Not insurmountable by any means but it should be concerning for her camp that she has not led in a single poll of this race in a state that is much redder than even 2012. If future polls continue to show Montana being competitive I could easily see her getting triaged
When you say 'is much redder than even 2012', are you talking about Trump's win expanding the GOP electorate or something? Because GWB won by somewhat similar margins in both 2000 and 2004. It was almost 30 points in 2000, and while Trump's was bigger, the actual % Trump got was not anything special in comparison to GWB. Most of Trump's extra margin % was just anti-Clinton voters going 3rd party. The only difference I guess is that polarization has locked in more voters for Republicans there, but it's still swingy enough for Democrats to win. Just maybe not as much as they used to. Also keep in mind that over the past 40 years, Democrats have held North Dakota's 2 Senate seats more often than Republicans. (link)
All-in-all, I don't buy this "Trump changed the Dakotas" argument. They were already voting bigly for Republicans a generation ago and Democrats were still winning Senate/House seats there.
I think it's just that Clinton's 27% in ND was absolutely abysmal and voting has become more polarized since the Bush era.
