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

[Mr. Smith]

Disappointing that he didn't quite reach my last prediction, but he did better than I thought he would right before the body slam.

[Shadows]

+100. And there is no Great Depression for almost 4 years NOW, as it was by the time of FDR election. I admire FDR, but US now is not what it was in November 1932.... And after depression was ... well, mitigated by 1937-38, even FDR began to have some problems and to lose some "initial supporters" (in the South, for example, which gradually began to doubt him at least..).

Another untrue statement. FDR won every single state in the South in 1940 - To repeat, every single one & had 449 Electoral college votes.

It seems to me that you are not reading what other people write before beginning to write yourself.

Of course he did - after all it was solid South which was ready to vote for much weaker candidates, then FDR. But have you ever heard about "Conservative manifesto" (written, BTW, by Democratic senator)? About "Texas regulars", which all were registered Democrats? About solid resistance (including - on part of many Democrats) to FDR attempts to pack the Supreme Court or  purge his party opponents (usualy - conservative Southerners) from Senate? If in 1933-36 almost all (even conservative) Democrats supported most of the Roosevelt program - by 1937-38 a wide cracks in his coalition appeared. If not for pre-war (and then - war) situation in Europe, which threatened the whole world, FDR chances for reelection would be lower, as more people would think about "Enough!" line.

Of course party was more economically radical in FDR 1st (and beginning of 2nd) term - out of desperation after almost 4 years of Great Depression. Now you can't have a whore for $1 (or even cheaper) as was the case in many cases then - you will need to spend much more. Generally, economically most Americans are substantially better now, then in 1930th, and middle class is substantially bigger (of course - there are lot of poor people too, but - not as much as then, and social security works better simply because there was only little of it then). And with that comes "reorientation": people, who have something to lose, have different sort of problems and priorities then piss poor one. In short - US became much less radical economically  and much more liberal socially since FDR time (who spoke about "gay marriage" then? Not even the wildest of liberals, usually)

I may look to be Kassandra, but US will have a lot of problems in the next 30 years. So much that it can find itself on the verge of split. Berkely, California and Abilene, Texas were substantially closer then, then now. At least they could talk to each other and understand each other. Not so now..

Again an incorrect picture is being painted. FDR increased the Income tax from 63% to 76% in 1936, then to 81% in 1940, then to 88% in 1942 & 94% in 1944. Minimum Wage, the most radical anti-free market, supposed socialist idea to destroy the labour market was instituted in 1938. In 1937 there was a funding of many Billions of $ for works progress administration. FDR vs party opposition about the SC was not due to economic issues but concentration of power & executive/legislative separation of power  issue (that will happen even today for any president if they propose a radical change including retirement age & what not). In the end, FDR got 7 out of the 9 judges to the SC & won this battle & packed the court. And FDR proposed the 2nd bill of rights (guaranteed healthcare, education, income) etc in 1944 after his election but died soon after. Truman continued on his path campaigning on Single Payer in 1948 where he had the greatest political upset in presidential history.

The so-called Conservative manifesto etc was always there among Republicans & some Democrats (this isn't a new thing considering FDR primaried conservatives). Under tremendous pressure from the entire financial elite & conservatives, FDR abandoned the New Deal & caused a recession in 1937/38 odd. It was dubbed the Roosevelt recession & as soon as FDR reversed his policies & when back to government expansion, introduced the minimum wage & New deal policies, the economy grew at a fast pace. But during the brief recession, FDR was under tremendous assault & his conservative opponents felt bolder & came with their own manifesto - This isn't about the South. Conservative manifesto was largely a Republican thing with some conservative Democrats crossing over to form a bipartisan group. But one of it's key members (possibly most famous & active) was Republican Vanderberg from Michigan (Mid-west), it had conservatives from all over including the South.

But if you look at the South. FDR won Texas with 87% in 1936, 81% in 1940 & in a 3-way race won 71% in 1944 (GOP - 17%, Texas Regulars - 11/12%). The Texas regulars soon disbanded after FDR crushed them. The Texas Regulars were racist segregationist Conservative Democrats opposing FDR not just about New Deal alone but about SC desegregating primaries (FDR had packed the SC with liberal judges). The whole goal of Texas regulars was to beat FDR & FDR destroyed them & the Republicans. And in the next election in 1948, Truman campaigning as a raging liberal & won the national PV by only 4-5% odd in a shock win but won Texas by a massive margin of 42%!

The last 40 years of trickle down has destroyed the middle class & working class & it is hard facts & economic research which says so (not as bad as the great depression but it will never get there)! The idea of less radical is a new post 1980 thing, because the New Deal policies continued till the 1980 Reagan re-alignment (Tax rates were 70-90% till 1980) !

[smoltchanov]

As i already said - we end our "discussion" here. It makes no sense. You ignore all arguments that contradict your conclusions. Let's each stick to corresponding vision.

[Shadows]

Yea agree to disagree since you wouldn't accept that your arguments & comments don't paint a true picture in this case. Much of what I said is pure facts n history but sometimes we have an entrenched view of ideology so it's difficult for us to accept a contrarian argument.

I guess "corresponding vision" is a better alternative !

[PresidentSamTilden]

It's all fun and games, beating up reporters, until the government does something you don't like. I mean if you're a republican, what if you de-legitimize the press, and then lose in 2020 to Warren or someone? This is not a good precedent in US politics.

I guess people are just so divided in our views that it doesn't matter anymore. 

[kyc0705]

This thread is the most that anyone has ever talked about Montana in history.

[Brittain33]

I'm pleased with how completely ok I am with this result, given the fundamentals here and the attack happened after most people had already voted. A B-level candidate like Quist losing a Trump +20 state by 6 points means Dems are still favored to win GA-6 and the House next year.

[GlobeSoc]

Just woke up assuming that it was a 3-4-point Assaultforte win. I was horrified to learn the margin was bigger.

Republicans can be are disgusting! Thé f-ing candidate who assaults someone gets away with it as if nothing happened! I bet Schweitzer couldn't get through to them now!

[_]

Cmon and slam

[SoLongAtlas]

He apologized in his victory speech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rHX023p-hk He has to appear before June 7 and will receive a $500 fine and/or 6 months jail time. He will probably plead out and the judge will give him the fine since a report I read said he was a Gianforte backer anyway, good ol' boys network and all. The Congress should censure him.

[SoLongAtlas]

He apologized in his victory speech. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rHX023p-hk He has to appear before June 7 and will receive a $500 fine and/or 6 months jail time. He will probably plead out and the judge will give him the fine since a report I read said he was a Gianforte backer anyway, good ol' boys network and all. The Congress should censure him.

Nah, they obviously had no qualms about an admitted sexual assaulter taking the White House or an abortion hypocrite in Tennessee, so why would they care about this?

All this reminds me of when Trump fake body slammed Vince McMahon in 2007 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMKFIHRpe7I It's just real this time around and they love it even more, evidence "We forgive you! Whooooo!" types in the victory speech video.

[Tender Branson]

I guess we won't get separate results for mail-voting and election day voting ?

Mail-voting was 70% of the overall vote. It would be nice to see the difference ...

[windjammer]

I mean come on, democrats improved by 14 points compared with Hillary. It's not a bad result.

[GeorgiaModerate]

I mean come on, democrats improved by 14 points compared with Hillary. It's not a bad result.

Exactly.  The Democrats are outperforming Clinton in these specials.  If this trend keeps up, they'll be in fine shape next year.  The thing some people seem to overlook is that this year's group of specials isn't a representative sample of House districts.  They've all been in Republican-leaning districts, for the simple reason that they replaced Republican incumbents appointed to other positions by a Republican president.

[Tender Branson]

I mean come on, democrats improved by 14 points compared with Hillary. It's not a bad result.

Exactly.  The Democrats are outperforming Clinton in these specials.  If this trend keeps up, they'll be in fine shape next year.  The thing some people seem to overlook is that this year's group of specials isn't a representative sample of House districts.  They've all been in Republican-leaning districts, for the simple reason that they replaced Republican incumbents appointed to other positions by a Republican president.

Republican-"leaning" ?

KS and MT were more like Safe-R districts ...

And GA-06 would also be Safe-R, if it weren't for Trump being toxic in the Northern Atlanta suburbs (look at Price's results there).

In this context, the DEM results so far were pretty good.

[Adam Griffin]

Did mail ballots actually end up being 70% of all votes cast, or was it lower?

[Tender Branson]

Did mail ballots actually end up being 70% of all votes cast, or was it lower?

Slightly more than 70% ...

Total mail ballots returned: 276.203

Total turnout: 379.763 (72.7%)

[MT Treasurer]

Tonight's Map (Non-Atlas Colors):

Damn you, Park County....

I will try to post a county map soon, but this is my prediction for now (I probably won't update it before election day):

50.8% Gianforte (R)
46.3% Quist (D)
2.9% Wicks (L)

For what it's worth (probably not much), here is my county map prediction:

[Figueira]

Tonight's Map (Non-Atlas Colors):

Damn you, Park County....

I will try to post a county map soon, but this is my prediction for now (I probably won't update it before election day):

50.8% Gianforte (R)
46.3% Quist (D)
2.9% Wicks (L)

For what it's worth (probably not much), here is my county map prediction:

Funny how your percentage prediction underestimated Gianforte, while your county prediction underestimated Quist.

[Thomas Jackson]

I mean come on, democrats improved by 14 points compared with Hillary. It's not a bad result.

I love the utter insanity at trying to compare Presidential election results to those of a special election.

ESPECIALLY in a State like Montana which has only a single house seat.

ESPECIALLY since Gianforte LOST in 2016 in the same election:

Montana's Gubernatorial Election, 2016
Party   Candidate   Votes   %
Democratic   Steve Bullock (inc.)   226,399   50
Republican   Greg Gianforte   214,899   47
Libertarian   Ron Vandevender/Marc Mulcahy   15,282   3

There were well over 450,000 votes in that election. The electorate is completely different.


If anything, it would be better to compare this to 2014. There were 369,000 voters in that electorate. There were 376,000 voters last night.

Steve Daines   Amanda Curtis   
Party   Republican   Democratic
Popular vote   210,863   145,601
Percentage   57.9%   40.0%

VS.

Greg Gianforte
Rep.
189,473   50.2%   
Rob Quist
Dem.
166,483   44.1   
Mark Wicks
Lib.
21,509   5.7   

The RATS gained only 4 points while the conservative libertarian peeled off almost 6% from the Republicans.

[rob in cal]

    One question to ponder is what would have happened had it been a Democrat doing the body slamming.  How would Dem voters have responded to their candidate?  Would they have stayed home or voted for an alternative  or still supported their candidate?  I'm going to go out on a limb and say not too much different than Montana GOP voters did.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Well, now that Gianforte won, I guess we're going to get some more POLITICALLY INACCURATE SMACKDOWN:

[ApatheticAustrian]

i am most disgusted by watching the obnoxious part of the right (wouldn never associate the mature right with him, even while i am also baffled by the nice words from ryan and co), celebrating and joking about the brutality.

they talk nonstop 24/7 about violent college students but if an actual politican, with real power,  injures a journalist, he had it coming.

even grover effing norquist.

[Chief Justice Keef]

I mean come on, democrats improved by 14 points compared with Hillary. It's not a bad result.

That's the real story people should be paying attention to. A 14-point swing towards Democrats nationally would be a complete wave.

[publicunofficial]

The nice thing about that 7 point spread is that it's juuuust the right size to justify any #analysis someone would want to make.