MT-SEN 2020: Time for Bullock?

[YE]

I think anyone who is predicting auto wins and stack wipes in what is likely to be a Trump by 20% state is way too overconfident.

Montana is a lot more D friendly downballot than at the presidential level. With that said, Bullock is an underdog here no question about it but this could flip if the GOP is having a bad night. After ME, CO, AZ, NC, and maybe GA and IA, this is maybe the Dems best pickup chance in the country. More so than AK, MS, or KS obviously and less obviously TX.

[Technocracy Timmy]

FL is a swing state, Scott spent enormous sums of money to get Florida to behave normally in a bad election year. New Hampshire is as someone has repeatedly tried to pound into my head a blue state.

Everything else aside, Florida has a stubborn Republican lean. I don't think the reason for that this year was Scott's money either. He spent lavishly in 2010 and 2014 and yielded similar results. I'm not sure it's the best example for this question.

Well Florida is on average only a couple points to the right of the nation. Montana was 9–10 points to the right in 08’, 17 points to the right in 2012, and 22 points to the right in 2016.

Even Tester won by only 3 in a D+8/9 year. Daines is clearly favored.

[IceSpear]

This isn't anything like Tennessee which was obviously never anything besides safe R, but Daines is still favored simply because in this age of polarization it's going to be extremely tough for Bullock to overcome the fact that Trump is going to win the state by double digits. Lean R.

[MT Treasurer]

This isn't anything like Tennessee which was obviously never anything besides safe R, but Daines is still favored simply because in this age of polarization it's going to be extremely tough for Bullock to overcome the fact that Trump is going to win the state by double digits. Lean R.

He did it in 2016...

[Technocracy Timmy]

This isn't anything like Tennessee which was obviously never anything besides safe R, but Daines is still favored simply because in this age of polarization it's going to be extremely tough for Bullock to overcome the fact that Trump is going to win the state by double digits. Lean R.

Yeah Lean R is a good rating this early on.

TN was 52% white evangelical whereas Montana is only 28%. Huge difference in terms of their Republican floors.

[Technocracy Timmy]

This isn't anything like Tennessee which was obviously never anything besides safe R, but Daines is still favored simply because in this age of polarization it's going to be extremely tough for Bullock to overcome the fact that Trump is going to win the state by double digits. Lean R.

He did it in 2016...

Yeah but generally gubernatorials are less polarizing than federal races. It’s why Justice and Scott did so well in 2016 despite their state voting heavily for the opposite party for president. Bullock only won by 3.8 points too.

I know people will bring up Scott in Florida but there’s plenty of counter-examples to him in the past couple decades.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This isn't anything like Tennessee which was obviously never anything besides safe R, but Daines is still favored simply because in this age of polarization it's going to be extremely tough for Bullock to overcome the fact that Trump is going to win the state by double digits. Lean R.

He did it in 2016...

For Governor, just like Vermont, but no one is saying Phil Scott is going to be unstoppable for  Senate. Also just like NH and no one is saying that Shaheen should start packing her bags...

[Anna Komnene]

Why can't anyone recognize a joke around here?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This isn't anything like Tennessee which was obviously never anything besides safe R, but Daines is still favored simply because in this age of polarization it's going to be extremely tough for Bullock to overcome the fact that Trump is going to win the state by double digits. Lean R.

Yeah Lean R is a good rating this early on.

TN was 52% white evangelical whereas Montana is only 28%. Huge difference in terms of their Republican floors.

Republican base is less evangelical dependent out west. There is a lot of Mormons, Catholics and secular libertarians as well.

[Technocracy Timmy]

This isn't anything like Tennessee which was obviously never anything besides safe R, but Daines is still favored simply because in this age of polarization it's going to be extremely tough for Bullock to overcome the fact that Trump is going to win the state by double digits. Lean R.

Yeah Lean R is a good rating this early on.

TN was 52% white evangelical whereas Montana is only 28%. Huge difference in terms of their Republican floors.

Republican base is less evangelical dependent out west.

True though compared to TN-senate this year, MT-senate has a higher Dem floor. They’re not as psychotically republican as the Deep South.   

[MT Treasurer]

Yeah but generally gubernatorials are less polarizing than federal races. It’s why Justice and Scott did so well in 2016 despite their state voting heavily for the opposite party presidents. Bullock only won by 3.8 points too.

I mean, Tester did better than Bullock in 2012, and this year he won even though turnout was higher than in 2016(!!) and Trump actively campaigned against him. Sure, Rosendale wasn’t exactly the best candidate, but that wasn’t the only factor.

I’d be absolutely shocked if Daines did better than someone like Joni Ernst or if he won by more than 5%.

[IceSpear]

This isn't anything like Tennessee which was obviously never anything besides safe R, but Daines is still favored simply because in this age of polarization it's going to be extremely tough for Bullock to overcome the fact that Trump is going to win the state by double digits. Lean R.

He did it in 2016...

Polarization clearly took its toll on him in that race even though he won. He was a popular incumbent governor, which theoretically should have no problem being re-elected by a wide margin (see Beebe, Baker, Scott, Hogan, etc.) I don't recall many people thinking the race would be particularly close, but it was. Red states clearly don't want to give landslides to noncontroversial popular incumbent Democratic governors anymore (blue states have no problem with it though.) The days of Mike Beebe winning by the same margin Blanche lost by simultaneously are over.

[IceSpear]

Yeah but generally gubernatorials are less polarizing than federal races. It’s why Justice and Scott did so well in 2016 despite their state voting heavily for the opposite party presidents. Bullock only won by 3.8 points too.

I mean, Tester did better than Bullock in 2012, and this year he won even though turnout was higher than in 2016(!!) and Trump actively campaigned against him. Sure, Rosendale wasn’t exactly the best candidate, but that wasn’t the only factor.

I’d be absolutely shocked if Daines did better than someone like Joni Ernst or if he won by more than 5%.

I actually do agree with you on the latter. I could definitely see Daines being more vulnerable than Ernst. I rate them both as lean R for now, but assuming Bullock really does run, I'd probably rather be Ernst.

[MT Treasurer]

I don't recall many people thinking the race would be particularly close, but it was.

Well, then those people simply didn’t follow the race very closely. My prediction was Bullock +3, he won by 4. For some reason, Atlas really tends to overestimate incumbents in Montana (Bullock in 2016, Tester in 2018, now Daines).

As for the MA/NH comparison, the thing is that "red" states like Montana (which is obviously nowhere near as Republican as MA is Democratic), West Virginia, Alabama, Missouri, Kansas, etc. are actually very open to splitting tickets, which simply isn’t the case with blue states like MA or NH anymore. Collins is basically the only one left, and ME isn’t even that Democratic anyway. CO wasn’t really all that blue in 2014 either, and yet Gardner is basically DOA in 2020 in a Clinton +5(!) state.

[IceSpear]

I don't recall many people thinking the race would be particularly close, but it was.

Well, then those people simply didn’t follow the race very closely. My prediction was Bullock +3, he won by 4. For some reason, Atlas really tends to overestimate incumbents in Montana (Bullock in 2016, Tester in 2018, now Daines).

As for the MA/NH comparison, the thing is that "red" states like Montana (which is obviously nowhere near as Republican as MA is Democratic), West Virginia, Alabama, Missouri, Kansas, etc. are actually very open to splitting tickets, which simply isn’t the case with blue states like MA or NH anymore. Collins is basically the only one left, and ME isn’t even that Democratic anyway. CO wasn’t really all that blue in 2014 either, and yet Gardner is basically DOA in 2020 in a Clinton +5(!) state.

Governor Gonzalez, Governor Jealous, and Governor Hallquist are very happy that blue states don't split tickets, and especially not in a D+9 Democratic wave. And Governor Sutton, Governor Edmondson, Governor Cordray, and Governor Hubbell are thrilled that red states love to split tickets, and that they probably loved doing so even more in a D+9 Democratic wave.

[MT Treasurer]

I don't recall many people thinking the race would be particularly close, but it was.

Well, then those people simply didn’t follow the race very closely. My prediction was Bullock +3, he won by 4. For some reason, Atlas really tends to overestimate incumbents in Montana (Bullock in 2016, Tester in 2018, now Daines).

As for the MA/NH comparison, the thing is that "red" states like Montana (which is obviously nowhere near as Republican as MA is Democratic), West Virginia, Alabama, Missouri, Kansas, etc. are actually very open to splitting tickets, which simply isn’t the case with blue states like MA or NH anymore. Collins is basically the only one left, and ME isn’t even that Democratic anyway. CO wasn’t really all that blue in 2014 either, and yet Gardner is basically DOA in 2020 in a Clinton +5(!) state.

Governor Gonzalez, Governor Jealous, and Governor Hallquist are very happy that blue states don't split tickets, and especially not in a D+9 Democratic wave. And Governor Sutton, Governor Edmondson, Governor Cordray, and Governor Hubbell are thrilled that red states love to split tickets, and that they probably loved doing so even more in a D+9 Democratic wave.

Senator Rosendale, Senator Moore, Senator Morrisey, Senator Renacci, Governor Gianforte, Governor Vitter, Governor Kobach, etc. are all very happy that red states don’t split tickets anymore.

Some blue states might elect a moderate/liberal Republican governor every now and then, but no Republican can win a Senate race in any blue state these days. Scott Brown's special election victory was the exception to the rule, and he got btfo in 2012.

[IceSpear]

I don't recall many people thinking the race would be particularly close, but it was.

Well, then those people simply didn’t follow the race very closely. My prediction was Bullock +3, he won by 4. For some reason, Atlas really tends to overestimate incumbents in Montana (Bullock in 2016, Tester in 2018, now Daines).

As for the MA/NH comparison, the thing is that "red" states like Montana (which is obviously nowhere near as Republican as MA is Democratic), West Virginia, Alabama, Missouri, Kansas, etc. are actually very open to splitting tickets, which simply isn’t the case with blue states like MA or NH anymore. Collins is basically the only one left, and ME isn’t even that Democratic anyway. CO wasn’t really all that blue in 2014 either, and yet Gardner is basically DOA in 2020 in a Clinton +5(!) state.

Governor Gonzalez, Governor Jealous, and Governor Hallquist are very happy that blue states don't split tickets, and especially not in a D+9 Democratic wave. And Governor Sutton, Governor Edmondson, Governor Cordray, and Governor Hubbell are thrilled that red states love to split tickets, and that they probably loved doing so even more in a D+9 Democratic wave.

Senator Rosendale, Senator Moore, Senator Morrisey, Senator Renacci, Governor Gianforte, Governor Vitter, Governor Kobach, etc. are all very happy that red states don’t split tickets anymore.

Some blue states might elect a moderate/liberal Republican governor every now and then, but no Republican can win a Senate race in any blue state these days. Scott Brown's special election victory was the exception to the rule, and he got btfo in 2012.

Only one of those people lost in a landslide though, which was exactly my point. As opposed to those three Democrats who just lost in a landslide in the deepest of blue states in a blue wave a month ago.

I thought you'd have gotten over your PTSD about red states electing Democrats after Bredesen, Heitkamp, and Edmondson got destroyed, Espy, McCaskill, Donnelly, Sutton, Hubbell, and Cordray got thumped, and Manchin and Tester had close calls and probably would've lost too if the GOP was more competent. And all this brutal carnage in the midst of a D+9 Democratic wave. Won't be satisfied until there's not a single red state Democrat left, huh?

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Thank goodness, we need CO, IA, ME &MT for majority senate in a D +2-4 point national environment

[Pericles]

I think this is Lean R in a neutral environment. Daines doesn't seem as bad as Maryland Matt, and it's a presidential election year too, if Trump were actually on the ballot in 2018 we may well have Senator-Elect Rosendale now. And gubernatorial results are only mildly indicative of results for federal races and federal races are more polarized. Bullock could do it but he'll have an uphill climb and will likely need to get lucky with the national environment.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Now all we need is for Orman to declare as a Dem against Roberts and Mark Begich in Alaska. Then the Democrats can dump insane amounts of money on the Atlas Red State Dem fetish, only to lose them all by 10% while GA, TX and AZ end up within the MoE Republican victories.

Even if you run ads 24/7 it will take years to spend "insane" amounts of money in Kansas, Montana, and Alaska.

[Skye]

I don't recall many people thinking the race would be particularly close, but it was.

Well, then those people simply didn’t follow the race very closely. My prediction was Bullock +3, he won by 4. For some reason, Atlas really tends to overestimate incumbents in Montana (Bullock in 2016, Tester in 2018, now Daines).

As for the MA/NH comparison, the thing is that "red" states like Montana (which is obviously nowhere near as Republican as MA is Democratic), West Virginia, Alabama, Missouri, Kansas, etc. are actually very open to splitting tickets, which simply isn’t the case with blue states like MA or NH anymore. Collins is basically the only one left, and ME isn’t even that Democratic anyway. CO wasn’t really all that blue in 2014 either, and yet Gardner is basically DOA in 2020 in a Clinton +5(!) state.

Governor Gonzalez, Governor Jealous, and Governor Hallquist are very happy that blue states don't split tickets, and especially not in a D+9 Democratic wave. And Governor Sutton, Governor Edmondson, Governor Cordray, and Governor Hubbell are thrilled that red states love to split tickets, and that they probably loved doing so even more in a D+9 Democratic wave.

Senator Rosendale, Senator Moore, Senator Morrisey, Senator Renacci, Governor Gianforte, Governor Vitter, Governor Kobach, etc. are all very happy that red states don’t split tickets anymore.

Some blue states might elect a moderate/liberal Republican governor every now and then, but no Republican can win a Senate race in any blue state these days. Scott Brown's special election victory was the exception to the rule, and he got btfo in 2012.

Only one of those people lost in a landslide though, which was exactly my point. As opposed to those three Democrats who just lost in a landslide in the deepest of blue states in a blue wave a month ago.

I thought you'd have gotten over your PTSD about red states electing Democrats after Bredesen, Heitkamp, and Edmondson got destroyed, Espy, McCaskill, Donnelly, Sutton, Hubbell, and Cordray got thumped, and Manchin and Tester had close calls and probably would've lost too if the GOP was more competent. And all this brutal carnage in the midst of a D+9 Democratic wave. Won't be satisfied until there's not a single red state Democrat left, huh?

Are you talking about yourself? You are always saying snarky comments about how red states are obviously full of 'hicks' who won't vote Dem anymore, and IndyRep just listed a few Dems that won in red states. Polarization doesn't just work one way.

That said, this race begins as a tossup (w/maybe Daines in advantage). It's clear that Bullock, being an incumbent by the time of the election, is clearly in a better position than Bredesen. But then again, Bredesen was clearly in a better position than Bayh and lost like him.

[Politician]

Nice!

[IceSpear]

I don't recall many people thinking the race would be particularly close, but it was.

Well, then those people simply didn’t follow the race very closely. My prediction was Bullock +3, he won by 4. For some reason, Atlas really tends to overestimate incumbents in Montana (Bullock in 2016, Tester in 2018, now Daines).

As for the MA/NH comparison, the thing is that "red" states like Montana (which is obviously nowhere near as Republican as MA is Democratic), West Virginia, Alabama, Missouri, Kansas, etc. are actually very open to splitting tickets, which simply isn’t the case with blue states like MA or NH anymore. Collins is basically the only one left, and ME isn’t even that Democratic anyway. CO wasn’t really all that blue in 2014 either, and yet Gardner is basically DOA in 2020 in a Clinton +5(!) state.

Governor Gonzalez, Governor Jealous, and Governor Hallquist are very happy that blue states don't split tickets, and especially not in a D+9 Democratic wave. And Governor Sutton, Governor Edmondson, Governor Cordray, and Governor Hubbell are thrilled that red states love to split tickets, and that they probably loved doing so even more in a D+9 Democratic wave.

Senator Rosendale, Senator Moore, Senator Morrisey, Senator Renacci, Governor Gianforte, Governor Vitter, Governor Kobach, etc. are all very happy that red states don’t split tickets anymore.

Some blue states might elect a moderate/liberal Republican governor every now and then, but no Republican can win a Senate race in any blue state these days. Scott Brown's special election victory was the exception to the rule, and he got btfo in 2012.

Only one of those people lost in a landslide though, which was exactly my point. As opposed to those three Democrats who just lost in a landslide in the deepest of blue states in a blue wave a month ago.

I thought you'd have gotten over your PTSD about red states electing Democrats after Bredesen, Heitkamp, and Edmondson got destroyed, Espy, McCaskill, Donnelly, Sutton, Hubbell, and Cordray got thumped, and Manchin and Tester had close calls and probably would've lost too if the GOP was more competent. And all this brutal carnage in the midst of a D+9 Democratic wave. Won't be satisfied until there's not a single red state Democrat left, huh?

Are you talking about yourself? You are always saying snarky comments about how red states are obviously full of 'hicks' who won't vote Dem anymore, and IndyRep just listed a few Dems that won in red states. Polarization doesn't just work one way.

That said, this race begins as a tossup (w/maybe Daines in advantage). It's clear that Bullock, being an incumbent by the time of the election, is clearly in a better position than Bredesen. But then again, Bredesen was clearly in a better position than Bayh and lost like him.

I think you missed the point of the Racist Hick comments. I'm simply pointing out facts, not celebrating it. I supported Bredesen, Edmondson, Heitkamp, etc. MT Treasurer hates most red state Democrats but still tends to overestimate them, I guess to keep his expectations low because Republicans were burnt so many times in red states in the past. But it's pretty obvious at this point that things have changed considering the slaughterfest 2018 was for red state Democrats even in a D+9 Democratic wave.

And in regards to the bolded, no, that was not clear at all. Bredesen was running in a better environment against a weaker candidate but in a far more hostile state. The latter won out, which was always a very strong possibility.

[Woody]

Atlas dems on Bullock running for senate: OMG TILT D/TOSS UP!!!
Atlas dems on Baker running for senate: Massachusetts is solid D, never going to vote for a republican to the senate.

[IceSpear]

Atlas dems on Bullock running for senate: OMG TILT D/TOSS UP!!!
Atlas dems on Baker running for senate: Massachusetts is solid D, never going to vote for a republican to the senate.

Atlas Dems? The only two people in this thread to call it toss up or tilt D are both Republicans.