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

[publicunofficial]

Quist and Curtis are both lefty - Curtis was accused of being a psuedo-commie when she ran for Senate.

It didn't help that she had a video blog in which she mocked gun owners, talked sorta vulgarly about her "pansexuality" (the most white-girl thing I might have heard), and basically acted like an out an out caricature of a SJW.

Rolling my eyes so hard right now.

[Mike Thick]

I'm far more hopeful about this race than GA-06.

Why? Montana swung 6 points to the right in 2016 giving Trump a 20 point win while GA-06 swung 21 points to the left, with Trump winning only by 1.5%. I realize that Democrats have won statewide in Montana many times and even just last election, but fighting the fundamentals of the state seems harder than in an individual district that trended largely in the positive direction.

He's basically the perfect candidate for the state and Montana Dems have had a very resilient Blue Dog streak through the Obama era and still managed multiple statewide wins.  Downballot Dem strength in MT can't be called a fluke anymore after Bullock cleared 50% running with Trump last November, and unlike in WV, they didn't have to practically run a 3rd party campaign to do it.  Gianforte is still favored, no doubt, but with Quist, Democratic odds just rose to 20-25% here.

Also going to note that Trump actually got a lower percentage of the vote there than Romney -- the increased margin is more reflective of Hillary's six-point dip than any significant Republican gains.

Not true- Trump received 55.65%, while Romney received 55.30% in Montana.

Ah, I see -- the Wikipedia infoboxes lie once again

In any case, that's such an absurdly small difference between the two performances that it's likely meaningless

[Hindsight was 2020]

Also two other things:

1. I don't believe Republicans losing a special election here would be devastating news or spell doom for them in 2018. If they lost the Georgia race, it would be much more worrying because it's an inelastic suburban district that has voted strongly Republican in the past. But again: Candidate quality and fundamentals of a state matter. Montana is a purple state and fairly progressive in many regards. Quist could easily win this race. In fact, if he were even half-serious about all the things he stands for and the race wasn't so nationalized, I could see myself supporting him.

2. I wouldn't extrapolate too much from the 2016 presidential results. Clinton was an abysmal fit for this state and Sanders would have come close to beating Trump here.

I disagree because if dems win here and/or Georgia that would more likely mean that "dems don't vote in midterms" is not true but rather "the power in power doesn't show up for midterms" which should scare the GOP for 2018

[KingSweden]

Quist and Curtis are both lefty - Curtis was accused of being a psuedo-commie when she ran for Senate.

It didn't help that she had a video blog in which she mocked gun owners, talked sorta vulgarly about her "pansexuality" (the most white-girl thing I might have heard), and basically acted like an out an out caricature of a SJW.

So?

Serious question: what does pan sexual even mean? Is it just a fancier buzzword for bisexuality or is it honestly something different?

[Tintrlvr]

Quist and Curtis are both lefty - Curtis was accused of being a psuedo-commie when she ran for Senate.

It didn't help that she had a video blog in which she mocked gun owners, talked sorta vulgarly about her "pansexuality" (the most white-girl thing I might have heard), and basically acted like an out an out caricature of a SJW.

So?

Serious question: what does pan sexual even mean? Is it just a fancier buzzword for bisexuality or is it honestly something different?

Pansexuals say that "bisexual" implies being attracted only to people who fit within one of the two traditionally defined sexes, but they are attracted to all people, including people who do not conform to traditional sex stereotypes. Some bisexual people will say, for example, that they are not attracted to feminine men even though they are attracted to feminine women and to masculine men, but a pansexual person by definition is attracted to feminine men as much as masculine men.

I think it is sort of silly, but you can definitely watch a bisexual person and a pansexual person have a serious argument about it.

[Figueira]

I think there are some people who identify as bisexual but will tell you that they're really pansexual.

[KingSweden]

Quist and Curtis are both lefty - Curtis was accused of being a psuedo-commie when she ran for Senate.

It didn't help that she had a video blog in which she mocked gun owners, talked sorta vulgarly about her "pansexuality" (the most white-girl thing I might have heard), and basically acted like an out an out caricature of a SJW.

So?

Serious question: what does pan sexual even mean? Is it just a fancier buzzword for bisexuality or is it honestly something different?

Pansexuals say that "bisexual" implies being attracted only to people who fit within one of the two traditionally defined sexes, but they are attracted to all people, including people who do not conform to traditional sex stereotypes. Some bisexual people will say, for example, that they are not attracted to feminine men even though they are attracted to feminine women and to masculine men, but a pansexual person by definition is attracted to feminine men as much as masculine men.

I think it is sort of silly, but you can definitely watch a bisexual person and a pansexual person have a serious argument about it.

Hmm. I mean that sort of makes sense, but I agree it's a bit silly. Sounds to me more like picky bi people versus less picky bi people. Which is no problem - different strokes, etc, but I don't know if that warrants a completely different sexual categorization

[Babeuf]

Went to Quist's website and it is.. worryingly unprofessional. I get that is part of his charm but hopefully the party can lend him someone to clean it up now that he's the candidate.

update: Went to the site on my laptop and it is much clearer. When I made this post I was on my phone.

[socaldem]

Quist and Curtis are both lefty - Curtis was accused of being a psuedo-commie when she ran for Senate.

It didn't help that she had a video blog in which she mocked gun owners, talked sorta vulgarly about her "pansexuality" (the most white-girl thing I might have heard), and basically acted like an out an out caricature of a SJW.

So?

Serious question: what does pan sexual even mean? Is it just a fancier buzzword for bisexuality or is it honestly something different?

Pansexuals say that "bisexual" implies being attracted only to people who fit within one of the two traditionally defined sexes, but they are attracted to all people, including people who do not conform to traditional sex stereotypes. Some bisexual people will say, for example, that they are not attracted to feminine men even though they are attracted to feminine women and to masculine men, but a pansexual person by definition is attracted to feminine men as much as masculine men.

I think it is sort of silly, but you can definitely watch a bisexual person and a pansexual person have a serious argument about it.

Hmm. I mean that sort of makes sense, but I agree it's a bit silly. Sounds to me more like picky bi people versus less picky bi people. Which is no problem - different strokes, etc, but I don't know if that warrants a completely different sexual categorization

The key difference is that pan-sexuals are trans-inclusive. The term "pansexual" rejects the gender binary that is implied by the term "bi-sexual."

[BuckeyeNut]

Quist and Curtis are both lefty - Curtis was accused of being a psuedo-commie when she ran for Senate.

It didn't help that she had a video blog in which she mocked gun owners, talked sorta vulgarly about her "pansexuality" (the most white-girl thing I might have heard), and basically acted like an out an out caricature of a SJW.

Bisexual implies you are interested in men and women.
Pansexual implies you are interested in everyone, including people outside the binary.
So?

Serious question: what does pan sexual even mean? Is it just a fancier buzzword for bisexuality or is it honestly something different?

socaldem has it right.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Quist and Curtis are both lefty - Curtis was accused of being a psuedo-commie when she ran for Senate.

It didn't help that she had a video blog in which she mocked gun owners, talked sorta vulgarly about her "pansexuality" (the most white-girl thing I might have heard), and basically acted like an out an out caricature of a SJW.

Bisexual implies you are interested in men and women.
Pansexual implies you are interested in everyone, including people outside the binary.
So?

Serious question: what does pan sexual even mean? Is it just a fancier buzzword for bisexuality or is it honestly something different?

I'm sure someone will bite my head off for saying this, but it really sounds like an inanely PC term for bisexuals that some teenage limousine liberal came up with when they were bored.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Quist and Curtis are both lefty - Curtis was accused of being a psuedo-commie when she ran for Senate.

It didn't help that she had a video blog in which she mocked gun owners, talked sorta vulgarly about her "pansexuality" (the most white-girl thing I might have heard), and basically acted like an out an out caricature of a SJW.

Bisexual implies you are interested in men and women.
Pansexual implies you are interested in everyone, including people outside the binary.
So?

Serious question: what does pan sexual even mean? Is it just a fancier buzzword for bisexuality or is it honestly something different?

I'm sure someone will bite my head off for saying this, but it really sounds like an inanely PC term for bisexuals that some teenage limousine liberal came up with when they were bored.

Basically. I'm not one to judge anyone's sexuality obviously, but pansexuality really doesn't sound like a thing. People are attracted to individuals. If an otherwise hetero-female has an attraction to another (purely biologically speaking) female who identifies as non-binary, isn't easier just to call that attraction a lesbian attraction?

I'm all for respecting people's natural identity, but taking all of the "none of the above" aspects of sexuality and putting them into one broad batch sounds like a terrible idea. 

[KingSweden]

Quist and Curtis are both lefty - Curtis was accused of being a psuedo-commie when she ran for Senate.

It didn't help that she had a video blog in which she mocked gun owners, talked sorta vulgarly about her "pansexuality" (the most white-girl thing I might have heard), and basically acted like an out an out caricature of a SJW.

Bisexual implies you are interested in men and women.
Pansexual implies you are interested in everyone, including people outside the binary.
So?

Serious question: what does pan sexual even mean? Is it just a fancier buzzword for bisexuality or is it honestly something different?

I'm sure someone will bite my head off for saying this, but it really sounds like an inanely PC term for bisexuals that some teenage limousine liberal came up with when they were bored.

I'm honestly inclined to agree. Including transpersons seems like splitting hairs, at least based on my (rather limited) understanding of both bisexuality and transgenderism. I don't think you cease being bi just because one of the people you find attractive has transitioned

[Sumner 1868]

What a weird turn this thread made...

Anyway, the NRCC posted a preview of what kind of rhetoric we should expect in this race. About what I expected.

[The Other Castro]

Congressional Leadership Fund (R) has an ad out attacking Quist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUy4ZjYLUPw

[Maxwell]

yes Republicans please keep calling him Bernie Sanders, the most popular politician in the country.

[GlobeSoc]

Tremendous news:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How big of a deal is this?

[MT Treasurer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Maxwell]

Sounds like it's gonna be Rich Dude (R) vs. Music Dude (D)

[The Other Castro]

Gianforte says he has enough commitments from voting delegates for the nomination.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article136733178.html

[Pandaguineapig]

Gianforte says he has enough commitments from voting delegates for the nomination.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article136733178.html

Ken Miller has claimed the same thing, one of them is lying

[MT Treasurer]

Gianforte says he has enough commitments from voting delegates for the nomination.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article136733178.html

Ken Miller has claimed the same thing, one of them is lying

You mean Buttrey, right? Because Miller isn't going anywhere.

[Pandaguineapig]

Gianforte says he has enough commitments from voting delegates for the nomination.

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/national-politics/article136733178.html

Ken Miller has claimed the same thing, one of them is lying

You mean Buttrey, right? Because Miller isn't going anywhere.

No, Miller. He might have connections from when he was state gop chair but I think he is more likely to be bluffing

[henster]

I was kind of optimistic about Quist but then I read about his gun registry stance and lost all hope.

[MT Treasurer]

can someone sum up this race now that it's March 6?  

Well, yesterday the Democrats chose Rob Quist (somewhat famous songwriter, singer and guitarist) to be their nominee for the special election. Today the Republicans will chose their nominee at the convention, it looks like it will be Greg Gianforte (businessman and candidate for governor in 2016). The general election should be quite competitive, this is definitely a race to watch.

The special election will be held on May 25.