MT - AL (May 25) Predictions Thread

[JMT]

Gianforte: 49%
Quist: 47%
Wicks: 4%

[BuckeyeNut]

I'm gonna be a downer and assume Gianforte wins, but narrowly.

Gianforte (R): 48.5
Quist (D): 48
Wicks (L): 3.5

I will be quite happily surprised if Quist does win.

[Tender Branson]

Having looked a bit into it, it seems to mirror the KS special election.

Probably R+10 in the end.

But we need more polls, because Google Analytics is crap.

[TheSaint250]

Why is everyone predicting the Democrat to win here? Trump won the state by a huge margin and I don't see Quist with a strong match with the state's profile. Is there polling I'm unaware of?

Gravis had Gianforte up by double digits, but a series of Google Surveys have shown Quist in the lead.  My last Google Survey in March had Quist up by double digits.  

Even though I'm increasingly skeptical of these Google polls, I just put one into the field this afternoon. I expect it to be complete by Friday night or Saturday.

This, ultimately, is a Democratic-leaning website.  That predictions tend to skew pro-Democrat compared to conventional wisdom shouldn't be surprising, especially this early in the cycle with little available polling data.

Google Surveys is extremely inaccurate and unreliable.

[TheSaint250]

Gianforte: 50%
Quist: 46%
Wicks: 3%

[The_Doctor]

Most people have said that the race could go either way, and they are right. I'm not sure why you are so obsessed with the presidential vote when it is basically irrelevant. This has been discussed before, but unlike in GA-06, Clinton was an awful fit for the state and that result was hardly the norm. Percentage-wise, Trump didn't even do much better than Romney here (remember: that was the year when Tester won fairly easily as well), and he did worse than Bush II either time (again: 2000 and 2004 also being years where Democrats did very well down-ballot).

The statewide Democratic Party is very strong for several reasons and shouldn't be underestimated. Besides, if Democrats are so motivated that Ossoff can get to 48% in an inelastic Southern suburban district, there is little reason to believe that they will stay home in Montana.

My curiosity was because both Romney and Trump won the state convincingly, Daines won the state in 2014, and on the federal level, Tester is the only statewide Democrat who is also a federal officer. The State Democratic Party may be doing well (they hold the governorship) but as I understand, the legislature is convincingly Republican.

The coalition in Kansas 04 and Georgia 06 had unique circumstances that enabled the Democrat to get close. In KS-04, Brownback's unpopularity was a major factor (as well as moderate Republicans voting Democratic) and in GA - 06, there was a natural suburban constituency for Ossoff, because of Clinton's close margins here.

My question here, in Montana, what exactly does Quist have to draw on in terms of a coalition on the federal level? Polarization is especially heavy for federal offices.

I'd predict Gianforte 52-47% at this point based on the data from Montana. That's the federal margin minus a couple of points to account for Democratic enthusiasm (Daines won 57%, Trump and Romney won 55%, Zinke won 55-56%).

[McGovernForPrez]

Most people have said that the race could go either way, and they are right. I'm not sure why you are so obsessed with the presidential vote when it is basically irrelevant. This has been discussed before, but unlike in GA-06, Clinton was an awful fit for the state and that result was hardly the norm. Percentage-wise, Trump didn't even do much better than Romney here (remember: that was the year when Tester won fairly easily as well), and he did worse than Bush II either time (again: 2000 and 2004 also being years where Democrats did very well down-ballot).

The statewide Democratic Party is very strong for several reasons and shouldn't be underestimated. Besides, if Democrats are so motivated that Ossoff can get to 48% in an inelastic Southern suburban district, there is little reason to believe that they will stay home in Montana.

My curiosity was because both Romney and Trump won the state convincingly, Daines won the state in 2014, and on the federal level, Tester is the only statewide Democrat who is also a federal officer. The State Democratic Party may be doing well (they hold the governorship) but as I understand, the legislature is convincingly Republican.

The coalition in Kansas 04 and Georgia 06 had unique circumstances that enabled the Democrat to get close. In KS-04, Brownback's unpopularity was a major factor (as well as moderate Republicans voting Democratic) and in GA - 06, there was a natural suburban constituency for Ossoff, because of Clinton's close margins here.

My question here, in Montana, what exactly does Quist have to draw on in terms of a coalition on the federal level? Polarization is especially heavy for federal offices.

I'd predict Gianforte 52-47% at this point based on the data from Montana. That's the federal margin minus a couple of points to account for Democratic enthusiasm (Daines won 57%, Trump and Romney won 55%, Zinke won 55-56%).

The state has a Democratic Senator and Governor. Steve Bullock won re-election with a larger percentage of the vote, despite Trump finishing with a 20+ point win. As for Federally it's clear that Montana has no problem electing Democrats to the senate. Jon Tester is fairly well regarded, and before Daines I believe they had another Democratic senator. The state is highly elastic, much more than Georgia, so I think a win here is an extremely reasonable prediction, especially considering how poor a fit Gianforte is for the state.

[McGovernForPrez]

Alright here goes

Quist 49%
Gianforte 47%
Wicks 3%

Gianforte is the Martha Coakley of Montana and this will finally prove it. I don't see anybody who voted for Bullock switching over to Gianforte. There's been a fair amount of uproar over public lands that I see helping Quist out a lot, and the momentum is already on the Democrats side.

[cinyc]

Google Surveys is extremely inaccurate and unreliable.

Well, it's almost literally all we have.  It may be a case where some data is worse than no data.

Montana has some rules limiting robopolling, so we haven't seen many other polls.  I'm still not sure how Gravis got around them.  The Lee Newspapers usually commission Mason-Dixon to poll the state closer to election day.  We'll have to see if they do that this time.  Otherwise, unless other pollsters jump in, we're in a bit of a polling desert for this race.

[GlobeSoc]

Quist(D) - 49.5%
Gianforte(R) - 49%
Wicks(L) - 1.5%

[The_Doctor]

@ MT Treasurer, I'll respond later. You make a couple of good points.

I just discovered that Gianforte has a problem with Social Security.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, that could change things, I suppose. How bad of a candidate is he? I was assuming the Montana Republican Party had done its due diligence on Gianforte.

[GlobeSoc]

@ MT Treasurer, I'll respond later. You make a couple of good points.

I just discovered that Gianforte has a problem with Social Security.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, that could change things, I suppose. How bad of a candidate is he? I was assuming the Montana Republican Party had done its due diligence on Gianforte.

Wew lad a few good ad runs about this could swing seniors to Quist. I can't believe he actually said that.

[Mr. Smith]

Methinks the NC-SEN 2014 margins are most likely atm.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

I'm not going to give specific numbers, but here's my optimistic prediction:

Quist: 48%< X < 51%
Gianforte: 44% < X < 50%
Wicks: 2% < X < 8%

I think a result where Quist is sub 50 but wins by a point or two is probably realistic.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Okay what the hell (subject to change)

Quist - 49%
Gianforte - 47%
Wicks - 4%

[Cynthia]

Quist - 52%
Gianforte - 45%
Wicks - 3%

I recently ran a google consumer survey poll on this race and it showed Quist leading 42-36 (with a lot of undecs due to the fact it's a google poll), so I am reasonably optimistic.

[Klartext89]

Dems will again "overperform" - what is their codeword for "still losing"

Gianforte: 52%
Quist: 45%
Wicks: 3%

[Littlefinger]

Quist 52%
Gianforte 46%
Wicks 2%

[Skunk]

Gianforte narrowly wins.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Gianforte 54%
Quist 43%
Wicks 2%

[Jeppe]

I don't have much confidence in us winning back rural working-class whites, but I think we can do better in the resort towns and other scattered larger towns in Montana, so I'll predict that Gianforte wins by a narrow single-digit margin (7 or 8 points, maybe?)

[McGovernForPrez]

I don't have much confidence in us winning back rural working-class whites, but I think we can do better in the resort towns and other scattered larger towns in Montana, so I'll predict that Gianforte wins by a narrow single-digit margin (7 or 8 points, maybe?)

What makes you think this? Montana is already a competitive state for Democrats. Gianforte recently lost a Gubernatorial bid, and he's an awful fit for the state. I can't see a win from either side larger than 5 points.

[Classic Conservative]

Quist is a regular performer at a NUDIST RESORT.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/montana-democrat-rob-quist-regular-performer-nudist-resort/

[heatcharger]

I'm usually not a Chicken Littler but I've never felt particularly bullish on Quist's chances, and that oppo research is an easy way for Republicans to delegitimize him as a candidate. My prediction a month out:

52% Gianforte (R)
45% Quist (D)
3% Wicks (L)

[Lachi]

Quist is a regular performer at a NUDIST RESORT.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/montana-democrat-rob-quist-regular-performer-nudist-resort/

It's the FREEBEACON, do you really expect us to believe that?