Montana in 08

[Sensei]

With the 2006 election of Jon Tester to the senate and other impressive democratic showings, do you think there is a chance that the state goes dem in08?

[Adlai Stevenson]

No but it will probably be closer.  A Democrat could probably get 40% or over here in 2008.

[Tender Branson]

No but it will probably be closer.

[Stranger in a strange land]

There's a tiny, tiny shadow of a chance, but probably not.

It's more likely to go dem than say, alabama or mississippi, but that's really not saying much.

[AndrewTX]

With the 2006 election of Jon Tester to the senate and other impressive democratic showings, do you think there is a chance that the state goes dem in08?

I highly doubt it. John Tester was elected to the senate because Burns was a fool, who barely scrapped by in 2000. Montana has had a long history of having democrats in the Senate, so it's no surprise.

[Gabu]

Montana is consistently Democratic at the state level, but Republican at the presidential level.  So no.  Montana stays Republican in 2008.

[Dr. Cynic]

Montana will go Republican... Look for a Dem gain in votes, but definately not enough to win.

[Mr.Phips]

It should be closer than it was in 2004.  Remember that Clinton won it in 1992 and Dukakis came very close to doing so in 1988.

[Reignman]

GOP candidate wins Montana by 6 or 7% instead of 10 or 11% (2004 or 2000+Nader).

[True Democrat]

GOP candidate wins Montana by 6 or 7% instead of 10 or 11% (2004 or 2000+Nader).

Umm, Bush won by about 20 points with Nader added into Gore's total.

[Adlai Stevenson]

MONTANA
Giuliani (R) 56%
Clinton (D) 42%


Giuliani (R) 58%
Obama (D) 40%

[minionofmidas]

Clinton did win the state in 92, and unlike Georgia the state has not changed much since. It could happen again... but if it does, it will not matter.

[Eraserhead]

I could see Edwards coming close here depending on who he is against. I don't think Obama could and know Clinton would be crushed.

[Padfoot]

Clinton did win the state in 92, and unlike Georgia the state has not changed much since. It could happen again... but if it does, it will not matter.

Kerry got a higher vote percentage in '04 than Clinton did in '92.  The only reason Clinton won Montana is because Perot took in 26% of the vote.

[Verily]

Much closer than 2004, but still way out of reach for the Democrats. There are a number of reasons for this, mostly having to do with Brian Schweitzer (although the lack of a populistesque candidate may hurt the Republicans in Montana as well). Schweitzer running for reelection should guarantee the Democrats around 43% of the vote, but most of the rest of the population will be near-impossible to convince. I estimate 55-45 unless things change considerably.

Obama would do much better than Clinton in Montana, and Edwards would do even better than Obama. Richardson would probably do at least as well as Edwards, possibly better due to his gun control stance. Richardson is the only potential Democratic candidate with a serious shot at Montana (but he'd win sweepingly against any Republican anyway, so it hardly matters).

[minionofmidas]

Clinton did win the state in 92, and unlike Georgia the state has not changed much since. It could happen again... but if it does, it will not matter.

Kerry got a higher vote percentage in '04 than Clinton did in '92.  The only reason Clinton won Montana is because Perot took in 26% of the vote.

That only makes sense if you add something about Perot taking a higher percentage than elsewhere of his votes from Bush in Montana.

[Padfoot]

Clinton did win the state in 92, and unlike Georgia the state has not changed much since. It could happen again... but if it does, it will not matter.

Kerry got a higher vote percentage in '04 than Clinton did in '92.  The only reason Clinton won Montana is because Perot took in 26% of the vote.

That only makes sense if you add something about Perot taking a higher percentage than elsewhere of his votes from Bush in Montana.

Sorry, I should have qualified that with the fact that Montana was Perot's 5th best state as far as percentage of vote goes.

1. Maine- 30.44%
2. Alaska- 28.43%
3. Idaho- 27.05%
4. Kansas- 26.99%
5. Montana- 26.12%
 

[minionofmidas]

Clinton did win the state in 92, and unlike Georgia the state has not changed much since. It could happen again... but if it does, it will not matter.

Kerry got a higher vote percentage in '04 than Clinton did in '92.  The only reason Clinton won Montana is because Perot took in 26% of the vote.

That only makes sense if you add something about Perot taking a higher percentage than elsewhere of his votes from Bush in Montana.

Sorry, I should have qualified that with the fact that Montana was Perot's 5th best state as far as percentage of vote goes.

1. Maine- 30.44%
2. Alaska- 28.43%
3. Idaho- 27.05%
4. Kansas- 26.99%
5. Montana- 26.12%
 

I know that (well not the exact rank, but thereabouts). That wasn't my point though. Perot in 92 (not in 96) took about equal amounts of votes from Clinton and Bush, nationally. If these shares were the same in every state, then Perot threw no states to Clinton (or to Bush). Obviously these shares are going to differ by state though... the question is, in which way?

[Reignman]

GOP candidate wins Montana by 6 or 7% instead of 10 or 11% (2004 or 2000+Nader).

Umm, Bush won by about 20 points with Nader added into Gore's total.

Sorry, I meant 16/17 instead of 20/21.

[Person Man]

Hmmmm... I'd give it 43/44 56/57