Montana Senate Race

[Nym90]

I think there's something to the theory that there are some candidates so vile that even the supporters won't admit it to a pollster.  This happened in 1984 with Jesse Helms.  Hunt was ahead in the polls and ended up losing fairly handily, actually.

Helms had Reagan's coattails to help pull him through as well. It was a very good year for the GOP nationally; this year is going to be an excellent Democratic year.

If Burns does pull it off it would probably be the biggest comeback win since Helms in 1984.

If 1984 had been a 2006 like environment, there is no way Helms would've won.

[J. J.]

I think there's something to the theory that there are some candidates so vile that even the supporters won't admit it to a pollster.  This happened in 1984 with Jesse Helms.  Hunt was ahead in the polls and ended up losing fairly handily, actually.

Helms had Reagan's coattails to help pull him through as well. It was a very good year for the GOP nationally; this year is going to be an excellent Democratic year.

If Burns does pull it off it would probably be the biggest comeback win since Helms in 1984.

If 1984 had been a 2006 like environment, there is no way Helms would've won.

I would look more at the Helm's 1990 and 1996 analogy.  Gann suffered from the Tom Bradley effect as well, but this one it seems Burns is gaining momentum.. RealClear Politics agrees.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2006/senate/mt/montana_senate_race-11.html

[Eraserhead]

I think there's something to the theory that there are some candidates so vile that even the supporters won't admit it to a pollster.  This happened in 1984 with Jesse Helms.  Hunt was ahead in the polls and ended up losing fairly handily, actually.

Helms had Reagan's coattails to help pull him through as well. It was a very good year for the GOP nationally; this year is going to be an excellent Democratic year.

If Burns does pull it off it would probably be the biggest comeback win since Helms in 1984.

If 1984 had been a 2006 like environment, there is no way Helms would've won.

I would look more at the Helm's 1990 and 1996 analogy.  Gann suffered from the Tom Bradley effect as well, but this one it seems Burns is gaining momentum.. RealClear Politics agrees.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2006/senate/mt/montana_senate_race-11.html

They would.

[okstate]

A new Mason-Dixon poll out tonight has the race in Montana tied 47-47.

[adam]

I don't mind Tester, but were Burns to win this race...it would be the upset of the year, and for that reason I would cast a ballot for him. The Mason-Dixon Poll has it tied, it could really go either way.

[Alcon]

I don't mind Tester, but were Burns to win this race...it would be the upset of the year, and for that reason I would cast a ballot for him. The Mason-Dixon Poll has it tied, it could really go either way.

Wait, wait, wait.

First of all, it would not be the upset of the year.  This race went from very competitive to kind of competitive and back to very competitive.  Tester was the underdog at one point too.

And you would vote for Burns just because he used to be an underdog?  Even though you don't mind Tester, you'd vote for Burns - a senator who almost all Republicans here don't like even i f they grudgingly support Tester?  Why?

[Sam Spade]

Are they saying "Boo" or "Boourns"?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I've changed my mind; Burns is going to win. Tester is a f***ing awful candidate.
I mean even my late, lamented cat could have beaten Burns this year...

I hope I'm wrong (can't stand Burns) but...

[adam]

Wait, wait, wait.

First of all, it would not be the upset of the year.  This race went from very competitive to kind of competitive and back to very competitive.  Tester was the underdog at one point too.

A lot of Democrats had this race in their safe column. They wrote Burns off very quickly and hailed Tester as their saving grace. Thus I would consider it a rather large upset, at least more so than anything else that could possibly happen at this point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Neither candidate really urks me either way. What does is the thought of a Democratic controled senate. If Tester loses, this fear of mine would be layed to rest. Thus Burns could potentially be a GOP hero if he wins.

[Nym90]

I've changed my mind; Burns is going to win. Tester is a f***ing awful candidate.
I mean even my late, lamented cat could have beaten Burns this year...

I hope I'm wrong (can't stand Burns) but...

Don't give up hope just yet. Burns still hasn't been ahead in any poll. Yes Mason Dixon having it tied is disturbing for sure, but the odds still favor Tester.

And I agree that a Burns win would be quite horrible given his ties to Abramoff. It's hard to see how anyone can possibly like this guy. He's pretty much the embodiment of everything that's wrong with American politics in general and the GOP right now specifically as well.

[Sam Spade]

Look, you can beat the stick of corruption over and over again, but eventually it's going to fall on deaf ears.  Meanwhile, in Montana, beating the stick of Bush and Iraq is not very effective (otherwise Tester would be using it).  And now over the past few weeks, Burns has found the stick of taxes, which he is using very effectively in an economically conservative state to make it a serious race again.

Here's the problem for Democrats:  I really am having a hard time seeing Corker (TN) or Kyl (AZ) losing, even if we see a wave, as it stands three days out from election.  If Burns wins, the best I see Democrats doing is 50-50, period, no matter how many seats the Republicans lose in the House.

[AuH2O]

Maybe my memory is off, but wasn't there a Democratic primary with a moderate Dem versus Tester, and then DailyKos & Co went all out for Tester?

Anyway though, Montana's relationship with Burns is an odd one and it shouldn't be surprising that he's gaining momentum. It's like my former roommate from Montana, who would laugh and shake his head but vote for Burns all the same. That's Montana... shaking their heads, talking about how much of a clown Burns is, and then voting for him on Election Day.

[nini2287]

In spite of my disagreements with him over the Patriot Act and other civil liberties-related issues, I would rather vote for Jon Tester given the opposition, and he will likely win. 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Eraserhead]

People declaring a Burns victory already need to remember he hasn't had a lead in any poll since god knows when. Tester will still pull off a narrow victory (which is good enough for me).

[Rob]

I've changed my mind; Burns is going to win. Tester is a f***ing awful candidate.

Uh, what's so terrible about him? He's a liberal running in an intensely Republican state, yes... but given that, it's amazing that he's doing so well. Even against a piece of shit like Burns.

[Eraserhead]

I've changed my mind; Burns is going to win. Tester is a f***ing awful candidate.

Uh, what's so terrible about him? He's a liberal running in an intensely Republican state, yes... but given that, it's amazing that he's doing so well. Even against a piece of shit like Burns.

Maybe he isn't the greatest candidate to run in a state like Montana but he will make one hell of a U.S. Senator.

[Rob]

Maybe he isn't the greatest candidate to run in a state like Montana

He isn't the best candidate. Tester is actually stronger than the DLC-backed centrist he defeated in the primary, though, because Morrison was tarred by scandal. 

but he will make one hell of a U.S. Senator.

Agreed.

[Boris]

Are any other Democrats getting a really bad feeling about this race? It's essentially deadlocked right now, but I don't think I've seen Burns leading in a single poll in a long time. For that reason, I still have the race as tossup Democrat.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Uh, what's so terrible about him?

He doesn't seem to be able to respond, effectively, to Burns's campaign getting it's act together. The warning signs were there and he either ignored them, or has proven to be utterly unable to land any blows unless everything is going his way. I could be wrong, but it looks as though he took his foot off the proverbial pedal when he started to get double digit leads.

"F***ing awful candidate" is probably too harsh though. And maybe I'm being too harsh in general.
He might still win, and I hope he does; Burns isn't just a terrible Senator he's a terrible excuse for a human being. Even Tom DeLay had a good side, of sorts, even if it was tiny. Not seen any evidence of even that for Burns.

[Adlai Stevenson]

Conrad Burns is senile, corrupt and racist: everything that is wrong with Washington.  The fact that he could now beat someone like Jon Tester (though I don't think he will) is awful to comprehend.  If he wins it will be the biggest blow of this election cycle, bigger than Ford, Webb, Menendez and Cardin all losing together. 

[Rob]

I could be wrong, but it looks as though he took his foot off the proverbial pedal when he started to get double digit leads.

I can agree with this.

"F***ing awful candidate" is probably too harsh though.

It is.

I understand your frustration, but the odds really are stacked against Tester. The national climate isn't much help, as Bush remains relatively popular in Montana. Burns also benefits from his pork (the rest of his record ain't so great, but no one beats Conrad Burns when it comes to whoring for federal dollars).

Finally, he's closer to the state's mainstream than Tester is. Republicans are usually lying through their teeth when they claim that this or that Democrat is "too liberal" for their constituency, but in this case they may have a point. Turrurism and the Patriot Act don't help Crazy Conrad much, but the tax issue does. Will it be enough to save ol' Burnsy? I don't think so, but it will be close.

I find it laughable that anyone could seriously consider a three-term incumbent Senator, running for reelection in a state heavily slanted toward his party, to be an "underdog." Even with his personal issues, this was Burns's race to lose (recall that most people thought he would coast to victory early in the year), and Tester has done very well overall.

Basically, you can chalk up the close race to the batshit nature of Montana itself. Tester can't change the state he's running in.