off.

+1. At least - Democrats nominated their best candidate here.

[smoltchanov]

I'm not terribly optimistic about this election, but it'll definitely be interesting to see how a political novice like Quist does in this environment.  He needs a lot of outside help.

Me too. IMHO - his chances are, at most, 20%. Even against very socially conservative Gianforte, who is the best opponent for him in not so socially conservative Montana. Still - it will be interesting.

[smoltchanov]

I'd rate this as Lean R for now.

Somewhat optimistic, IMHO. Somewhere between Lean and Likely..

[smoltchanov]

Well, what i originally expected. Republican margin from 2016 cut in half, but district remains Republican. Quist had enough personal problems and baggage, and Gianforte latest scandal came ... well, too late. I expect somewhat similar situation in SC-05 (54-55% Norman and 42-43% -Parnell). The best Democratic hope remains GA-06, but even it will be close. So, while there is some disiilusionment with Trump, it's too early to talk about "wave".

[smoltchanov]

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..).

[smoltchanov]

Quist did ok, people are looking way too much into this race. I mean a pot smoking hippie with herpes and unpaid medical bills basically lost by 6%

Yeah, I would tend to agree, but there was an outside chance of a win in this political climate. Hell, maybe he would have won without the assault (kidding, kidding).

The simple truth is that Quist was a much lower quality candidate then Bullock. And even Bullock won it by only few percentages....

[smoltchanov]

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

[smoltchanov]

+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..

[smoltchanov]

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.

I wrote more detailed commentary recently, but you seem to prefer living in "liberal bubble" and know nothing about anything else. In such case i don't see any need in continuing any discussion with you. It's you, who lies and knows nothing about American history.

[smoltchanov]

The FDR coalition didn't really end until 1980. Even Eisenhower and Nixon by and large governed like New Deal Democrats. Reagan set the stage for a completely different outlook on government

Of course. But this coalition was never as large and as influential as in 1933-36, when it could pass almost (i stress this word) any neccessary legislation. In 1937-38 difficulties began to emerge...

[smoltchanov]

As i already said - we end our "discussion" here. It makes no sense. You ignore all arguments that contradict your conclusions. Let's each stick to corresponding vision.