MT-Sen: Burns trails Morrison, tied with Tester

[nini2287]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/February%202006/Montana%20Senate%20February.htm

Rasmussen:

Morrison 50
Burns 43

Tester 46
Morrison 46

This race has really surprised me, I was thinking that this Burns would win it easier than expected.  No primary numbers, though.

[Galactic Overlord]

The Abramoff scandal is giving Burns trouble.  But he is no stranger to competitive races, so he is certainly capable of fighting his way to victory.

[TheresNoMoney]

Either Democrat can beat Burns. I personally like Tester, but I will admit to not knowing much about Morrison. Either one would be a huge improvement over Burns.

[Adlai Stevenson]

Good news.  There certainly appears to have been a deterioration in Burns' numbers.  The hope is that he is finished as he sinks deeper as the public hear more about Abramoff; the worry is that he rebounds.  It could go either way but this is definitely going to be close.  Part of me just finds it difficult to believe that a Democrat could win in Montana.

[TheresNoMoney]

Good news.  There certainly appears to have been a deterioration in Burns' numbers.  The hope is that he is finished as he sinks deeper as the public hear more about Abramoff; the worry is that he rebounds.  It could go either way but this is definitely going to be close.  Part of me just finds it difficult to believe that a Democrat could win in Montana.

Max Baucus, Brian Schweitzer, former Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield?

Clinton won Montana in 1992 as well (and came very close in 1996).

[Adlai Stevenson]

Yeah I know but I just have the feeling that it will take a huge effort to defeat an entrenched incumbent like Burns in a state that voted 59%-38% for Bush.

[Nation]

The Abramoff scandal I think is what's taking the roll for Burns right now -- being an entrenched incumbent isn't as big a deal as you may think. Schweitzer ran a hell of a campaign in 2000, and I think the Dems may have found an even better candidate this time in either Morrison or Tester.

Burns will most likely recover a little in numbers, but this is the time for the Dems to strike in MT.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Last SurveyUSA poll had Burns dead last. The most unpopular Senator in the country.

The Abramoff scandal, fact that he's never been all that popular, and is rather nutty are all taking a toll. He can definately go down. The GOP might've been best to force him to step down and get Rehnburg to run instead, but it's probably too late for that.

[Galactic Overlord]

This assumes that neither Morrison or Tester have a blind spot on issues such as guns, taxes, or national security that Burns can turn to his advantage.  Baucus nearly lost in 1996 when Rehberg pinned him with the "liberal" label.  Montana is still a conservative/liberatarian state. 

[Alcon]

This assumes that neither Morrison or Tester have a blind spot on issues such as guns, taxes, or national security that Burns can turn to his advantage.  Baucus nearly lost in 1996 when Rehberg pinned him with the "liberal" label.  Montana is still a conservative/liberatarian state. 

Montana may be a libertarian-ish state, but it is not purely libertarian.  It is not a wealthy state by any means.  While there may be an anti-government aura to Montana's conservativism, it sure isn't a purely libertarian one.  Montanans are not necessarily completely friendly to big business because, well, there is very little of it in the state.  Taxes are not as huge of an issue, and at this point even a state like Montana is giving poor approvals to Bush on national security issues (I believe, but am not entirely certain).

You're right about guns, though.  Winning as an anti-gun candidate in Montana is next to impossible.  Then again, being anti-gun in the Democratic Party is pretty difficult by itself.  Everyone and their florist has a gun in MT.

[Moooooo]

Great news, but something still doesnt seem right.  Burns is plagued with scandal, but damn...  A 30 point swing in a matter of months?

[Sarnstrom]

It's Morrison Time! The numbers in this state just keep getting better.

[TheresNoMoney]

Both Dems are pro-gun, of course.

[Frodo]

This is a pleasant surprise -if Burns goes down this November, that would leave only two Republicans holding statewide offices in Montana:

Rep. Dennis Rehberg and Sec. of State Brad Johnson.

All other offices are either held by Democrats, or will be held by Democrats.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a separate note: Alcon, why are you sporting a blue avatar?  Have you decided to follow nini into the abyss that is the GOP? 

[Galactic Overlord]

This assumes that neither Morrison or Tester have a blind spot on issues such as guns, taxes, or national security that Burns can turn to his advantage.  Baucus nearly lost in 1996 when Rehberg pinned him with the "liberal" label.  Montana is still a conservative/liberatarian state. 

Montana may be a libertarian-ish state, but it is not purely libertarian.  It is not a wealthy state by any means.  While there may be an anti-government aura to Montana's conservativism, it sure isn't a purely libertarian one.  Montanans are not necessarily completely friendly to big business because, well, there is very little of it in the state.  Taxes are not as huge of an issue, and at this point even a state like Montana is giving poor approvals to Bush on national security issues (I believe, but am not entirely certain).

You're right about guns, though.  Winning as an anti-gun candidate in Montana is next to impossible.  Then again, being anti-gun in the Democratic Party is pretty difficult by itself.  Everyone and their florist has a gun in MT.

I imagine guns wouldn't be a problem for them, as Montana lacks a big urban area to put out gun control advocates anyway.  I heard someone describe half of the state as libertarian with a populist streak and the other half as fairly conservative. 

[Galactic Overlord]

Ack...never mind about the urban areas.  I guess I meant big city....ugh I'm just garbled today.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

On a separate note: Alcon, why are you sporting a blue avatar?  Have you decided to follow nini into the abyss that is the GOP?

I'm angry with the third-party financing thing.  I'm not really in the GOP.  It's just to say "if you won't let me vote third party against you folks, then I'll have to vote GOP."

Oh please. There is a better chance of opebo becoming a Christian than there is of that bill passing, or even coming to a vote.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

On a separate note: Alcon, why are you sporting a blue avatar?  Have you decided to follow nini into the abyss that is the GOP?

I'm angry with the third-party financing thing.  I'm not really in the GOP.  It's just to say "if you won't let me vote third party against you folks, then I'll have to vote GOP."

If you're going to become Republican because of this, then good riddance. It's not like you ever support the Democratic party in its struggles against the far-right who rules this control. Go support the far-right.

[Alcon]

On a separate note: Alcon, why are you sporting a blue avatar?  Have you decided to follow nini into the abyss that is the GOP?

I'm angry with the third-party financing thing.  I'm not really in the GOP.  It's just to say "if you won't let me vote third party against you folks, then I'll have to vote GOP."

If you're going to become Republican because of this, then good riddance. It's not like you ever support the Democratic party in its struggles against the far-right who rules this control. Go support the far-right.

The avatar has nothing to do with my party registration, other than "I can't believe the Democrats propose stupid stuff like this."  I know it will never come to a vote, and I'm only keeping it for 24 hours.

I'd vote for most any Democrat (bar the far leftists) against a far-righter, so I'm not sure what to think of that comment.  I support whatever I feel is best for the country.

[7,052,770]

On a separate note: Alcon, why are you sporting a blue avatar?  Have you decided to follow nini into the abyss that is the GOP?

I'm angry with the third-party financing thing.  I'm not really in the GOP.  It's just to say "if you won't let me vote third party against you folks, then I'll have to vote GOP."

If you're going to become Republican because of this, then good riddance. It's not like you ever support the Democratic party in its struggles against the far-right who rules this control. Go support the far-right.

The avatar has nothing to do with my party registration, other than "I can't believe the Democrats propose stupid stuff like this."  I know it will never come to a vote, and I'm only keeping it for 24 hours.

I'd vote for most any Democrat (bar the far leftists) against a far-righter, so I'm not sure what to think of that comment.  I support whatever I feel is best for the country.

c'mon Alcon, don't judge a whole group by a few members...you know that

[Alcon]

c'mon Alcon, don't judge a whole group by a few members...you know that

I'm glad I'm changing it back tomorrow, because I'm kind of getting sick of explaining this. 

I changed it because the bill would just cause me to vote GOP before, maybe more than 50% of the time.  I don't judge the entire party based on it, and I'm not a Republican.