Not really true at all. Montana's political geography strongly suggests one safe R seat and one competitive seat. After all, the competitive seat in Montana very naturally falls out of drawing maps along geographic and cultural lines, and breaking up the competitive seat actually requires splitting across areas with geographic and cultural similarities. This contrasts strongly with the states you've mentioned, some of which may be less partisan than Montana, where the political geography makes it quite tough to create a competitive seat because there is no geographically and culturally cohesive area that supports the minority party big enough to form a district, and the minority party's supporters are instead spread relatively evenly or in small, isolated nodes across the state. In those states, it isn't reasonable to draw a district that is not geographically and culturally cohesive simply to achieve a competitive district.
Excellent explanation of why the comparison between MT and RI/MA makes no sense and has got to stop.
Seems like the most "natural" breakdown in MT is probably Safe R / Lean R, rather than Safe R / Toss-Up, but it's still pretty clear that one of the two seats should be competitive.
Poll
