MONTANA: Burns leads Tester, Morrison, and Kemmis

[King]

From the Helena Indepedent Record:

Both Republican U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns and Rep. Denny Rehberg lead trial matchups against potential Democratic opponents for the 2006 election and, as incumbents, are far better known among the voters, a new Lee Newspapers poll shows.

The telephone survey, taken May 23-25 of 625 likely Montana voters by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc., has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

If the 2006 Senate election were held today, Burns would defeat state Auditor John Morrison, a Democrat, by a 49 to 34 percent margin, with 17 percent undecided. Burns leads among men by a 54 to 33 percent and among women by a 44 to 35 percent majority, with the rest undecided.

Burns, 70, is a former Yellowstone County commissioner and agricultural broadcaster who already has raised $2.2 million for the 2006 race. Morrison, 43, a Helena attorney, was elected to his second term as state auditor in November and announced his Senate candidacy in April.

"Burns is under 50 (percent) against Morrison, but at 49 (percent) I don't see him as vulnerable, but would keep an eye on him,'' said Mason-Dixon pollster Brad Coker. "If he were 44-45 (percent), I'd put it into the category of potential upsets. Right now, he could be doing a little better against Morrison, but he's not in the super danger zone.''

In another test, Burns would defeat Montana Senate President Jon Tester, D-Big Sandy, by a 50 to 26 percent margin, with 24 percent undecided. Burns tops Tester among men, 56 to 25 percent, and among women, 44 to 27 percent, with the rest undecided.

Tester, 48, is an organic grain farmer who announced his candidacy last week by driving his tractor-trailer to major cities across the state.

A third trial matchup pitted Burns against former Missoula Mayor and ex-House Speaker Daniel Kemmis, with Burns leading 53 to 23 percent, with the rest undecided. Kemmis, who had been considering the race, announced Thursday he wouldn't run for the Senate after all.

The poll also asked voters whether they recognized the names of these people and, if so, favorably or unfavorably or neutrally.

Burns' name was second with 45 percent favorable to 24 unfavorable, with 30 percent neutral and 1 percent not recognizing him.

Morrison's name received 22 percent favorable recognition to 7 percent unfavorable, with 40 percent neutral. Thirty-one percent of the voters didn't recognize his name.

Tester had a 14 percent favorable recognition and 4 percent unfavorable, with 21 percent neutral. Sixty-one percent of voters didn't recognize his name.

Kemmis had 8 percent favorable name recognition, 6 percent unfavorable, 17 percent neutral and 69 percent didn't recognize his name.

[King]

I know the undecides are large, but the fact that Burns is in the high 40s while all the dems are in low-to-mid 30s/20s is quite far from upset possibility. Just look at Corzine v. Forrestor...

[TheresNoMoney]

Tester is completely unknown by something like 60% of Montanans.

The Montana race should definitely end up being competitive.

[Sam Spade]

Already posted King...

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=23098.0

[Schmitz in 1972]

Still, Montana is trending Dem as indicated by the 2004 elections...

[Alcon]

Still, Montana is trending Dem as indicated by the 2004 elections...

Not necessarily. It's more that the Montana Republican Party is a pit of idiocy and the Montana Democratic Party isn't very bad at all.

[Ben Meyers]

Montana isn't trending Dem, but it is definitely the most Democratic of the Rocky Mountain states.

[Moooooo]

Im gonna' go out on the limb and say... If Tester is the nominee in 2006 we will win this seat.  Morrison or McGrath will lose.  Here's why...

Bob Brigham wrote an excellent Diary the other day ay MyDD regarding Democrats and Populism. Check it out...

http://www.mydd.com/story/2005/5/30/155253/983

"This weekend, there has been an important online discussion of economic populism and the future of the Democratic Party.

Paperwight started the discussion with a precinct-by-precinct examination of how Congressman Bernie Sanders out performs Republicans in the reddest areas of Vermont. David Sirota had more to say and then linked it back to the Montana miracle of Democrats winning in the west.

With all eyes on Montana Senator Conrad Burns re-election campaign, let's look back at the roll populism has played in Big Sky elections since Burns was elected in 1988.

In American politics -- and especially in the Senate -- incumbents have a huge advantage over challengers. It is difficult for a senator seeking re-election to lose. Absent a major scandal, the most vulnerable election for an incumbent is the first re-election campaign.

For Conrad Burns, that campaign was his 1994 re-election. In that race, Montana Democrats fielded Jack Mudd, a Missoula attorney and Dean of the Law School to challenge the newbie senator. Mudd was what we now refer to as a DLC Democrat, he focused on following polls to try to find a way to not anger voters while avoiding a message of economic populism. Mudd lost.

In 2000, Burns was much stronger of a candidate and had the luxury of being on the same ticket as George Bush after eight years of a Democratic White House (as an aside, Clinton visited and won Montana in 1992). The insiders said Burns would cruise to an easy re-election and not a single Democratic elected official challenged him, instead three statewide officials chose to fight it out in the gubernatorial primary rather than take on Burns. But an unknown farmer named Brian Schweitzer decided to take on Burns -- with little institutional support -- running on a message of economic populism.

Comparing the 1994 and 2000 outcomes shows the power -- especially in the "red states" -- of running a man of the people with a message of economic populism.

Here are the 1994 and 2000 results (PDFs):


1994
Burns:
218,542 Votes (62%)
Mudd:
131,845 Votes (38%)
2000
Burns:
208,082 Votes (52%)
Schweitzer:
194,430 Votes (48%)

That is an astonishing difference in outcomes that can be attributed 100% to running a candidate who is a farmer -- not a city lawyer -- with a message of economic populism.

As everyone knows, Schweitzer went on to be elected Governor of Montana during the 2004 "Montana Miracle" sweep that voters allowed as Democrats stood proud and promised to fight as populists. Governor Schweitzer now enjoys a 57% approval rating, four points higher than President Bush.

Montana Democrats are now faced with deciding between keeping the populist winning streak alive or returning to the DLC message that has wrought nothing but heartache and failure.

Democrat state Senate President Jon Tester is another fiery farmer with a bread-and-butter message of economic populism, while State Auditor John Morrison is another city lawyer on track to suffer the same fate as Jack Mudd and Dusty Deschamps (1998 Montana congressional candidate who was stomped).

There is a Da Vinci code for Democrats and that involves fighting as a populist. There is no reason why the 2004 sweep can't carry over to 2006, all that is necessary is a will to stand strong for the people and ditch the DLC, polled-based, boring campaigns of old.

That is why I'm proud that the Swing State Project is supporting Jon Tester. I expect Tester to beat Burns and in the process, continue Schweitzer's trail-blazing of a message that resonates in the heartland, in rural areas, in red states."

[Moooooo]

Montana isn't trending Dem, but it is definitely the most Democratic of the Rocky Mountain states.

At the state level Montana is most definitley trending towards the Democrats.

We control:

The State House
The State Senate
The Governor's Mansion
The Attorney General's Office
The State Audior's Office
One U.S. Senate seat

[Alcon]

Montana isn't trending Dem, but it is definitely the most Democratic of the Rocky Mountain states.

At the state level it is, partially thanks to a rather inept GOP state legislature (which is now gone) and a Governor who, already involved in a scandal, decided to help cover up a vehicular homicide.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Montana isn't trending Dem, but it is definitely the most Democratic of the Rocky Mountain states.

At the state level it is, partially thanks to a rather inept GOP state legislature (which is now gone) and a Governor who, already involved in a scandal, decided to help cover up a vehicular homicide.

Senator Burns has some major scandals too, although not quite that serious.

[Alcon]

Montana isn't trending Dem, but it is definitely the most Democratic of the Rocky Mountain states.

At the state level it is, partially thanks to a rather inept GOP state legislature (which is now gone) and a Governor who, already involved in a scandal, decided to help cover up a vehicular homicide.

Senator Burns has some major scandals too, although not quite that serious.

Yes, indeed, which is why I expected lower numbers.

[Sam Spade]

Another main problem he had in 2000 was that he promised to serve only two terms and then reneged on that one.  Voters have seemed to not care about this right now.

Now that I think about it, he did almost everything he possibly could to lose that race except commit vehicular homicide.

[AuH2O]

Montana is not trending Democrat. That's a fact. Indeed, Democrats have lost perhaps 20% of their strength there in the last 15 years.

State politics can be a funny thing... often time the breakdown of state elected officials can be rather at odds with its overall political leanings due to a variety of factors.

Burns' job approval rating is very high, actually, and his personal approval rating is quite acceptable. By the numbers, it is extremely unlikely he will lose. By logic, the likely outcome is the same.

Schweitzer is a tremendously good candidate-- though he still lost to the inept Burns, of course-- which helps explain his popularity. Generally, it is wise to first look at the individual level, especially in a sparsely-populated state, rather than make up grand theories about political changes in the state.

[Alcon]

Montana is not trending Democrat. That's a fact. Indeed, Democrats have lost perhaps 20% of their strength there in the last 15 years.

Who says a trend has to be over a long period of time like that? The state is, in fact, electing Democrats. No one is arguing for a national trend (Dukakis, after all, did better there than his national average - we've lost the state, quite clearly), but a state trend is pretty clear against the GOP.

[AuH2O]

Yeah well Democrats still win many races in the Deep South within the states... a lot of that is tactical, local politics.

Becoming Governor even is totally different than Senator. Guys like Barnes and Hodges and Siegelman might have been bounced out of the Governor's mansion, but they never would have been elected Senator anyway.

Montana is not likely to send a Democrat to the Senate, not over a GOP incumbent or in an open race. One day Schweitzer might get there, keeping Montana split, but that's about it.