2008 Senate Matchups: Montana

[DownWithTheLeft]

I think MT the fact that barely elected a young, inspring candidate like Tester against a semi-racist, old fart, who had ties to Jack Abramoff like Conrad Burns and the facts it is a libertarian yet Republican state in a presidential year gives Rehburg a good chance.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say Rehburg wins by about the same margin Tester did, but Rehburg trails until mid-Oct.

Prediction:

Rehburg 49-Baucus 48

[Rob]

Baucus 52-47.

[Adlai Stevenson]

I think MT the fact that barely elected a young, inspring candidate like Tester against a semi-racist, old fart, who had ties to Jack Abramoff like Conrad Burns and the facts it is a libertarian yet Republican state in a presidential year gives Rehburg a good chance.  I'm going to go out on a limb and say Rehburg wins by about the same margin Tester did, but Rehburg trails until mid-Oct.

Prediction:

Rehburg 49-Baucus 48

First of all let me say that Baucus won 50%-45% in 1996, even as Bob Dole won the state.  Then I think I have already said but really there is no reason for Rehberg to run unless Baucus retires.  Rehberg has a seat on Appropriations and may be set for a long career in the House.  Also, the Democrats are resurgent in Montana and Brian Schweitzer will be on the Democratic ticket and will be more popular than the GOP presidential candidate.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I still think Tester barely pulling it out against a horrible candidate in a good year does not bode well for Baucus, would Racicot do better?

[Tender Branson]

I still think Tester barely pulling it out against a horrible candidate in a bad year does not bode well for Baucus, would Racicot do better?

Okay, here's one thing you need to learn.  Incumbents VERY RARELY lose.  Conrad Burns lost because he was corrupt and made stupid comments, but if the election was held a week later he probably would have won.

Baucus is an incumbent who has been serving for thirty years.  He's an institution in Montana and is even more popular than Rehberg, who was defeated by Baucus in 1996.  There's no way Rehberg would give up his safe seat in the House against an opponent with almost 70% approval ratings.

[nini2287]

I doubt he'll run but if he does I'm going to say:

Rehberg 51, Baucus 49

[Kevin]

Baucus is pretty poupler so I don't think he could be beaten in 08, However if he retires which is possible then this seat is up for grabs.

If Baucus stays

Baucus wins 53-45

 If he retires

Rahberg 50-48   

[Keystone Phil]

Let's go back to 2002. Baucus realized an ad about his GOP opponent that the opponent felt questioned his sexual orientation. Frustrated, his opponent, State Senator Mike Taylor, dropped out of the race but his name was left on the ballot. Then Taylor pulled a Perot - he got back in the race saying he wasn't going to back down to Baucus' bullying, etc.

In the end, Baucus won 63% of the vote to Taylor's 32% (with 3% going to Stan Jones and 2% to some Green candidate). Baucus was very popular in 2002 and the GOP didn't waste anything on their challenger. Add that to the fact that Taylor had an overblown departure from the race and then a weird return and you find it hard to believe that Baucus couldn't reach 70%.

I am not doubting for a second that Montana's soon to be Senior Senator is very popular. I do, however, think that this could be a close race. Rehberg himself is very popular even though that doesn't mean he is likely to take down someone of equal favorability. He is obviously a much stronger opponent that Taylor was.

Montana is warming up to Dems like Tester and Schweitzer but voters might be uncomfortable when they head to the polls in a Presidential election year realizing they have two Dems representing them in the U.S. Senate. Also note that the Montana GOP could be very fired up to take a Senate seat after their very narrow loss this year. Another point is that in 2008, the Montana GOP will have nothing to do. Beating Schweitzer won't be on that list and the Republican Presidential nominee will be favored to carry the state. Thirty for a victory, I bet they try their hardest to convince Rehberg to run because helping the Congressman in yet another easy House race won't be the victory they want.

I have no idea whether or not Rehberg would give up his safe seat in the House. Even if he did, Baucus is still the favorite but watch this one. Also remember that Mark Racicot might be looking to take up another hobby in 2008.

[Stranger in a strange land]

Baucus will be reelected. Republicans will make a big effort to unseat him, but they will be sorely disappointed. He's a well-known, popular incumbent who's been in the Senate for many years. Even though Burns was a mean, corrupt, racist geezer, he remained competitive because he had been a senator for three terms and had steered lots of pork barrel projects to the state.  Also, Montana was one of the few states where Bush still  had a positive approval rating, and Tester was widely attacked as being too liberal.

Also, Montana is trending democratic, at least at the state level.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Rehburg isn't dumb enough to challenge Baucus.  He'll probably run in 2012, although that's a mad long time away.

[Gabu]

Let's go back to 1996.  Baucus won against Rehberg by 5% only one electoral cycle after the Republicans stunningly took back Congress.  Congressional elections were still friendly towards Republicans.

Now we're 12 years later in 2008, on which there is no reason to believe that people will not still be reasonably friendly towards the Democratic Party in Congress.

...exactly where does Rehburg get the extra 5% that he'd need to win over Baucus?  I mean, come on.  There's absolutely no reason why he'd win in 2008 after losing in 1996.  Baucus has only become more popular, and the country is more friendly to Democrats in Congress.

[Keystone Phil]

and the country is more friendly to Democrats in Congress.

They haven't even been sworn in yet. Let's wait and see on that one.

[nini2287]

[quote author=Gabu link=topic=49856.msg1061931#msg1061931
...exactly where does Rehburg get the extra 5% that he'd need to win over Baucus?  I mean, come on.  There's absolutely no reason why he'd win in 2008 after losing in 1996.  Baucus has only become more popular, and the country is more friendly to Democrats in Congress.
[/quote]

IIRC, Rehberg wasn't a Representative yet.

[Soaring Eagle]

[quote author=Gabu link=topic=49856.msg1061931#msg1061931
...exactly where does Rehburg get the extra 5% that he'd need to win over Baucus?  I mean, come on.  There's absolutely no reason why he'd win in 2008 after losing in 1996.  Baucus has only become more popular, and the country is more friendly to Democrats in Congress.

IIRC, Rehberg wasn't a Representative yet.
[/quote]

I believe he was Lt. Governor.

[Nutmeg]

I am not doubting for a second that Montana's soon to be Senior Senator is very popular.

Baucus already is Montana's senior senator; he was elected in 1978 and Burns not until 1988.

[Keystone Phil]

I am not doubting for a second that Montana's soon to be Senior Senator is very popular.

Baucus already is Montana's senior senator; he was elected in 1978 and Burns not until 1988.

Wow, Baucus has been there that long? I guess I should have researched that before I posted it. Thank you. 

[Gabu]

IIRC, Rehberg wasn't a Representative yet.

I just looked that up, and so he wasn't.  I wasn't aware of that.

Still, he was a Montana politician, and given the amazing wealth of interesting information about him, it doesn't exactly look like he's done anything amazingly noteworthy that would alter the foundations of the 1996 Senate race.

[nclib]

danny+rehberg

Isn't it "Denny" Rehberg?

[Deano963]

I think MT the fact that barely elected a young, inspring candidate like Tester.....

ROTFLMAO....oh, all of a sudden Tester is "inspiring" huh Down? I thought he was just a silly liberal populist?

Baucus is pretty poupler so I don't think he could be beaten in 08, However if he retires which is possible then this seat is up for grabs.

If Baucus stays

Baucus wins 53-45

 If he retires

Rahberg 50-48   

You're right that if he reitires the seat is competitive and easier for Rehherg to win, but you you fail to note that Baucus is now the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. There is very little reason for Baucus to retire now that he has a powerful Chairmanship and the Dems have the Senate majority and are likely to expand it in '08.

[Gabu]

Isn't it "Denny" Rehberg?

Oh, you're right, it is.

Which brings up the next question: what the heck kind of a name is "Denny"?

[Soaring Eagle]

Isn't it "Denny" Rehberg?

Oh, you're right, it is.

Which brings up the next question: what the heck kind of a name is "Denny"?

Short for Dennis.

[MAS117]

Rehberg is not stupid he wouldnt run against the incumbent. He has a House seat which he can hold onto forever. Im pretty sure he said he wasnt running anyway.

[Keystone Phil]

Rehberg is not stupid he wouldnt run against the incumbent.

Baucus was an incumbent in 1996.

Note to Republicans:

Just because it is a Presidential Year doesn't mean that Democrats will automatically concede every race in every state Bush one in 2004, that is just plain silly.

There will _never_ be 435 Republican Representatives, and 100 Republican Senators.

James

Thanks for your excellent, totally non-partisan analysis.

[Keystone Phil]

Sorry about the Bad year for Republicans in Pennslyvania. They should recover within the next several elections. PA still is not as liberal as most northeastern states.

Haha...thanks. 

[RBH]

1996, Montana:

Baucus 50
Rehberg 45
Reform 5
Other 1

(yes, I know it adds up to 101)

Dole 44
Clinton 41
Perot 14
Other 1

If Schweitzer still keeps his job approval above 70%, then he won't be afraid to use that clout to help Baucus if Baucus really needs it. Schweitzer did the same for Tester.

And Baucus' job approval is 72%