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

[cinyc]

It would be nice if someone actually polled this race, it has received surprisingly little attention outside of Atlas so far.

One reason is that it isn't technically easy to poll Montana by phone.  RRH says that they can't poll Montana due to either a high bond requirement or ban on robo-polling - I don't remember which.  Either way, it's just too costly for them to poll.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Lee Newspapers use Mason-Dixon to poll the race closer to election day, though.  They've done statewide polling of Montana in the past.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

The lack of help from the DSCC seems to confirm their shift from WWC to upscale suburban districts.

I think this is actually a good thing. If he gets money from the DSCC then the GOP can run 'Quist is Pelosi's puppet!' campaign ads

They'll probably try anyway.

[Hindsight was 2020]

I did read an article Tom is sending staffers an other help over so it's not completely ignored

[Virginiá]

Democratic leadership knows who to pursue and will adapt their policies and rhetoric to capture that new pool of voters starting in 2018. It's why they're focusing on the suburban district in Georgia while ignoring Montana.

Still, that doesn't really make sense given where the party is right now. Winning statewide races in Montana, whether for state or federal office, is still perfectly doable for the party, and right now we needs House seats period. It doesn't matter if they are suburban or not, and one thing about establishment actors is that they generally don't care about that, especially when they are the nation's minority party. That only leaves 3 options, in my opinion:

1. They have data suggesting he won't win - whether their opinion is correct or not is up for debate.
2. They are legitimately incompetent. Given the focus on Democrats ignoring too much of America, I doubt it is this
3. They are planning to jump in, but closer to the election, and are probably coordinating with him in some ways already. This, in some form, seems likely to me.

I'm inclined to give the party the benefit of the doubt for right now, but whether that is silly of me or not should become apparent relatively soon.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The lack of help from the DSCC seems to confirm their shift from WWC to upscale suburban districts.

Or just that they hate progressives.

[Virginiá]

Or just that they hate progressives.

Typical jfern

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Or just that they hate progressives.

Typical jfern

Well, there's plenty of evidence that the establishment hates progressives. David Brock's Shareblue is still bashing Bernie on a regular basis, and Hillary hacks like Whitehouse are spouting their batsh**t crazy conspiracy theories.

[Virginiá]

Well, there's plenty of evidence that the establishment hates progressives. David Brock's Shareblue is still bashing Bernie on a regular basis, and Hillary hacks like Whitehouse are spouting their batsh**t crazy conspiracy theories.

My comment really had nothing to do with the validity of your statement. It was just that you brought it up in the first place. It's the same reason you had that "but Hillary" label in 2016. Your commentary is often blatantly fixated on a single subject, and you are largely oblivious to that (or don't care either way). If I had to guess, the overall focus of your political thoughts is around the impure nature of the politicians that represent the views closest to your own - aka Democrats. Not that you have any obligation to focus on anything in particular, but you're practically like the IID of a police department. Your entire focus is inwards.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, there's plenty of evidence that the establishment hates progressives. David Brock's Shareblue is still bashing Bernie on a regular basis, and Hillary hacks like Whitehouse are spouting their batsh**t crazy conspiracy theories.

My comment really had nothing to do with the validity of your statement. It was just that you brought it up in the first place. It's the same reason you had that "but Hillary" label in 2016. Your commentary is often blatantly fixated on a single subject, and you are largely oblivious to that (or don't care either way). If I had to guess, the overall focus of your political thoughts is around the impure nature of the politicians that represent the views closest to your own - aka Democrats. Not that you have any obligation to focus on anything in particular, but you're practically like the IID of a police department. Your entire focus is inwards.

The party had a choice last year between someone who appealed to progressives and would have beaten Trump or someone who seemed designed to piss people like me off and lost to Trump. Trump had a worse favorable rating than Goldwater. He was not a strong candidate. So how's the establishment respond? David Brock is still running his crazy anti Bernie propaganda. Prominent Democrats are spouting off insane Russian conspiracy theories, and Tom Perez was installed at the last minute as DNC chair. As low of an opinion that I had of the Democratic party, I thought they'd have gotten a bit more of a clue from losing to Donald J Trump than they did. One can oppose both Trump and the idiots who promoted Trump because they thought their terrible candidate could easily beat him.

[Crumpets]

Or just that they hate progressives.

Typical jfern

Well, there's plenty of evidence that the establishment hates progressives. David Brock's Shareblue is still bashing Bernie on a regular basis, and Hillary hacks like Whitehouse are spouting their batsh**t crazy conspiracy theories.

I'm a pretty typical establishmentarian Democrat, but Quist is exactly the kind of progressive I can get behind, and Montana is exactly the kind of place I think the progressive movement can play a role in helping Democrats and the liberal movement more generally extend their appeal. As I've said before, it's not an issue of policy positions, but one of practicality. Quist is clearly the ideal candidate for Democrats to have running here, just as JBE is ideal for Louisiana and Gillibrand is great for New York. Now, whether I would support him for President in a Democratic primary is a different story, but that's not where we're at right now.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Or just that they hate progressives.

Typical jfern

Well, there's plenty of evidence that the establishment hates progressives. David Brock's Shareblue is still bashing Bernie on a regular basis, and Hillary hacks like Whitehouse are spouting their batsh**t crazy conspiracy theories.

I'm a pretty typical establishmentarian Democrat, but Quist is exactly the kind of progressive I can get behind, and Montana is exactly the kind of place I think the progressive movement can play a role in helping Democrats and the liberal movement more generally extend their appeal. As I've said before, it's not an issue of policy positions, but one of practicality. Quist is clearly the ideal candidate for Democrats to have running here, just as JBE is ideal for Louisiana and Gillibrand is great for New York. Now, whether I would support him for President in a Democratic primary is a different story, but that's not where we're at right now.

Are you implying that progressive can win in Montana but not New York?

[Virginiá]

David Brock is still running his crazy anti Bernie propaganda.

Brock would still be doing what he does even if the Bernie wing completely took over the party. Your intra-party rivals don't just shut up when they lose stature.

Prominent Democrats are spouting off insane Russian conspiracy theories

Uh huh, and from other people's perspectives, you're another person on the left who dislikes the Russian angle because they believe it is being used solely to justify Clinton's loss. Even worse, you're of the type who believes Democrats have complete control of that narrative now. The investigation and the stories that come from it have taken on a life of its own. At best you can argue that certain people indulge certain parts of it too much.

and Tom Perez was installed at the last minute as DNC chair.

I dunno, I'm not sure it counts as "last minute." Also, it is naive and silly of you if you really think the dominant faction of the party is just going to roll over and give it up just because Hillary lost. If progressives want to take over the party, it's unrealistic to expect everything to fall into place in such a brief period of time.

I thought they'd have gotten a bit more of a clue from losing to Donald J Trump than they did.

While I'm not endorsing either side in this particular part of my response, I'd say you have no idea whether or not anyone has got a clue yet. We aren't even a year from the election, nor has Perez even been chair for more than a couple months and you are already talking about complete failures of this and that!

I have to admit, I really hope the party is up to your code by early 2018, or else at this rate you'll be foaming at the mouth and out for blood.

[Crumpets]

Or just that they hate progressives.

Typical jfern

Well, there's plenty of evidence that the establishment hates progressives. David Brock's Shareblue is still bashing Bernie on a regular basis, and Hillary hacks like Whitehouse are spouting their batsh**t crazy conspiracy theories.

I'm a pretty typical establishmentarian Democrat, but Quist is exactly the kind of progressive I can get behind, and Montana is exactly the kind of place I think the progressive movement can play a role in helping Democrats and the liberal movement more generally extend their appeal. As I've said before, it's not an issue of policy positions, but one of practicality. Quist is clearly the ideal candidate for Democrats to have running here, just as JBE is ideal for Louisiana and Gillibrand is great for New York. Now, whether I would support him for President in a Democratic primary is a different story, but that's not where we're at right now.

Are you implying that progressive can win in Montana but not New York?

No, just that no one faction of the Democratic Party can claim to be the one true path to salvation for the national party as a whole. Had Clinton won the election and chosen Bullock to be in her administration, it would have been the wrong choice for Democrats to nominate Amanda Curtis to replace him, even despite the Clinton wing theoretically claiming to have "won" in this scenario. Likewise, had Bernie won and put some hypothetical New Jersey Democrat in his administration, it probably wouldn't have been the best pick to get Cornell West to run as the Democratic candidate to replace them, even if the Sanders wing had "won" the day in the election.

In short, the party should play to its regional strengths when we aren't running nation-wide elections, and not try to focus on purity tests for its candidates one way or another.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

David Brock is still running his crazy anti Bernie propaganda.

Brock would still be doing what he does even if the Bernie wing completely took over the party. Your intra-party rivals don't just shut up when they lose stature.

He's more than just an intra-party rival. His SuperPAC directly coordinated with the Hillary campaign and he pushed that "Bernie Bro" myth hard.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh huh, and from other people's perspectives, you're another person on the left who dislikes the Russian angle because they believe it is being used solely to justify Clinton's loss. Even worse, you're of the type who believes Democrats have complete control of that narrative now. The investigation and the stories that come from it have taken on a life of its own. At best you can argue that certain people indulge certain parts of it too much.
[/quote]

There's no evidence that Russia was behind the Podesta e-mail leak, and those e-mails have been DKIM verified, and the contents not addressed. The Russia thing is all a pathetic distraction to start a new cold war to distract people from that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I dunno, I'm not sure it counts as "last minute." Also, it is naive and silly of you if you really think the dominant faction of the party is just going to roll over and give it up just because Hillary lost. If progressives want to take over the party, it's unrealistic to expect everything to fall into place in such a brief period of time.

[/quote]

Ellison bent over backwards for the Hillary people and had more endorsements from Hillary supporting US Senators than Perez, but Obama and the Clintons wanted to retain the establishment power.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

While I'm not endorsing either side in this particular part of my response, I'd say you have no idea whether or not anyone has got a clue yet. We aren't even a year from the election, nor has Perez even been chair for more than a couple months and you are already talking about complete failures of this and that!

I have to admit, I really hope the party is up to your code by early 2018, or else at this rate you'll be foaming at the mouth and out for blood.
[/quote]

My expectations for the Democratic party were damn low, but they included them stopping their insane Russian conspiracy theories by now. The party needs to STFU about the Russians, stop bashing people who didn't support their terrible candidate, and actually focus on issues that help people.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Or just that they hate progressives.

Typical jfern

Well, there's plenty of evidence that the establishment hates progressives. David Brock's Shareblue is still bashing Bernie on a regular basis, and Hillary hacks like Whitehouse are spouting their batsh**t crazy conspiracy theories.

I'm a pretty typical establishmentarian Democrat, but Quist is exactly the kind of progressive I can get behind, and Montana is exactly the kind of place I think the progressive movement can play a role in helping Democrats and the liberal movement more generally extend their appeal. As I've said before, it's not an issue of policy positions, but one of practicality. Quist is clearly the ideal candidate for Democrats to have running here, just as JBE is ideal for Louisiana and Gillibrand is great for New York. Now, whether I would support him for President in a Democratic primary is a different story, but that's not where we're at right now.

Are you implying that progressive can win in Montana but not New York?

No, just that no one faction of the Democratic Party can claim to be the one true path to salvation for the national party as a whole. Had Clinton won the election and chosen Bullock to be in her administration, it would have been the wrong choice for Democrats to nominate Amanda Curtis to replace him, even despite the Clinton wing theoretically claiming to have "won" in this scenario. Likewise, had Bernie won and put some hypothetical New Jersey Democrat in his administration, it probably wouldn't have been the best pick to get Cornell West to run as the Democratic candidate to replace them, even if the Sanders wing had "won" the day in the election.

In short, the party should play to its regional strengths when we aren't running nation-wide elections, and not try to focus on purity tests for its candidates one way or another.

The establishment forces purity tests. Why do you think so many endorsed Hillary in the primary? There were Democrats who were thinking of endorsing Bernie, but were informed that would stop them from being renominated.



And even if you endorsed Hillary, you weren't safe, such as the 6 year old vendetta against Joe Sestak where the DSCC blew 7 digits defeating him in the primary last year.

[BundouYMB]

"Please read my massive wall of text about the vast establishment conspiracy against me. Also, the establishment are the conspiracy theorists." - jfern

[Chief Justice Keef]

The lack of help from the DSCC seems to confirm their shift from WWC to upscale suburban districts.

Are Democrats now the party of the Bloombergeois?

Unfortunately, it would appear to be this way. Sanders represents the end of an era, rather than the beginning of a new one. He represents the dying gasps of the non-college educated White element of the Democratic Party - the one that can actually transcend partisanship (hence his stunning favorability among Independents). He's the last holdout of the New Deal Coalition and its nearly finalized influence on the party. There's no one who can carry his torch for a reason; the rest are too steeped in modern Democratic politics.

To be honest, I disagree with you. Sanders isn't the end of an era or the beginning of a new one, he's a revival of the New Deal era of Democrats, and I'm seeing a lot more energy, especially in terms of organizing, from progressives and Bernie supporters within the party than I am from liberals and Clinton supporters.

Frankly, Bernie is the most popular politician in America right now, and because of how popular he is among Millennials and how much pull he has in the national party now, his movement, or at the very least his ideas, are gonna last much longer than Clinton/Obama Democrat politics. The fact that nearly half of House Democrats have cosponsored Conyers' perennial Medicare-for-All bill without any push from leadership shows a pretty big push for Democrats to go left.

[MAINEiac4434]

The lack of help from the DSCC seems to confirm their shift from WWC to upscale suburban districts.

Are Democrats now the party of the Bloombergeois?

Unfortunately, it would appear to be this way. Sanders represents the end of an era, rather than the beginning of a new one. He represents the dying gasps of the non-college educated White element of the Democratic Party - the one that can actually transcend partisanship (hence his stunning favorability among Independents). He's the last holdout of the New Deal Coalition and its nearly finalized influence on the party. There's no one who can carry his torch for a reason; the rest are too steeped in modern Democratic politics.

To be honest, I disagree with you. Sanders isn't the end of an era or the beginning of a new one, he's a revival of the New Deal era of Democrats, and I'm seeing a lot more energy, especially in terms of organizing, from progressives and Bernie supporters within the party than I am from liberals and Clinton supporters.

Frankly, Bernie is the most popular politician in America right now, and because of how popular he is among Millennials and how much pull he has in the national party now, his movement, or at the very least his ideas, are gonna last much longer than Clinton/Obama Democrat politics. The fact that nearly half of House Democrats have cosponsored Conyers' perennial Medicare-for-All bill without any push from leadership shows a pretty big push for Democrats to go left.

Exactly. Sanders is to Democrats what Goldwater was to Republicans.

[Webnicz]

Quist being from Kalispell, does anyone think Quist can win Flathead county?

[cinyc]

Gravis polled the race, and has it at Gianforte +12:

Gianforte 50%
Quist 38%
Wicks 3%
Breck 2%
Uncertain 7%
http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/current-montana-polling-3/
1,222 Voters; MoE +-2.9;  Poll Dates ? - It was released today.


Breck is apparently the Green Party candidate.  Did we miss him getting ballot access, or is Gravis polling someone not on the ballot?

[Hindsight was 2020]

Gravis polled the race, and has it at Gianforte +12:

Gianforte 50%
Quist 38%
Wicks 3%
Breck 2%
Uncertain 7%
http://gravismarketing.com/polling-and-market-research/current-montana-polling-3/
1,222 Voters; MoE +-2.9;  Poll Dates ? - It was released today.


Breck is apparently the Green Party candidate.  Did we miss him getting ballot access, or is Gravis polling someone not on the ballot?

Good job DNC

[cinyc]

Apparently, Green Thomas Breck and Independent Steve Kelly are suing to get on the ballot.  They didn't get the requisite number of signatures or pay to get on the ballot, so they're suing in federal court, claiming they didn't have enough time.

One problem is that many counties have already printed or are in the process of printing their ballots.

[Brittain33]

Frankly, Bernie is the most popular politician in America right now

Do we remember what other Democratic politician became highly popular after losing a primary to the eventual Democratic nominee, gamely supporting the winner's campaign, and returning to Washington in a lower-profile role?

[Kantakouzenos]

It seems like the google consumer survey polls are skewing pretty young and Gravis which I think uses landlines is skewing a bit old. 

[Chief Justice Keef]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.