MT: Rasmussen: Daines by 14

[Maxwell]

Seems consistent with other polls, but obviously I want to see another source.

[Maxwell]

If Rassy got you down 14 pts then he probably won't win. Boehlinger should drop out and let Walsh have a clear path in primary. Only way to save seat.

Bohlingers more electable though.

[Maxwell]

If Rassy got you down 14 pts then he probably won't win. Boehlinger should drop out and let Walsh have a clear path in primary. Only way to save seat.

Bohlingers more electable though.

Most polls showed Walsh doing better than Bohlinger, even before Walsh's appointment.

That's genuinely wrong. The only two polls I've seen are PPP (Walsh trails 35-52, Bohlinger trails by a similar but smaller 36-51) and Harper (Walsh trails 29-43, Bohlinger by a smaller 32-43).

Either way, both candidates are not doing great, and it seems like a Blanche Lincoln v. Bill Halter. But either way, a continuing primary probably won't hurt too badly, so the whiners can stop.

[Maxwell]

If Rassy got you down 14 pts then he probably won't win. Boehlinger should drop out and let Walsh have a clear path in primary. Only way to save seat.

Bohlingers more electable though.

Most polls showed Walsh doing better than Bohlinger, even before Walsh's appointment.

That's genuinely wrong. The only two polls I've seen are PPP (Walsh trails 35-52, Bohlinger trails by a similar but smaller 36-51) and Harper (Walsh trails 29-43, Bohlinger by a smaller 32-43).

That's barely a difference at all though and the only reason Bohlinger has that type of advantage is because of name ID and his crossover support. Walsh is a lot stronger among Democrats and PPP had him leading Bohlinger 39-31 which was before anyone knew that Baucus would be appointed Ambassador to China and Walsh appointed to the Senate seat. Assuming Walsh wins the primary from benefiting as the incumbent and having the backing of National Democratic support, the only thing this Bohlinger run will do is increase Daines' chances of winning the seat for the Republicans.

Because Hillary v. Obama caused President McCain, right? Come on that is a weak arguement that you guys keep throwing around. You guys argue that Walsh is such a stronger candidate, but Bohlinger is about as strong if not stronger than him in a general, and do you think Montana Democrats win because of a backing from the National organization? I doubt it. They win because they distance themselves from National Democrats (think: Brian Schweitzer)

[Maxwell]

If Rassy got you down 14 pts then he probably won't win. Boehlinger should drop out and let Walsh have a clear path in primary. Only way to save seat.

Bohlingers more electable though.

Most polls showed Walsh doing better than Bohlinger, even before Walsh's appointment.

That's genuinely wrong. The only two polls I've seen are PPP (Walsh trails 35-52, Bohlinger trails by a similar but smaller 36-51) and Harper (Walsh trails 29-43, Bohlinger by a smaller 32-43).

That's barely a difference at all though and the only reason Bohlinger has that type of advantage is because of name ID and his crossover support. Walsh is a lot stronger among Democrats and PPP had him leading Bohlinger 39-31 which was before anyone knew that Baucus would be appointed Ambassador to China and Walsh appointed to the Senate seat. Assuming Walsh wins the primary from benefiting as the incumbent and having the backing of National Democratic support, the only thing this Bohlinger run will do is increase Daines' chances of winning the seat for the Republicans.

Because Hillary v. Obama caused President McCain, right? Come on that is a weak arguement that you guys keep throwing around. You guys argue that Walsh is such a stronger candidate, but Bohlinger is about as strong if not stronger than him in a general, and do you think Montana Democrats win because of a backing from the National organization? I doubt it. They win because they distance themselves from National Democrats (think: Brian Schweitzer)

It never goes well for Democrats in states like these though to avoid the President and the national party. Look at Pryor, Lincoln, Begich, and other vulnerable Senate Dems who could lose because they think their best strategy is to avoid outside support and run on these moderate voting records to keep themselves in office. Welp, Lincoln's out for being too independent of the Dems, Pryor is going down the same route and is angering liberals to, Landrieu is losing support for her support for the XL pipeline, Begich is refusing DSCC money and voted against background checks, and Bohlinger won't do any better as a former Republican in a state where Democrats tend to do surprisingly well in Senate elections.

Let's keep in mind to, the last Senate election Democrats lost was in 2000 when Brian Schweitzer himself lost. I guess he just didn't have faith in himself that he could win and he's relying on his right-hand man this time only to fail, as well. We got Tester to hold on twice in very tight elections and we could do the same with Walsh if Bohlinger wasn't in this. I mean, if Tester had faced a primary challenger in 2012 from say, Schweitzer, Tester could have survived the primary possibly by the skin of his teeth, but Rehberg right there would have increased his chances of winning.

Really? It never goes well? Landrieu has survived for so long because she has stayed away from the national party line. How can you even argue this point? Max Baucus, Senator for a long time, was an independent voice, who lost sway when he became the national voice for centrism and obnoxiousness. Pryor is losing now because of pure political incompetence.

Democrats have the hallmark example of when primaries do very little damage, and yet they are so eager to avoid any sort of primary challenge against their established candidate. It makes so little sense to me.