More likely? Tester winning or Cruz losing?

[Tekken_Guy]

What is more likely to happen at this point? Jon Tester winning or Ted Cruz losing?

[Progressive Pessimist]

Tester winning, definitely.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Cruz losing; even if the GOP makes some blunders there's no way MT-Sen isn't heavily nationalized, whereas TX is a state that could be reasonably close Presidentially, with a small but realistic chance of a an outright Biden victory.

The one thing that makes me question this is generally Dem spending tends to heavily favor incumbents, so perhaps if they underinvest in TX my opinion will change.

[Spectator]

Both Senate Democrat candidates will overperform Biden, but 5-7 points is much more doable than 15+, I don't care how much "incumbency" and "brand" you have.

[SnowLabrador]

Both Senate Democrat candidates will overperform Biden, but 5-7 points is much more doable than 15+, I don't care how much "incumbency" and "brand" you have.

Exactly this. Texas goes D before Montana.

[oldtimer]

Tester has it now in the bag, he's now practically unopposed.

[Reactionary Libertarian]

Both Senate Democrat candidates will overperform Biden, but 5-7 points is much more doable than 15+, I don't care how much "incumbency" and "brand" you have.

One thing that has to be taken into account is that MT could also shift left presidentially. That would mean Tester has to make up less.

[Torie]

Given that Rosendahl dropped out, making Sheey a heavy favorite, Cruz is more likely to lose.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Both are likely

[Steve from Lambeth]

Tester.

[Schiff for Senate]

The way I see it, there's a non-negligible chance of Tester winning (40%, let's say), and quite a negligible chance of Cruz losing (10-15%). So the answer is pretty clear.

Cruz losing; even if the GOP makes some blunders there's no way MT-Sen isn't heavily nationalized, whereas TX is a state that could be reasonably close Presidentially, with a small but realistic chance of a an outright Biden victory.

The one thing that makes me question this is generally Dem spending tends to heavily favor incumbents, so perhaps if they underinvest in TX my opinion will change.

Not really. Maybe miniscule, at best. In terms of outcome, I just can't see it flipping this year. It could swing/trend a little to the left, of course, but an outright flip seems like quite the stretch. We'll have to wait till 2028, at the earliest, for Blexas.

[Schiff for Senate]

Both Senate Democrat candidates will overperform Biden, but 5-7 points is much more doable than 15+, I don't care how much "incumbency" and "brand" you have.

By that logic, 2018 would've seen Phil Bredesen or Beto O'Rourke win rather than Joe Manchin. Yet we all know what happened...

[ProgressiveModerate]

The way I see it, there's a non-negligible chance of Tester winning (40%, let's say), and quite a negligible chance of Cruz losing (10-15%). So the answer is pretty clear.

Cruz losing; even if the GOP makes some blunders there's no way MT-Sen isn't heavily nationalized, whereas TX is a state that could be reasonably close Presidentially, with a small but realistic chance of a an outright Biden victory.

The one thing that makes me question this is generally Dem spending tends to heavily favor incumbents, so perhaps if they underinvest in TX my opinion will change.

Not really. Maybe miniscule, at best. In terms of outcome, I just can't see it flipping this year. It could swing/trend a little to the left, of course, but an outright flip seems like quite the stretch. We'll have to wait till 2028, at the earliest, for Blexas.

Maybe it doesn't, but TX will almost certainly be way closer than MT Presidentially and I'd argue TX is favored to trend left relative to the nation just based on Demographic changes. Democrats definitely have the votes to win TX under the right circumstances right now, I'm just not sure if 2024 is the year they really make that investment.

[Schiff for Senate]

The way I see it, there's a non-negligible chance of Tester winning (40%, let's say), and quite a negligible chance of Cruz losing (10-15%). So the answer is pretty clear.

Cruz losing; even if the GOP makes some blunders there's no way MT-Sen isn't heavily nationalized, whereas TX is a state that could be reasonably close Presidentially, with a small but realistic chance of a an outright Biden victory.

The one thing that makes me question this is generally Dem spending tends to heavily favor incumbents, so perhaps if they underinvest in TX my opinion will change.

Not really. Maybe miniscule, at best. In terms of outcome, I just can't see it flipping this year. It could swing/trend a little to the left, of course, but an outright flip seems like quite the stretch. We'll have to wait till 2028, at the earliest, for Blexas.

Maybe it doesn't, but TX will almost certainly be way closer than MT Presidentially and I'd argue TX is favored to trend left relative to the nation just based on Demographic changes. Democrats definitely have the votes to win TX under the right circumstances right now, I'm just not sure if 2024 is the year they really make that investment.

Agreed, but that still does not mean an Allred win is likelier than a Tester win.

[ProgressiveModerate]

The way I see it, there's a non-negligible chance of Tester winning (40%, let's say), and quite a negligible chance of Cruz losing (10-15%). So the answer is pretty clear.

Cruz losing; even if the GOP makes some blunders there's no way MT-Sen isn't heavily nationalized, whereas TX is a state that could be reasonably close Presidentially, with a small but realistic chance of a an outright Biden victory.

The one thing that makes me question this is generally Dem spending tends to heavily favor incumbents, so perhaps if they underinvest in TX my opinion will change.

Not really. Maybe miniscule, at best. In terms of outcome, I just can't see it flipping this year. It could swing/trend a little to the left, of course, but an outright flip seems like quite the stretch. We'll have to wait till 2028, at the earliest, for Blexas.

Maybe it doesn't, but TX will almost certainly be way closer than MT Presidentially and I'd argue TX is favored to trend left relative to the nation just based on Demographic changes. Democrats definitely have the votes to win TX under the right circumstances right now, I'm just not sure if 2024 is the year they really make that investment.

Agreed, but that still does not mean an Allred win is likelier than a Tester win.

Doesn't necessarily, but imo that's a huge reason why it's more likely. 2018 was already a year with good Dem turnout; good chance if Tester was up in 2020 and maintained 2018 levels of persuasion he would've lost. A ~15%+ overperformance is tricky these days.

[Dan the Roman]

The way I see it, there's a non-negligible chance of Tester winning (40%, let's say), and quite a negligible chance of Cruz losing (10-15%). So the answer is pretty clear.

Cruz losing; even if the GOP makes some blunders there's no way MT-Sen isn't heavily nationalized, whereas TX is a state that could be reasonably close Presidentially, with a small but realistic chance of a an outright Biden victory.

The one thing that makes me question this is generally Dem spending tends to heavily favor incumbents, so perhaps if they underinvest in TX my opinion will change.

Not really. Maybe miniscule, at best. In terms of outcome, I just can't see it flipping this year. It could swing/trend a little to the left, of course, but an outright flip seems like quite the stretch. We'll have to wait till 2028, at the earliest, for Blexas.

Maybe it doesn't, but TX will almost certainly be way closer than MT Presidentially and I'd argue TX is favored to trend left relative to the nation just based on Demographic changes. Democrats definitely have the votes to win TX under the right circumstances right now, I'm just not sure if 2024 is the year they really make that investment.

On the one hand Biden will have a lot more money than Trump. On the other, there is nothing else of interest. The legislature isn't contested, and there aren't competitive US House races.

One major difference from Georgia is that with Atlanta Democrats had one major media market they could concentrate their organizational efforts on. They really don't have that in Texas. They need to expand into the Austin exurbs, hold onto Houston, flip Fort Worth, and then manage turnout on the border.

Biden really isn't the inspiring figure to do that. Trump may drive Democrats out to vote, but will they bother working hundreds of hours for Biden?

[ProgressiveModerate]

The way I see it, there's a non-negligible chance of Tester winning (40%, let's say), and quite a negligible chance of Cruz losing (10-15%). So the answer is pretty clear.

Cruz losing; even if the GOP makes some blunders there's no way MT-Sen isn't heavily nationalized, whereas TX is a state that could be reasonably close Presidentially, with a small but realistic chance of a an outright Biden victory.

The one thing that makes me question this is generally Dem spending tends to heavily favor incumbents, so perhaps if they underinvest in TX my opinion will change.

Not really. Maybe miniscule, at best. In terms of outcome, I just can't see it flipping this year. It could swing/trend a little to the left, of course, but an outright flip seems like quite the stretch. We'll have to wait till 2028, at the earliest, for Blexas.

Maybe it doesn't, but TX will almost certainly be way closer than MT Presidentially and I'd argue TX is favored to trend left relative to the nation just based on Demographic changes. Democrats definitely have the votes to win TX under the right circumstances right now, I'm just not sure if 2024 is the year they really make that investment.

On the one hand Biden will have a lot more money than Trump. On the other, there is nothing else of interest. The legislature isn't contested, and there aren't competitive US House races.

One major difference from Georgia is that with Atlanta Democrats had one major media market they could concentrate their organizational efforts on. They really don't have that in Texas. They need to expand into the Austin exurbs, hold onto Houston, flip Fort Worth, and then manage turnout on the border.

Biden really isn't the inspiring figure to do that. Trump may drive Democrats out to vote, but will they bother working hundreds of hours for Biden?

I'd argue the state House could be competative if Ds actually tried; even though the map is an R gerrymander because of Ds geographic bias the median state is basically in line with the state and the seats Ds need to get a majority are almost all concentrated in left shifting suburbs. Decent chance Biden wins a majority of the state house districts in 2024.

But also the benefit to Dems winning TX Presidentially is far greater than a state like GA; TX singlehandedly makes it really hard for the GOP to win any Presidential election without a dramatic coalition shake up. Trying to get TX to vote to the left of the nation in the 2030s would be powerful because it likely means the EC advantage flips to Dems.

The other reason TX is a smart investment is that because Dems haven't invested in so long, the marginal benefit to invest in TX is still very high, especially compared to the GOP which has had more state level infrastructure for a while. I've said this before but 2018 is a great example: literally the one cycle Dems took TX remotely seriously, Beto got nearly 200k more votes than Clinton in a midterm which is insane, with key Dem counties like Travis outright casting more votes than 2016.

I do agree TX is a more geopolitically complex state than GA where Dems have to have more things go right for them. But they also have more places they can improve; the state has 4 very large metros where an underperformance in one can be cancelled out by an overperformanc ein another.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

If Trump only wins TX by 7 he, Cruz will lose. If Brown, Tester and ALLRED win and Hogan and Justice win, I will burst out laughing

[Mr. Smith]

Both Senate Democrat candidates will overperform Biden, but 5-7 points is much more doable than 15+, I don't care how much "incumbency" and "brand" you have.

By that logic, 2018 would've seen Phil Bredesen or Beto O'Rourke win rather than Joe Manchin. Yet we all know what happened...

Manchin had a lot of room leftover to fall and still almost flubbed, and that was a midterm, no Presidential candidate to influence the outcome.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

Tester winning. Hot take- MT will not be much further right than TX at the Presidential level, if at all. I expect both to be low double digits(+10-12)

[SnowLabrador]

Tester winning. Hot take- MT will not be much further right than TX at the Presidential level, if at all. I expect both to be low double digits(+10-12)

Nah, Montana will be Trump +20 at least.

[DS0816]

Both Senate Democrat candidates will overperform Biden, but 5-7 points is much more doable than 15+, I don't care how much "incumbency" and "brand" you have.

One thing that has to be taken into account is that MT could also shift left presidentially. That would mean Tester has to make up less.

The Democrats should be getting Montana to trend toward them.

The state should be right around the party’s No. 30 best state in U.S. presidential elections.

Based on Election 2020 outcome, following 25 carried states, here is what should be targets for the Democrats:

26. North Carolina
27. Texas
28. Alaska
29. South Carolina
30. Montana

This is with observing a trend away from the Democrats with states which realigned Republican—Florida, Ohio, Iowa, and non-state Maine’s 2nd Congressional Distict—with replacements for where states rank.

[Spectator]

Both Senate Democrat candidates will overperform Biden, but 5-7 points is much more doable than 15+, I don't care how much "incumbency" and "brand" you have.

One thing that has to be taken into account is that MT could also shift left presidentially. That would mean Tester has to make up less.

The Democrats should be getting Montana to trend toward them.

The state should be right around the party’s No. 30 best state in U.S. presidential elections.

Based on Election 2020 outcome, following 25 carried states, here is what should be targets for the Democrats:

26. North Carolina
27. Texas
28. Alaska
29. South Carolina
30. Montana

This is with observing a trend away from the Democrats with states which realigned Republican—Florida, Ohio, Iowa, and non-state Maine’s 2nd Congressional Distict—with replacements for where states rank.

Kansas’s D trend is much more pronounced than South Carolina, setting aside the latter’s pretty inflexible electorate. Democrats have had a lot more success in Kansas statewide than South Carolina in the past 2 decades.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Our most vulnerable seat is MD and WV

[ClassicElectionEnthusiast]

Between Jon Tester tending to position himself just enough to the right on issues such as opposing gun control and supporting the Keystone XL pipeline to present himself as somewhat more moderate than many of his fellow Democrats and Montana's long-running tradition of ticket-splitting (while Tester is currently the lone Democrat in Montana's Congressional delegation; as recently as 2014 both Senate seats were held by Democrats) I think it's more likely Tester wins re-election than it would be for Cruz to lose re-election.