Montana

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Why is it that Montana is the only 3-EV state that is at least a bit swingy?
It is also the only 3-EV state that regularly votes for both a governor and a senator that belong to a different party than the presidential candidate they vote for.

[Skill and Chance]

It's a similar dynamic to West Virginia, but the New Deal type Dem holdouts are even stronger in Montana because it doesn't have WV's social conservatism.  It used to be a Dem base state during 1896-1948.  The local economy hasn't changed nearly as much as the national economy since 1950, so statewide elections, which were still decided primarily on labor/class issues have diverged more and more from presidential elections.  If a Bernie type Dem gets the nomination in 2020, I think it would only be a 7%ish GOP win.

[MT Treasurer]

A rather obvious factor really is that the state is small enough that retail politics can be very effective (one of the reasons why Democrats controlled both Senate seats in the Dakotas for a very long time). Other reasons include the influence of organized labor, public lands and farming issues, the well-organized Montana Democratic Party and their successful GOTV operations, Democratic support among college-educated but also WWC and affluent voters in Missoula and Bozeman, the Native American vote, blue state migrants (particularly from the West Coast), etc. I would add that it is nowhere near as “elastic” (incredibly overused term, btw) as many people are making it out to be, though. The state does have a large base of Independent/unaffiliated voters, but it’s still worth noting that both parties have a fairly high floor and the state’s politics is characterized by both a long progressive and a (more recent) conservative tradition. I’d be very surprised if Tester won with more than 52% this year or if the Republican candidate received less than 45% of the vote, honestly.

And we probably shouldn’t forget to point out that the gubernatorial race was the only statewide race won by Democrats in 2016 or that the State Legislature has been solidly Republican in the 2010s.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

A rather obvious factor really is that the state is small enough that retail politics can be very effective (one of the reasons why Democrats controlled both Senate seats in the Dakotas for a very long time). Other reasons include the influence of organized labor, public lands and farming issues, the well-organized Montana Democratic Party and their successful GOTV operations, Democratic support among college-educated but also WWC and affluent voters in Missoula and Bozeman, the Native American vote, blue state migrants (particularly from the West Coast), etc. I would add that it is nowhere near as “elastic” (incredibly overused term, btw) as many people are making it out to be, though. The state does have a large base of Independent/unaffiliated voters, but it’s still worth noting that both parties have a fairly high floor and the state’s politics is characterized by both a long progressive and a (more recent) conservative tradition. I’d be very surprised if Tester won with more than 52% this year or if the Republican candidate received less than 45% of the vote, honestly.

Do you think, Montana's closeness to Canada could make it a little bit more liberal/libertarian?

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

A rather obvious factor really is that the state is small enough that retail politics can be very effective (one of the reasons why Democrats controlled both Senate seats in the Dakotas for a very long time). Other reasons include the influence of organized labor, public lands and farming issues, the well-organized Montana Democratic Party and their successful GOTV operations, Democratic support among college-educated but also WWC and affluent voters in Missoula and Bozeman, the Native American vote, blue state migrants (particularly from the West Coast), etc. I would add that it is nowhere near as “elastic” (incredibly overused term, btw) as many people are making it out to be, though. The state does have a large base of Independent/unaffiliated voters, but it’s still worth noting that both parties have a fairly high floor and the state’s politics is characterized by both a long progressive and a (more recent) conservative tradition. I’d be very surprised if Tester won with more than 52% this year or if the Republican candidate received less than 45% of the vote, honestly.

Do you think, Montana's closeness to Canada could make it a little bit more liberal/libertarian?

North Dakota is pretty close to Canada too, so I would highly doubt this.

[Red Tory Indy]

A rather obvious factor really is that the state is small enough that retail politics can be very effective (one of the reasons why Democrats controlled both Senate seats in the Dakotas for a very long time). Other reasons include the influence of organized labor, public lands and farming issues, the well-organized Montana Democratic Party and their successful GOTV operations, Democratic support among college-educated but also WWC and affluent voters in Missoula and Bozeman, the Native American vote, blue state migrants (particularly from the West Coast), etc. I would add that it is nowhere near as “elastic” (incredibly overused term, btw) as many people are making it out to be, though. The state does have a large base of Independent/unaffiliated voters, but it’s still worth noting that both parties have a fairly high floor and the state’s politics is characterized by both a long progressive and a (more recent) conservative tradition. I’d be very surprised if Tester won with more than 52% this year or if the Republican candidate received less than 45% of the vote, honestly.

Do you think, Montana's closeness to Canada could make it a little bit more liberal/libertarian?

Closeness to another country/region doesn't have anything to do with the political orientation of that region/country.

[twenty42]

Unless an election is 2000-level close, it’s really not worth the time or resources to campaign in a 3-EV state. Thus these states tend to remain pretty solid for one party or another.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Closeness to another country/region doesn't have anything to do with the political orientation of that region/country.

Really? Have you forgotten why Ted Cruz won the Maine caucus? 

[TML]

Looking at exit polls from this state from 2004, 2008, and 2012, it seems that there are several demographic groups which are most likely to swing: women, young voters (under 30), and lower-income voters (under $50000). In 2008, Obama won among all three of these demographic groups, which resulted in a close/competitive race (IMO, Obama would probably have won had there been a third-party candidate as strong as Perot in the 1990s). On the other hand, Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2012 lost among all three groups, which resulted in Republican blowouts in those years.

[Skill and Chance]

Unless an election is 2000-level close, it’s really not worth the time or resources to campaign in a 3-EV state. Thus these states tend to remain pretty solid for one party or another.

But they still have 2 Senate seats (which Democrats have somehow managed to do remarkably well in for decades even as their presidential candidates get blown out most of the time).

Democrats need to worry about the Senate going forward, particularly if they lose any more ground in New England.