Is Montana actually trending blue?

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Some people think it is, but I don't understand their reasoning. From 2008(when Dems arguably peaked) to 2022 the state has become redder in literally every fashion.

It went from McCain+2->Trump+16
The state house went from a tie to an R supermajority
The state senate went from 27-23 to 34-16
The governorship and row offices are now controlled by Republicans
The class 2 senate seat flipped to Republicans, and Tester is on the verge of losing the class 1 seat
The state added a much more competitive house seat in 2022 and Rs were able to still win it

I'm not trying to mock the people who say the state is trending blue, I just want to understand their reasoning and why they think the state is shifting left.

[Dave Hedgehog]

I don't think it's trending either way. It did swing left more than the nation as a whole in the last presidential election with Biden turning Hillary Clinton's 21-point loss into a 16-point one (nation at large swung 2.5 points left). However, the last election was the first when Republican success was replicated just as strongly downballot with the controversial R governor candidate (who lost in the previous cycle) winning by double digits and the popular incumbent D governor falling flat in his run for the Senate. If similar dynamics recur in the next cycle, Tester's a goner - and if I remember rightly, Dems will hold neither of the Montana U.S. Senate seats for the first time in over 100 years. Not like with Sherrod Brown; if he loses the Senate delegation from Ohio just goes back to how it was in 2006.

[DS0816]

Some people think it is, but I don't understand their reasoning. From 2008(when Dems arguably peaked) to 2022 the state has become redder in literally every fashion.

It went from McCain+2->Trump+16
The state house went from a tie to an R supermajority
The state senate went from 27-23 to 34-16
The governorship and row offices are now controlled by Republicans
The class 2 senate seat flipped to Republicans, and Tester is on the verge of losing the class 1 seat
The state added a much more competitive house seat in 2022 and Rs were able to still win it

I'm not trying to mock the people who say the state is trending blue, I just want to understand their reasoning and why they think the state is shifting left.

It is state the Democrats can flip and carry particularly if if they win nationally by at least +7, and contest the state, but they choose not to pursue. By leaving it alone, the state’s voters likely figure, “We will stick with what is familiar.”

With his 2008 Democratic pickup of the presidency, Barack Obama carried 28 states. His No. 29 best was Missouri. That state votes like Indiana, in the column for Obama as it was his No. 27 best state, and the two have voted like next-door neighbors ever since 2012 (with them both comfortably with the Republicans). Montana was Obama’s No. 30 best state.

With his 2020 Democratic pickup of the presidency, Joe Biden carried 25 states. His No. 36 was Montana, right after Nos. 34 Missouri and No. 35 Indiana. (By comparison to those two states, Montana should be closer reach for the Democrats.)

While Montana has voted the same as Idaho in all elections, except for 1992, since 1896 (the second cycle of participation for both states), they do substantially separate for where they tend to rank. Idaho is usually one of the five best states for Republicans. This suggests a Democrat would have to carry at least 45 state to reach that state. But, Montana, for the Democrats, is plenty closer. And, unlike Idaho, Montana has elected Democrats in recent time for Governor and U.S. Senate.

There is also the fact that, from 1948 to 2004, a period of 56 years and 15 consecutive election cycles, Montana carried the same for U.S. President as Colorado. The Democratic Party wisely pursued Colorado—and Virginia (which has voted the same as Colorado, except in 1992, since 1948)—but they apparently saw no need with Montana.

Since Montana is on the schedule for U.S. Senate in 2024, the Democrats would have an easier time getting Democratic incumbent Jon Tester re-elected as the state’s senior U.S. senator had they made the effort—with winning elections—contested Montana at the level of U.S. President.

(This is a good topic. It touches on states which are underestimated by the major political parties.)

[Sumner 1868]

It is state the Democrats can flip and carry particularly if if they win nationally by at least +7, and contest the state

In the past this was true. But now? With the gun issue so hot and the politics of climate change still so polarizing in a resource-heavy state, I don't see the MT independent voters who backed Bill Clinton/Perot and Obama coming back short of GOP self-destruction.

[Xing]

Sort of like Indiana, 2008 was somewhat of an anomaly, and the closeness was at least in part due to Ron Paul getting a decent amount of the vote. I wouldn’t say it’s really trending Democratic, but I wouldn’t say it’s trending Republican at the presidential level either, so much as statewide politics are starting to align more with national politics (which is an ominous sign for Tester.) I’d say that Democrats do definitely have some potential in MT-01, while I suspect MT-02 will just get increasingly more Republican.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Yes? The GOP is more toxic to secular whites, both with and without college degrees now than it was in 2020. Montana is chock full of those. I don’t expect Biden to win Montana or even get it less than 10 but I do expect it to get bluer

[TDAS04]

Probably not much, if at all. Montana actually trended sharply red during the Bush 43 area, Dubya twice carried the state by roughly the same 21-25% margin twice achieved by Reagan. Since then, Montana has been very swingy (as it has been for much of its history), which makes sense for this Western state with a bit an independent, quirky streak, and it makes it somewhat challenging to pin down exactly where Montana is trending. The overall 2004-2020 trend isn’t very significant.

I think it would have been less of an anomaly if Obama had won Montana in 2008, than the RL Indiana fluke. Indiana is more populated and somewhat more pro-establishment, and thus should have been harder to move (in the absence of the particular circumstances of 2008 that ultimately added up to the narrow upset there, of course).

[MT Treasurer]

People really need to stop acting like any place that doesn't have a large % of Evangelicals/churchgoers is by necessity "secular" or "socially liberal."

Matt Rosendale and Greg Gianforte would be about the last politicians a "heavily secular" place would elect.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

I really can't see a path forward for Dems in one of the nation's largest coal-exporting states. Even going from 2016 to 2020 Trump increased his vote share by about as much as he did nationally.

[seskoog]

Montana swing left by more than the nation between 2016-20

[Bush did 311]

It's a small population state. Wouldn't take too many Californians to flip. It hasn't been perceived as a competitive state so there is a dormant voting bloc in it for now.

[You don't see any blue avatars now]

Realistically? Probably not. But a girl can dream. Trust the plan; Zooey Zephyr will defeat Tim "the She-He" Sheehy in 2030.

[Cyrusman]

People really need to stop acting like any place that doesn't have a large % of Evangelicals/churchgoers is by necessity "secular" or "socially liberal."

Matt Rosendale and Greg Gianforte would be about the last politicians a "heavily secular" place would elect.

I think there's a difference between being secular and "socially liberal". There's plenty of secular voters who aren't religious/ don't want religious conservative social views pushed down their through, but at the same time they are not socially liberal either, but rather in the middle/moderate.