MT-AL: Rob Quist (D) vs. Greg Gianforte (R) vs. Mark Wicks (L), May 25

[Virginiá]

Gianforte in.

Didn't he blow a winnable race for Gov?

I don't know whether it was truly winnable or not for him, especially since Trump's large win there got him a lot more support than he might have otherwise, but I wonder if his very-recent candidacy might be a liability or a benefit for him. On one hand, he just ran a gubernatorial campaign and surely has more name recognition and a lot of people who already voted for him for one office, so maybe that will boost his prospects. On the other hand, maybe the majority of people who already rejected him again reject him for any number of reasons. Though, I guess the electorate will be leagues smaller and more elderly-centric.

[Virginiá]

and I disagree that it got him a lot more support than he would have had otherwise, especially given how polarized MT still is.

Well that would be because you don't believe in the idea of coattails, right?

[Virginiá]

“If you look at the three states that have done it, you can see that populism and direct democracy at its best, all three states — Oregon, Washington and Colorado — they do all-mail-in ballots and they’re all marijuana-all-the-time states too,” Stapleton said. “Is that what you want? Because that’s what you’re going to get.”

"Implement all-mail voting and Montana will be flooded with marijuana."

That's a first. At least it's a nice break from the usual whining about non-existent voter fraud.

[Virginiá]

I don't think this was on as much of a party line vote as you think.  The motion to pass quickly was made by a Republican, and a Democrat representing Native Americans was against the bill because she thought mail-in voting only would discriminate against Native Americans.

Well it was a local Republican Party official who sent a letter to everyone saying they shouldn't approve the bill because it might hurt their chances.

And I don't think mail-in voting is totally eliminated without the bill.  It just requires that polling places be opened up, too:

That probably just means the current absentee rules. It's not the same as if everyone got a ballot.

[Virginiá]

And why should everyone be mailed a ballot?  Believe it or not, not everyone in the country has mail delivery at their house, and not everyone has ready access to a mailbox or post office to drop off outgoing mail.  This is particularly true in rural areas, like Indian Reservations, which is why the Democrat representing one opposed the bill.  Besides, mail gets lost.  In-person votes don't.

First, we're talking about a bill that enabled this mainly for the special election as a cost-saving measure. In that context, I don't see what the big deal is. If everyone got a ballot, turnout would probably end up being higher overall. If you want to talk about VbM across the board, then I would say I very much prefer systems like Colorado, where everyone gets a ballot but there are also larger polling places where anyone in a county can go to and cast their vote in-person. If the problems with the mail was enough of an issue for Native Americans, they could have easily allowed polling places there and still saved money. I won't comment on things getting lost in the mail - NOVA already did, and I definitely agree with him.

I don't like all mail-in balloting (or non-excuse absentee voting, for that matter).  It ruins election day, turning it into election week or election month.  Things can happen during election month that will cause people to regret their initial vote.

Then allow people to send in another ballot, or if limited in-person voting is also allowed, then allow them to go in and cast another vote. Have only the last vote cast be counted. I believe some states actually allow this, and it is really not a big deal to do. People can alter their vote if something big enough happens to sway them. But, either way, I'd also argue that this is no different than something happening that makes them regret their vote a week after election day. There will always be people with regret, and I don't see why a week after election day is any different than a week after one casts their vote during early voting but before end of voting. It's arbitrary.

I get that you don't like the idea of extended voting, but I don't believe the world / people work in a way that can do without it. There are, imo, plenty more reasons for having extended time and options to vote then there are against.

[Virginiá]

A Montana Special Election Nobody Is Following Could Deal A Huge Blow To Trump
Big Sky Country Democrats are running a legendary folk singer with a populist flair against a cartoon plutocrat. Why won’t the national party pay attention?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rob-quist-a-montana-special-election-nobody-is-following-could-deal-a-huge-blow-to-trump_us_58e3fcc5e4b03a26a3670c30

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Virginiá]

Democratic leadership knows who to pursue and will adapt their policies and rhetoric to capture that new pool of voters starting in 2018. It's why they're focusing on the suburban district in Georgia while ignoring Montana.

Still, that doesn't really make sense given where the party is right now. Winning statewide races in Montana, whether for state or federal office, is still perfectly doable for the party, and right now we needs House seats period. It doesn't matter if they are suburban or not, and one thing about establishment actors is that they generally don't care about that, especially when they are the nation's minority party. That only leaves 3 options, in my opinion:

1. They have data suggesting he won't win - whether their opinion is correct or not is up for debate.
2. They are legitimately incompetent. Given the focus on Democrats ignoring too much of America, I doubt it is this
3. They are planning to jump in, but closer to the election, and are probably coordinating with him in some ways already. This, in some form, seems likely to me.

I'm inclined to give the party the benefit of the doubt for right now, but whether that is silly of me or not should become apparent relatively soon.

[Virginiá]

Or just that they hate progressives.

Typical jfern

[Virginiá]

Well, there's plenty of evidence that the establishment hates progressives. David Brock's Shareblue is still bashing Bernie on a regular basis, and Hillary hacks like Whitehouse are spouting their batsh**t crazy conspiracy theories.

My comment really had nothing to do with the validity of your statement. It was just that you brought it up in the first place. It's the same reason you had that "but Hillary" label in 2016. Your commentary is often blatantly fixated on a single subject, and you are largely oblivious to that (or don't care either way). If I had to guess, the overall focus of your political thoughts is around the impure nature of the politicians that represent the views closest to your own - aka Democrats. Not that you have any obligation to focus on anything in particular, but you're practically like the IID of a police department. Your entire focus is inwards.

[Virginiá]

David Brock is still running his crazy anti Bernie propaganda.

Brock would still be doing what he does even if the Bernie wing completely took over the party. Your intra-party rivals don't just shut up when they lose stature.

Prominent Democrats are spouting off insane Russian conspiracy theories

Uh huh, and from other people's perspectives, you're another person on the left who dislikes the Russian angle because they believe it is being used solely to justify Clinton's loss. Even worse, you're of the type who believes Democrats have complete control of that narrative now. The investigation and the stories that come from it have taken on a life of its own. At best you can argue that certain people indulge certain parts of it too much.

and Tom Perez was installed at the last minute as DNC chair.

I dunno, I'm not sure it counts as "last minute." Also, it is naive and silly of you if you really think the dominant faction of the party is just going to roll over and give it up just because Hillary lost. If progressives want to take over the party, it's unrealistic to expect everything to fall into place in such a brief period of time.

I thought they'd have gotten a bit more of a clue from losing to Donald J Trump than they did.

While I'm not endorsing either side in this particular part of my response, I'd say you have no idea whether or not anyone has got a clue yet. We aren't even a year from the election, nor has Perez even been chair for more than a couple months and you are already talking about complete failures of this and that!

I have to admit, I really hope the party is up to your code by early 2018, or else at this rate you'll be foaming at the mouth and out for blood.

[Virginiá]

All-mail special election might be back on the table:

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/montana/articles/2017-04-07/governor-uses-veto-pen-to-push-mail-only-voting

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Virginiá]

3) Endorsing and campaigning for Hillary Clinton. It made him look like a huge hypocrite, since his whole campaign was railing against her, now he supports her?

Why? Bernie could have legitimate issues with her and make a case against her in the context of him vs her, but against Trump, it's easy to see why she is still the better pick from the perspective of Democrats/many others.

imo, Trump has only continued to bolster that view since becoming president.

[Virginiá]

Hopefully the DCCC and DNC learn their lesson tonight and start fundraising for Quist.

Hopefully. I'm not prepared to draw conclusions until the end of this year, but so far the party seems to be off to a bad start (imo). It's one thing if the internals are showing the Democrat way down, but with this KS election, it was genuinely close and they had time to react, yet they didn't. Money/etc is not guaranteed to move the needle enough, but in this case tonight it could have at least told the base that they are listening and adapting. Instead, they make no effort and basically tell everyone "we're not changing ****." Perceptions matter.

I know for sure I'd like to know that the party whom I donate much time and money is actually trying new things, taking some risks and moving past failed strategies/ideas. Anyway, we'll see how the next 2 elections go I suppose.

[Virginiá]

You are assuming that nationalizing races in blood red Trump states makes sense.  The DCCC coming in will allow Gianforte to credibly tie Quist to San Fran Nan and New York Chuck, who I'm sure aren't that popular in Montana.  Whose to say Thompson wouldn't have lost by a larger margin had the KS-04 race been nationalized more?

But then what is the alternative? Democrats abandon candidates in deeply Republican territory out of fear of it backfiring? I'm sure there are instances where it will be plenty valid, but the 'nationalization' excuse doesn't seem that strong to me. It seems like a good excuse to keep doing what the party said it would stop doing.

[Virginiá]

No.  The Democratic establishment should quietly support the candidate in other ways, by sending in surrogates that don't have ties to the Democratic establishment (like Sanders), and finding other ways to quietly get them resources behind the scenes.  Share the GOTV apparatus, microtargeting data and donor lists, for example.  Don't get into a situation where your Kansas or Montana candidate can be tied to unlikable characters from San Francisco and New York City.

I'm not talking about airdropping Schumer or Pelosi into GOP territory. As it stands, Republicans already try to tie those kinds people around the necks of red state Democrats. That is practically a given in these races. I'm sorry but I just don't see it as being a much more effective line of attack if national organizations kick in some money/other resources (like you stated). Maybe there are some situations where it would be a bad idea, but not all of them.

[Virginiá]

In other words, if Ossoff actually is mired in the 30's, it should be taken as an early indication Clinton's massive overperformance in the Sunbelt suburbs was a one-time thing.  The KS and MT races being close would suggest it is possible to get enough rural voters back.

Is that really a fair assumption? Montana has been more friendly overall to Democrats than GA-6 - it's not like this is a new thing. It may be the case that certain suburban areas need more time to develop. It's not like various districts immediately start voting the same way for downballot offices as they do for president, and it may even take a couple years of Trump screwing up to finally cause a loss of confidence in the party as a whole and not just Trump.

The best targets under Trump specifically, so for 2018 and 2020, would seem to be districts/states filled with people who dislike/disapprove of him most. In terms of GOP-held targets, those are college educated white voters, with a few exceptions. It doesn't mean it'll be like that forever, but they are the most ripe to turn on Republicans at least temporarily.

Let's put aside various trends for right now - if not suburbs, then what districts? Where is the path back to a house majority for Democrats without them?

[Virginiá]

I'm not trying to be a dick, but the same could be said in reverse as well.

It's undeniable the boneheaded decisions the national party often makes, but at the same time, we don't know all the factors going into their decisions, including financial.

I'm just saying that if any of us were put in charge of things like this, we might find things are not as obvious or easy as it may appear from the outside.

[Virginiá]

I think I agree.  Quist has had so much baggage come out that he probably needs a favorable environment on the level of the New Deal Dem waves at this point.

Honestly, everything happening with Trump/national Republicans might be enough to drag Quist over the finish line if the race is indeed close. All this oppo stuff could hurt but at the same time, it's an extremely bad time for Republicans to be competing in an election.

[Virginiá]

We're at 482/576 on my poll.  It should be finished tomorrow.  So far, it doesn't confirm Gravis' poll. 

Do you do these polls just to help satiate your curiosity? Regardless of the reason, thank you for sharing them here!

[Virginiá]

I wonder if Gianforte will be arrested before polls close tomorrow, then Quist can have volunteers hand out pictures of his mugshot while people go to vote

[Virginiá]

This is exhibit A of why no-excuse early voting should be banned.

Why? Just let people who already sent in their ballot go to a polling place and cast another vote, with that cancelling out their previous early vote.

[Virginiá]

Do you think it's significant that all the reports on the montana sites say "reporter ALLEGES"

Isn't it pretty clear it did in fact happen? That appears to be a fairly tame way of putting it, and some swing voters might not be moved by such a tame way of putting it.

Seems like irresponsible titling to me, imo.

I guess because there is no 100% unambiguous video of the incident. I mean, I think the audio is pretty damning and it is clear there was an assault, but exactly what happened is not totally clear.

However, using the word 'alleged' like that kinds of makes it seem less convincing than the evidence actually suggests.

[Virginiá]

God, how pissed Ryan and co. must be right now. This is basically the worst possible timing for Gianforte.

I'd argue the worst possible timing was like 4-5 days ago. There is a good chance he still slithers into office because of the proximity to election day.

[Virginiá]

Guys, please stay on topic. Arguing which side is more violent is pointless and frankly an argument no one wins anyway.

[Virginiá]

ok, but let's be done with it now.