Montana Going to the Right: Some Evidence

[ElectionsGuy]

I thought I would talk about a trend that know one is focused on right now, Montana! This state had some backlash against Obama, lets look at some trends:

2000: R+25.5%
2004: R+18.1%
2008: R+9.4%
2012: R+17.6%

And some numbers from Gallup:

2008: 40.5% Lean Republican
2009: 43.8% Lean Republican
2010: 46.3% Lean Republican
2011: 47.1% Lean Republican
2012: 49.8% Lean Republican

So it appeared it trended heavily republican in 2012 and residents who lean republican has gone from 40% to 50% since 2008, this not only points to how hard it might be for democrats to win presidential elections, but how hard it might be to win the upcoming Senate Race there. Now these are estimates so their not going to be entirely accurate but it gives a good feeling of what the states like. Max Baucus, Jon Tester, and Steve Bullock (all democrats) were either able to cut into leaning republican voters, or able to win a good majority of undecided vote. Now it appears the only way for a democrat to win is to either win literally all of the undecided vote or cut into leaning republican voters, which is certainly possible, Max Baucus has done it before. This does not mean they can't win in the future, it can certainly trend democratic again, but with these trends right now, its certainly much, much harder.

Bottom Line: This states recent trends make it harder for democrats to compete in the state that democrats have a history of winning statewide elections, and a state that Clinton won in '92 and Obama almost won in '08. Thoughts on this?

[barfbag]

Other than 1972, 1980, 1984, 2000, and 2004 all of which were Republican victories and 3 of the 5 were Republican landslides, Montana has never really been overly red at the presidential level. Your data is insightful. A lot of us forget about such states.

[ElectionsGuy]

Other than 1972, 1980, 1984, 2000, and 2004 all of which were Republican victories and 3 of the 5 were Republican landslides, Montana has never really been overly red at the presidential level. Your data is insightful. A lot of us forget about such states.

Considering Romney lost by about 4%, consider Montana pretty red as it went 55.4-41.7% for Romney. That's 57.4-39.7% in a very close election, and 58.6-38.5% in a Bush 2004-like victory. These are just some trend updates as democrats have always been competitive in Montana when it comes statewide, however that claim is being challenged.  Montana is apparently supposed to be one of the hardest hit states by Obama Care, so that won't help either. in 2008 Obama was elected on hope and promise and performed much better in the Midwest, Great Plains (except Oklahoma), and Mountain West than any other democrat usually does, this kind of explains Obama's massive improvement from Kerry there. Therefore 2008 was an anomaly for many states (Indiana, Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana). Montana is sometimes viewed as a not-so-red version of Wyoming in most cases.

[illegaloperation]

Actually. this isn't much of an indication of anything.

Obama competed in Montana in 2008, but didn't in 2012.

You can see the same "trend" if you look at Indiana and Missouri.

[barfbag]

Other than 1972, 1980, 1984, 2000, and 2004 all of which were Republican victories and 3 of the 5 were Republican landslides, Montana has never really been overly red at the presidential level. Your data is insightful. A lot of us forget about such states.

Considering Romney lost by about 4%, consider Montana pretty red as it went 55.4-41.7% for Romney. That's 57.4-39.7% in a very close election, and 58.6-38.5% in a Bush 2004-like victory. These are just some trend updates as democrats have always been competitive in Montana when it comes statewide, however that claim is being challenged.  Montana is apparently supposed to be one of the hardest hit states by Obama Care, so that won't help either. in 2008 Obama was elected on hope and promise and performed much better in the Midwest, Great Plains (except Oklahoma), and Mountain West than any other democrat usually does, this kind of explains Obama's massive improvement from Kerry there. Therefore 2008 was an anomaly for many states (Indiana, Missouri, Wisconsin, Illinois, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana). Montana is sometimes viewed as a not-so-red version of Wyoming in most cases.

They won't be re-electing Max Baucus or his mistress back to the senate. He's just as bad as Anthony Weiner and the media covers for him.

[ElectionsGuy]

Actually. this isn't much of an indication of anything.

Obama competed in Montana in 2008, but didn't in 2012.

You can see the same "trend" if you look at Indiana and Missouri.

Really, so I just wasted my time with this? Would you believe me when I said Virginia is moving to the left and provided numbers as evidence? And because Obama simply "competes" in states they trend D, Utah swung heavily towards Obama in 2008 but I don't recall him competing in it, what a coincidence. I'm telling you the straight truth with numbers, but apparently that's no indication at all? What is an indication then? What evidence do you have that Montana is not moving to the right?

[barfbag]

Actually. this isn't much of an indication of anything.

Obama competed in Montana in 2008, but didn't in 2012.

You can see the same "trend" if you look at Indiana and Missouri.

Indiana was an anomaly in 2008. Missouri is a true trend if you look at numbers. When Democrats win big, Missouri can be close. Montana is a teaser for Democrats once in a while. Sometimes it's as red as Texas.

[illegaloperation]

Virginia is having organic shift to the left because of the growth in the D.C. suburb.

North Carolina is shifting to the left because of the growth in the Research Triangle and Charlotte.

Missouri is moving to right because of the growth in conservative southwest while Kansas City barely grew and St. Louis actually lost population.

I don't see anything in Montana that is causing organic shift to the right.  Rather, it's likely that without the GOTV (get out the vote) operations and not being designated a battleground state causes a big drop in voting participation.

That drop is most significant among groups that are more likely to vote Democratic. The same trend can be seen in the off year elections where the drop is mostly among Democratic voters.

I can directly compare Virginia and North Carolina in 2008 and 2012 because in both times, Obama compete in both states.

I can also compare Georgia in 2008 and 2012 because Obama did not compete in Georgia in both 2008 and 2012.

[illegaloperation]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[ElectionsGuy]

Virginia is having organic shift to the left because of the growth in the D.C. suburb.

North Carolina is shifting to the left because of the growth in the Research Triangle and Charlotte.

Missouri is moving to right because of the growth in conservative southwest while Kansas City barely grew and St. Louis actually lost population.

I don't see anything in Montana that is causing organic shift to the right.  Rather, it's likely that without the GOTV (get out the vote) operations and not being designated a battleground state causes a big drop in voting participation.

That drop is most significant among groups that are more likely to vote Democratic. The same trend can be seen in the off year elections where the drop is mostly among Democratic voters.

I can directly compare Virginia and North Carolina in 2008 and 2012 because in both times, Obama compete in both states.

I can also compare Georgia in 2008 and 2012 because Obama did not compete in Georgia in both 2008 and 2012.

Actually, in the case of Montana, rural eastern counties, as well as Yellowstone is growing, these are oil boom counties, so they are not Dem-friendly, some other big less republican counties like Missoula, Lewis and Clark, and Gallatin are growing too but the state overall in the past 4 years has gotten more republican, so the gains there don't affect the state too much.

[ElectionsGuy]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think your article here is a little incorrect or outdated, You'll find most counties east of Yellowstone are above average growth when compared to the state. Western Counties are growing too, but they've gotten more republican overall. Not all states trend by growth in certain areas, at least Montana doesn't seem to be one of those states

[sg0508]

MT leans republican at the presidential level, but similar to the Dakotas, it tends to elect democrat s to Congress. 

[Vosem]

MT leans republican at the presidential level, but similar to the Dakotas, it tends to elect democrat s to Congress. 

2010 delivered a rather powerful (and seemingly permanent) shock to this, though; Republicans managed to retain 2 open seats in 2012 (MT and ND) by double digits, while Democrats barely managed to defend Tester and the ND Senate open seat. These sort of ticket-splitting habits are still there, and still actually fairly powerful, but they are very clearly receding.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The state had two Democratic Senators continuously for much of the last 100 years save for a single term between 1947 and 1953 and then Conrad Burns and his terms (the third of which he almost lost), both were in the Class I seat. The Class II Senate seat has been in Democratic hands continuously for 100 years.

[opebo]

I certainly have no trouble believing that Montana is a reliably Republican state for the foreseeable future, and that it is likely to begin to return two Republican senators soon.

[ElectionsGuy]

I certainly have no trouble believing that Montana is a reliably Republican state for the foreseeable future, and that it is likely to begin to return two Republican senators soon.

Thanks Opebo, I'm proud of you for saying that. Now I don't know if Jon Tester will win re-election (2018) but if he runs again (which I assume he will) then they will need a good republican to push him out.

[barfbag]

It irks me how Montana and the Dakotas elect Democrats to the senate, but incumbents are judged based on what they do for the state and if all the Democrats know they need to do is a small project or two for their buddy from one of those states, then it will be in the budget to keep the voters happy with their congressman. It's not like there's much gerrymandering to be done to change their constituents.

[opebo]

I certainly have no trouble believing that Montana is a reliably Republican state for the foreseeable future, and that it is likely to begin to return two Republican senators soon.

Thanks Opebo, I'm proud of you for saying that. Now I don't know if Jon Tester will win re-election (2018) but if he runs again (which I assume he will) then they will need a good republican to push him out.

No problem WC.  There are a lot more states trending D than R on both the Presidentially and the Senatorial level, so recognizing the counter-trend in a few of these little hellhole's is no skin off my nose.

[Franknburger]

Let me first thank you, Waukesha Country, for pointing out an interesting trend plus a possible explanation (oil-induced population growth in the state's East).

Unfortunately, the US' two-party system is making it difficult to distinguish underlying trends, as it lumps together

(1a) Socially conservative, religion-based voters (->European "Christian Democrats")
1b) Economically conservative but socially liberal Libertarians (->European "Liberal parties")
(2a) Economically liberal, socially conservative to moderate, typically blue-collar Democrats (->European "Social Democrats"),
(2b) Socially liberal, economically moderate, typically higher-educated and/or ethnic minority Democrats (-> European "Greens").

In fact, I would suppose Montana to at the same time becoming more Libertarian and "greener" (with oil extraction being the divisive issue between the two). The "social democrat" base, traditionally strong for some regions' mining / labour union history, is gradually dying away. Whether there has ever been a stronger "Christian Democratic" base is beyond my knowledge, however, Montana's rather high elasticity suggests otherwise. It rather points at a sizeable share of centrist ("independent") swing voters.

If the above characterisation is correct, the long-term trend should depend strongly on both parties' candidates. A hypothetical "Social Democrat" (Clinton) vs. "Christian Democrat" (Huckabee) match-up might, e.g., lead to increased abstention and/or third-party vote with otherwise quite erratic major party trends. A "greenish", but otherwise economically moderate Democrat (you Americans are better in entering an adequate name here) might take the state, as would a Libertarian-centrist Republican. And part of the observed Republican trend may in fact relate to Obama having morphed from a "Green" (especially during the 2008 primaries, when he targeted the Midwest & Rockies) to a "Social Democrat" (2012 focus on the rust belt).

[ElectionsGuy]

Let me first thank you, Waukesha Country, for pointing out an interesting trend plus a possible explanation (oil-induced population growth in the state's East).

Unfortunately, the US' two-party system is making it difficult to distinguish underlying trends, as it lumps together

(1a) Socially conservative, religion-based voters (->European "Christian Democrats")
1b) Economically conservative but socially liberal Libertarians (->European "Liberal parties")
(2a) Economically liberal, socially conservative to moderate, typically blue-collar Democrats (->European "Social Democrats"),
(2b) Socially liberal, economically moderate, typically higher-educated and/or ethnic minority Democrats (-> European "Greens").

In fact, I would suppose Montana to at the same time becoming more Libertarian and "greener" (with oil extraction being the divisive issue between the two). The "social democrat" base, traditionally strong for some regions' mining / labour union history, is gradually dying away. Whether there has ever been a stronger "Christian Democratic" base is beyond my knowledge, however, Montana's rather high elasticity suggests otherwise. It rather points at a sizeable share of centrist ("independent") swing voters.

If the above characterisation is correct, the long-term trend should depend strongly on both parties' candidates. A hypothetical "Social Democrat" (Clinton) vs. "Christian Democrat" (Huckabee) match-up might, e.g., lead to increased abstention and/or third-party vote with otherwise quite erratic major party trends. A "greenish", but otherwise economically moderate Democrat (you Americans are better in entering an adequate name here) might take the state, as would a Libertarian-centrist Republican. And part of the observed Republican trend may in fact relate to Obama having morphed from a "Green" (especially during the 2008 primaries, when he targeted the Midwest & Rockies) to a "Social Democrat" (2012 focus on the rust belt).

Thanks for the input, Frank. I see Obama as a Social Democrat (European), what I've observed is that he's pretty economically liberal (on most issues) and socially moderate (gay marriage for example). I've only been around politics for maybe 2 years so I didn't see any transformation from '08 to '12 so thanks for letting me know that. I never thought Obama could've been economically moderate based on what I've seen of him.

[Franknburger]

Let me first thank you, Waukesha Country, for pointing out an interesting trend plus a possible explanation (oil-induced population growth in the state's East).

Unfortunately, the US' two-party system is making it difficult to distinguish underlying trends, as it lumps together

(1a) Socially conservative, religion-based voters (->European "Christian Democrats")
1b) Economically conservative but socially liberal Libertarians (->European "Liberal parties")
(2a) Economically liberal, socially conservative to moderate, typically blue-collar Democrats (->European "Social Democrats"),
(2b) Socially liberal, economically moderate, typically higher-educated and/or ethnic minority Democrats (-> European "Greens").

In fact, I would suppose Montana to at the same time becoming more Libertarian and "greener" (with oil extraction being the divisive issue between the two). The "social democrat" base, traditionally strong for some regions' mining / labour union history, is gradually dying away. Whether there has ever been a stronger "Christian Democratic" base is beyond my knowledge, however, Montana's rather high elasticity suggests otherwise. It rather points at a sizeable share of centrist ("independent") swing voters.

If the above characterisation is correct, the long-term trend should depend strongly on both parties' candidates. A hypothetical "Social Democrat" (Clinton) vs. "Christian Democrat" (Huckabee) match-up might, e.g., lead to increased abstention and/or third-party vote with otherwise quite erratic major party trends. A "greenish", but otherwise economically moderate Democrat (you Americans are better in entering an adequate name here) might take the state, as would a Libertarian-centrist Republican. And part of the observed Republican trend may in fact relate to Obama having morphed from a "Green" (especially during the 2008 primaries, when he targeted the Midwest & Rockies) to a "Social Democrat" (2012 focus on the rust belt).

Thanks for the input, Frank. I see Obama as a Social Democrat (European), what I've observed is that he's pretty economically liberal (on most issues) and socially moderate (gay marriage for example). I've only been around politics for maybe 2 years so I didn't see any transformation from '08 to '12 so thanks for letting me know that. I never thought Obama could've been economically moderate based on what I've seen of him.

In 2008, especially during the primaries, Obama came across (to me as an European observer) as
(1) dovish/ pacifist (opposed the Irak war from the beginning),
(2) very civil-rights minded,
(3) environmentally, especially climate-change concerned,
(4) worrying about the budget deficit (using that as argument for withdrawing from Irak),
(5) rather focusing on the "new economy" and education issues, than blue collar workers and the rust-belt.
(6) promoting domestic reconciliation, ethnically as well as over the partisan divide ("reaching across the aisles").

As to now, I think we both agree he is pretty mainstream "red" with a few "green spots" left over.

[PJ]

I'll just say that you can't base a trend off of one election. Sorry if someone already said that, I just read the first post.

[barfbag]

I'll just say that you can't base a trend off of one election. Sorry if someone already said that, I just read the first post.

This is very correct. Trends must be continuous throughout the least amount of elections in which both parties have won an equal amount of presidencies. States like Utah trend all the time because there's nowhere else for them to go.

[ElectionsGuy]

I'll just say that you can't base a trend off of one election. Sorry if someone already said that, I just read the first post.

I don't know if I would call it a trend either, sorry if I said that. Could we call this slight movement?

[Indy Texas]

It irks me how Montana and the Dakotas elect Democrats to the senate, but incumbents are judged based on what they do for the state and if all the Democrats know they need to do is a small project or two for their buddy from one of those states, then it will be in the budget to keep the voters happy with their congressman. It's not like there's much gerrymandering to be done to change their constituents.

Yes, how dare those Montanans and Dakotans expect their elected officials to do things for their state instead of adhering to agendas set by activists in Washington and giving tax cuts to rich people in Texas and New York.