Montana is a swing state 2020

[Da2017]

How many electoral votes will a democrat need to win Montana? Obama came within 2 percentage points in 08. Bill Clinton won it 1992. Montana is usually consider a Lean or Solid R.

[SCNCmod]

Montana would be tough to win... other than Obama coming with 2-3% in 2008 vs McCain... Dems have not really been anywhere close in past 20 years. (And Clinton only made it close because Perot got 26% of the vote in '92 and 13% in '96... presumably votes that would've mostly gone Republican)

[Hindsight was 2020]

If Steve Bullock is the nom then yes big time

[Dr. MB]

If Steve Bullock is the nom then yes big time

I think he would have a good shot. Anyone else, Trump favored (some more than others). Definitely changes the outlook if a third party runs.

[MeanBeanMachine]

Reality check- no

However, it might not be as hard as the rational observers believe!  This is simply because of their extremely low population.  We saw Montana become borderline battleground in 2008.  The Dakotas were also competed in but not very close that year.  First of all, the Democrats would have to win by nearly double digits nationally.  Secondly, an effort of town halls and advertising is needed.  However, it's only 3 EV and how would Democrats feel if they went all out for Montana the way they went for Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida last year and still lost.  Let's say they win Montana because of lots of money spent on ads, but lose Pennsylvania?  Montana isn't a state worth sacrificing for.  In reality it's possible but it sounds like another one of those Democrat dreams. 

[Figueira]

At the Senate level, quite possibly. At the presidential level, I doubt it.

[Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez]

Montana is far, far more Democratic than Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah.  Always has been.  Utah doesn't even elect Democratic Governors anymore and needs a stupendous Democratic trend to elect a Democratic Rep from Salt Lake City.

[elcorazon]

Montana would be tough to win... other than Obama coming with 2-3% in 2008 vs McCain... Dems have not really been anywhere close in past 20 years. (And Clinton only made it close because Perot got 26% of the vote in '92 and 13% in '96... presumably votes that would've mostly gone Republican)

this is false. It is possible in Montana that more of the votes would have gone to Bush/Dole than to Clinton, but generally the statistics tell us that in general, Perot took as many votes from Clinton as from his Republican opposition.

[Kingpoleon]

At least 358 excluding Montana.

[Figueira]

Montana is far, far more Democratic than Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah.  Always has been.  Utah doesn't even elect Democratic Governors anymore and needs a stupendous Democratic trend to elect a Democratic Rep from Salt Lake City.

UT-04 is not based in Salt Lake City. If it were, it would probably be a pure swing seat. The districts are gerrymandered to give the Republicans three safe seats and one pretty likely seat.

[Kingpoleon]

Montana is far, far more Democratic than Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah.  Always has been.  Utah doesn't even elect Democratic Governors anymore and needs a stupendous Democratic trend to elect a Democratic Rep from Salt Lake City.

UT-04 is not based in Salt Lake City. If it were, it would probably be a pure swing seat. The districts are gerrymandered to give the Republicans three safe seats and one pretty likely seat.

They could be gerrymandered for four near-safe districts.

[NOVA Green]

Montana has an interesting history at the Presidential level, with some relatively close elections over the past 30 years in a State that has not experienced any dramatic population Democratic changes.

Dukakis was able to hold even with his national average in '88, it narrowly backed Clinton '92 (In one of the best Perot states in the Country), narrowly went for Midwestern Republican Dole in '96 (With a 50% drop off of the Perot vote). Shifted heavily towards W. with a 20% Republican win in 2000 and 2004. Obama came with 2% of winning the state in '08, and then it swung heavily towards Romney in '12. Trump was able to win pretty handily in '16 as well.

In order for a Dem to win Montana at the Presidential level in 2020 it would take something like one of the following:

1.) A complete national Democratic landslide

2.) Democrats nominate a Presidential candidate that is a Western Democrat who can appeal and communicate with the specific economic needs of Western rural voters (Jeff Merkley?)

3.) An economic populist from elsewhere in the Country (Non Western candidate) who can essentially speak to rural and small-town America from another small population state (Bernie Sanders?).

4.) A Democrat that does not accentuate a platform perceived as "banning guns" to pander to the suburban base of the Party. A Democrat that can challenge the Republican Parties attempt to convert publicly owned lands as something to be auctioned off to the highest bidder, and protect the rights of hunters, fishermen, and hikers/Mountain Bikers. (Look at the backlash against Chaffetz bill in Utah for example)

5.) There is actually a decent existing and swing Democratic voting base in Montana.... It's almost like the Maine of the Rocky Mountain region in regard to some of the dramatic swings over the years.

It's now to difficult to build a winning Democratic coalition once you take the ancestral Democratic mining counties of Deer Lodge & Silver Bow, throw in large margins in Missoula County and some of the rural and rugged Northern Rocky Counties, win by a 4 points in Helena area (Lewis & Clark and Cascade Counties), throw in a narrow win the Billings area (Gallatin County), and then bump some numbers in Native American parts of Eastern Montana.... basically offsetting the rancher vote that is more like Western North/South Dakota or Nebraska, than much of the part of the state where much of the population resides.

This is a classic Western swing state at Senate and Gubernatorial races, and not out of reach in the future for the right kind of Democrat at the Presidential level.

Plus, it's actually really inexpensive to invest funds into....

[Sir Mohamed]

Reality check- no

However, it might not be as hard as the rational observers believe!  This is simply because of their extremely low population.  We saw Montana become borderline battleground in 2008.  The Dakotas were also competed in but not very close that year.  First of all, the Democrats would have to win by nearly double digits nationally.  Secondly, an effort of town halls and advertising is needed.  However, it's only 3 EV and how would Democrats feel if they went all out for Montana the way they went for Arizona, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida last year and still lost.  Let's say they win Montana because of lots of money spent on ads, but lose Pennsylvania?  Montana isn't a state worth sacrificing for.  In reality it's possible but it sounds like another one of those Democrat dreams. 

Basically I agree with the points you made.

If reasonable, good-quality polls suggest MT could be closer than expected (meaning a single-digit lead for the GOP candidate), it may be worth to invest money and efforts on a modest level. But usually I would recommend my party to heavily focus on Rust and Sun Belt toss-up states rather than MT with its three electoral votes. I also question that a presence of Steve Bullock would be a game changer. He may keep it closer than usual, but national elections are different than state-wide contests. Nominating Mitt Romney didn’t turn MA into a battleground as well.

[cvparty]

the democratic candidate would generally have to be approaching 400 or more

[Skill and Chance]

Only with Bullock, but I agree with TNVolunteer that the Mountain West will get better for Dems without Clinton at the top of the ticket.  If the nominee is even a halfway Bernie type ideologically, CA could also swing back hard.

[TML]

Based on the observed trends of elections in the past 25-30 years or so, I believe that Montana will only be a swing state if the Democratic nominee is on track to win at least 360-370 electoral votes. It was won by the Democratic nominee in 1992, and was decided by less than 5% in 1996 and 2008 - in each case, the Democratic nominee won 360 or more EVs.

[RINO Tom]

Not enough Educated, Cosmopolitan Liberals™ have moved there yet!  Only a matter of time, of course.

[TDAS04]

Only if Bullock is on the ticket, but I would be surprised if Montana didn't swing significantly left.

[Shadows]

MT is worth too few votes to make a big investment for the Dems. But I absolutely believe that Bernie would win MT vs Trump. A strong progressive makes a better pitch in MT than a supposed centrist & this is not about Quist only, look at Schweitzer being a big supporter of Single Payer & being a strong liberal & running well ahead of Gore & national Dems.

But the Dem has to appeal to rural Montana, be gun friendly, be perceived as honest. I think only Sanders has a chance & maybe Merkley. Certainly with Booker, HRC, Warren types it is impossible to win.

Even though it would take a 7-9% win nationally which is possible vs a Trump !

[NOVA Green]

MT is worth too few votes to make a big investment for the Dems. But I absolutely believe that Bernie would win MT vs Trump. A strong progressive makes a better pitch in MT than a supposed centrist & this is not about Quist only, look at Schweitzer being a big supporter of Single Payer & being a strong liberal & running well ahead of Gore & national Dems.

But the Dem has to appeal to rural Montana, be gun friendly, be perceived as honest. I think only Sanders has a chance & maybe Merkley. Certainly with Booker, HRC, Warren types it is impossible to win.

Even though it would take a 7-9% win nationally which is possible vs a Trump !

In agreement with this assessment... even extremely liberal Dems that don't go crazy on gun issues tend to do well in much of small town and rural Oregon....

Economic populism "Trumps all", so long as you have a common sense Western Democrat who can talk about common sense gun ownership vs... excessive overreach when it comes to personal firearm rights.

Even in gun owning  country, most people know the difference between the "gun nuts" vs the "Liberal big city folk", to use an exaggerated comparison but with solid basis in truth.