It's on... Tester to Challenges Burns

[Moooooo]

As expected, Montana Senate President John Tester (D) announced his challenge to Sen. Conrad Burns (R) on Wednesday.

From the Billings Gazette:

Tester, who was Senate president in the 2005 Legislature, stressed his leadership role in becoming the third announced contender for the Democratic nomination. State Auditor John Morrison made it official in late April and Clint Wilkes, a political unknown from Bozeman, said earlier this month he will run.

Tester planned stops in Bozeman, Butte, Missoula, Helena and Great Falls during a three-day campaign trip this week. He kicked off his bid at a gas station in Billings, with members of his family and others, in front of a farm truck bearing his name and declaring on the back: "You're behind the right guy!"

He said he realizes he's got a long road ahead of him but that he believes Burns is very vulnerable. Tester said he plans to do a lot of listening, meet as many people as possible and raise money. He also plans to discuss issues surrounding agriculture, the middle class and small business.

Despite Morrison's four years as a statewide official and a record of successful statewide campaigns, Tester said Tuesday he has an edge over the Helena lawyer. "My leadership skills and ability to get things done, I don't know if John has proved that out," he said.

[TheresNoMoney]

I heard about this yesterday. Good news!

[Moooooo]

I heard about this yesterday. Good news!

We're gonna win this seat.  The only way I see the Republicans holding it in 2006 is, if Burns steps down and the lone Rep. from Montana decides to run for U.S. Senate.

[nini2287]

I think this moves up to #2 behind PA for a Democratic pickup.

[TheresNoMoney]

Have you seen a picture of Tester yet? The guy looks about as country as you can get. Montanans love him.

[Moooooo]

I think this moves up to #2 behind PA for a Democratic pickup.

It could quite possibly be our #1 pickup.  In 2000 Burns barley won against then unkown Brian Schweitzer.  Burns re-elect number is 36%.  Burns is having a lot of trouble raising money.  He is a key figure in multiple corruption investigations.  He originally promised to only server two terms, and is now seeking re-election for his 4th term.  And last, but not least, the 2 strongest Democrats have now entered the race.

[Democratic Hawk]

I heard about this yesterday. Good news!

We're gonna win this seat

I hope so - but the Democrats need a good few pick-ups besides. With the right candidate for the state, the Democrats should, at least, chip away at the GOP majority

I'm looking forward to 2006

Dave

[nini2287]

[Moooooo]

Senate President Jon Tester, D-Big Sandy, began his first official day of campaigning for the U.S. Senate close to home today.

He planned to greet a few of his local supporters in Big Sandy before heading to Havre in a tractor-trailer decorated with lettering advertising his bid for the seat now held by Republican Conrad Burns.

[WalterMitty]

I heard about this yesterday. Good news!

We're gonna win this seat. 

just like yall were going to win in nc and sc last year.

yawn.

[AuH2O]

I know. The exuberance is getting a little out of hand.

First of all, Tester is no Brian Schweitzer.

Second of all, so long as Burns keeps the attention on what's happening in DC, he wins.

Burns doesn't even have to be able to do things like "think" or "debate" to win that argument, because he can just ask scripted questions: "Will you oppose the filibuster of Bush's judicial nominees?"

Politics is very national these days, sorry Tip, and Montana is a conservative state. Burns will have whatever money he needs when it comes down to it, courtesy the much-richer GOP.

[Moooooo]

just like yall were going to win in nc and sc last year.

yawn.

Two totally different races.  Not even comparable.

yawn...

[WalterMitty]

just like yall were going to win in nc and sc last year.

yawn.

Two totally different races.  Not even comparable.

yawn...

yes the races in the carolinas were open seats and much easier than going against an incumbent.

[AuH2O]

I will say that Democrats are not incorrect to say MT is their #1 or #2 pickup opportunity.

They are only incorrect if they think a pickup is especially likely.

[TheresNoMoney]

Second of all, so long as Burns keeps the attention on what's happening in DC, he wins.

If he keeps the attention on what's happening in DC, he will lose. Americans are disgusted with the Republican-led Congress right now.

Burns doesn't even have to be able to do things like "think" or "debate" to win that argument, because he can just ask scripted questions: "Will you oppose the filibuster of Bush's judicial nominees?"

Are you so out of touch that you believe Montanans give a sh*t about judicial fillibusters? My bet is that it's the farthest thing from their mind.

Politics is very national these days, sorry Tip, and Montana is a conservative state.

Montana isn't a conservative state, it's more of a libertarian state (not religious wingnutville). Their top priorities are farming issues, healthcare issues, the economy, and gun issues. They don't care much about social wedge issues. Tester is very similar to Schweitzer in mnay regards and Burns is a guy caught in corruption with a low approval rating. To top it off, Burns didn't even move to Montana until he was 37 (he's a Missouri native). Tester is a third-generation Montana farmer and well-known and liked throughout the state.

[TheresNoMoney]

I will say that Democrats are not incorrect to say MT is their #1 or #2 pickup opportunity.

Top 3 pickup opportunities are PA, RI, and MT. There are 3 others where I think we have a reasonable chance as well.

Wish we could get a good candidate to challenge DeWine, but it doesn't appear likely.

[AuH2O]

Oh and Burns is in the majority party, so he can better secure subsidies.

And, no, Montanans are not mad at Republicans. That's laughable. The only reason Bush got "only" 59% of the vote is because there are many Native Americans, who are reliably Democratic.

Plus, Burns was kind of caught off-guard in 2000. More accurately, his staff was, since he doesn't exactly run his own operation. They won't be in 2006- quite the contrary.

[AuH2O]

I will say that Democrats are not incorrect to say MT is their #1 or #2 pickup opportunity.

Top 3 pickup opportunities are PA, RI, and MT. There are 3 others where I think we have a reasonable chance as well.

Wish we could get a good candidate to challenge DeWine, but it doesn't appear likely.

The best defense is a good defense, not a good offense... Dems should be worried about MN, FL, WA, NJ possibly NE, MD, and ND.

How many net losses is it worth to take out Santorum?

[Moooooo]

The best defense is a good defense, not a good offense... Dems should be worried about MN, FL, WA, NJ possibly NE, MD, and ND.

How many net losses is it worth to take out Santorum?

So, your not worried about an incumbent with a 36% re-elect number, but I should be worried about MD?

[danwxman]

Oh and Burns is in the majority party, so he can better secure subsidies.

And, no, Montanans are not mad at Republicans. That's laughable. The only reason Bush got "only" 59% of the vote is because there are many Native Americans, who are reliably Democratic.

Plus, Burns was kind of caught off-guard in 2000. More accurately, his staff was, since he doesn't exactly run his own operation. They won't be in 2006- quite the contrary.

Then how did Shweitzer win and why is the Montana state house controlled by Democrats?

[AuH2O]

The best defense is a good defense, not a good offense... Dems should be worried about MN, FL, WA, NJ possibly NE, MD, and ND.

How many net losses is it worth to take out Santorum?

So, your not worried about an incumbent with a 36% re-elect number, but I should be worried about MD?

I'm "worried," I guess. But my point is that Dems have more seats to defend than the GOP.

MT is in many ways very attractive to Dems because of the low cost of media. Perhaps Tester is even the best Dem option. But it's an uphill battle nonetheless. Not many incumbents in line with the partisanship of their state lose.

Schweitzer is much more charismatic than Tester and probably more conservative.  On election day 2000, Schweitzer was more popular than Burns, and Burns wasn't even close, and Burns still won.

All I'm saying is that you should not count on taking Montana on election day. Keep things in perspective. If I was a Democrat, I'd be more worried about stopping Corzine from filling his seat with someone super-corrupt, and instead work on someone merely very corrupt.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

just like yall were going to win in nc and sc last year.

yawn.

Two totally different races.  Not even comparable.

yawn...

yes the races in the carolinas were open seats and much easier than going against an incumbent.

Actually, in the past decade, the Democrats have had much more success in defeating Republican incumbents than they have in defending open seats.   

For instance,

- In 1994, the Dems lost only two incumbents (and one was partial-term) but lost all nine open seat races, six of which were GOP pick-ups.

- In 2000, the Dems defeated five Republican incumbents, but only picked-up one open seat.  (The GOP defeated one Dem incumbent and pick-ed up one open seat).

- In 2004, the Dems lost only one incumbent, but lost in all five Dem-held open seats in the South.

The trend looks like it may continue in 2006....best Democratic opportunities are against incumbents in PA, MT, and maybe RI, while the best GOP opportunity is the open seat in MN, and possibly MD.

[Moooooo]

the best GOP opportunity is the open seat in MN, and possibly MD.

And MD is about as likely to go Republican as TN is to go Democrat.

[AuH2O]

Um no.

1) MN
2) FL
3) WA
4) NJ
5) NE
6) MD
7) ND

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Um no.

1) MN
2) FL
3) WA
4) NJ
5) NE
6) MD
7) ND

I think you basically agree with me, despite your puzzling denial; Minnesota is the most vulnerable Democratic seat.

Notice after that I said possibly Maryland; assuming a Steele v. Mfume race.

But if Steele runs, then Maryland ranks higher than a WA race w/o Rossi.