Why are the Democrats so strong in Montana?

[Figueira]

Despite rarely winning there on the presidential level, the Democrats control most statewide offices in Montana, and have held at least one of the state's US Senate seats (often two) for over a century. Why is this?

[Torie]

Miners and railroad workers, a demographic that has slowly faded away over time.

[publicunofficial]

The MT Democrats tend to run surprisingly good candidates, and the MT Republicans often run surprisingly bad ones.


The GOP frontrunner for the 2016 Governor's race, for example, recently made a comment saying he doesn't believe retirement should be a thing because it isn't mentioned anywhere in the bible. Conrad Burns also had a history of saying outrageous things, which is part of why he lost to Tester.

[Skill and Chance]

Miners and railroad workers, a demographic that has slowly faded away over time.

This.  Rural Montana still basically has the economy and industries of 1935, just with computers grafted onto it.  And most in Montana are libertarian enough on social issues not to have gone the way of WV.

[AggregateDemand]

Despite rarely winning there on the presidential level, the Democrats control most statewide offices in Montana, and have held at least one of the state's US Senate seats (often two) for over a century. Why is this?

Anti-corporate rhetoric goes a long way in Montana. Socially-conservative corporation haters do well. Republicans can't shun economic progress or big business so Democrats fill the void.

Whenever they need to tack left they just say corporate executives are trying to steer people in a certain way. Montana is basically full of hardline skeptics.

[Hydera]

Just like in Kentucky, and West Virginia. The statewide Democratic party is more moderate than the national party.



Which is also why Republicans tend to have some success in non-southern/great plains states on the state level like Massachusetts.  Usually the state level party of either two parties tries to set itself apart from the national one.

[Skill and Chance]

Just like in Kentucky, and West Virginia. The statewide Democratic party is more moderate than the national party.



Which is also why Republicans tend to have some success in non-southern/great plains states on the state level like Massachusetts.  Usually the state level party of either two parties tries to set itself apart from the national one.

Eh, that's only true in homogenous states.  The UT Dems and CA GOP are among the most extreme state parties.  In some safe states, the out party gets 30-40% statewide through near unanimous support from a group that wants the exact opposite policies as the rest of the state.  So the UT Dems have 80%+ of the non-Mormon vote locked down but that of course precludes competing statewide.  Similarly, the CA/OR/WA GOP has basically become an advocacy group for farmers and resource extraction industries that happens to run candidates on the side.  This is now starting to play out in the Deep South states where the state Democratic parties are now majority-black.  Then you have the MA GOP or WV Dems, who realized very quickly that they weren't going to win anywhere in the state with the national party platform and planned accordingly.

[Adam Griffin]

Bolo ties

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Just like in Kentucky, and West Virginia. The statewide Democratic party is more moderate than the national party.

Miners and railroad workers, a demographic that has slowly faded away over time.

This.  Rural Montana still basically has the economy and industries of 1935, just with computers grafted onto it.  And most in Montana are libertarian enough on social issues not to have gone the way of WV.

This.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They've got to be mad about their 1912 campaign finance law being struck down by the Roberts Court.