MT-SEN 2020: Time for Bullock?

[MT Treasurer]

No surprise. If true, Tilt/Lean D.

[MT Treasurer]

Not sure why Democrats are so bearish on Bullock's odds in this race. I honestly think this flips before NC/GA/IA/TX/AZ/etc. with Bullock running, though Gardner and maybe Jones are probably still more vulnerable than Daines. Bullock is a tougher opponent than Tester since he’s not only more popular but also doesn’t have a voting record that can be attacked.

[MT Treasurer]

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.

Orman and Begich probably wouldn’t win, but you’re way too overconfident if you seriously think this race won’t even be competitive or that Daines will win by double digits. It really reminds me of all the Democrats who thought that Rick Scott was just "spending away his kids' inheritance" with his Senate run.

[MT Treasurer]

Rating it Tilt/Lean D isn’t the same as predicting an auto win, and most people (even Democrats) still think Daines is favored.

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.

Mt Treasurer is just panicking but you could even ask ice spear and he would admit it isn't safe r and he would be one the first to claimants. Red state race is safe r

I mean, not really. I’d never vote for Bullock over Daines in a Senate race, but the hubris and overconfidence of so many Republicans on this forum is really astounding. Let’s hope Daines and Young know better than to just shrug off Bullock's candidacy because Daines is the "incumbent" and Trump will win by 20% (very unlikely btw, I think the state will more likely than not trend Democratic in 2020, regardless of who the Democrats nominate).

[MT Treasurer]

Oh I fully expect them to "take it seriously" and that is why I think this is an uphill battle for Bullock.

Well, I certainly hope so. The NRSC definitely blew it in 2018 with their half-hearted and late effort after Rosendale had already been defined by a barrage of negative ads after a somewhat contentious primary. FWIW, I’m pretty sure that Daines will run a better campaign than Rosendale, but still, I really wouldn’t underestimate Bullock. If we were talking about AR, TN, or ND here, yeah, I’d feel a lot more confident about our chances, but Montana is a lot more Democratic than most other red states and Daines isn’t exactly the strongest incumbent.

This is off-topic, but what are the races you’re most worried about in 2020? For me it’s AZ, CO, NC, GA, MT, and TX. I’m a little more bullish on Republican odds in ME and IA than everyone else.

[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...

[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%.

[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.

[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.

[MT Treasurer]

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?

Who cares by how much they lost, it’s totally irrelevant. The mere fact that these Democrats managed to win in Trump +40, Trump +28, Trump +20, etc. states despite "polarization being at a historic high" or whatever is telling in and of itself. McCaskill and Heitkamp are pretty bad examples because they were extremely weak and unpopular incumbents who ran godawful campaigns which essentially threw away two very winnable races, and if anything they should have lost by more than 11 and 5 points, respectively. Sutton certainly didn’t get "thumped", in fact I don’t remember the last time a Democrat came within 3 points of winning a gubernatorial race in SD (the state hasn’t elected a Democratic governor since 1974, the longest-running streak of GOP governors in the country). Espy getting "thumped" is also news to me (and most other posters, I would assume) since pretty much everyone except you would agree that he did a lot better than he should have done, and Hubbell literally only lost by 3%, lol. Donnelly's 5-point loss was a little more surprising, but let’s not forget that he actually did 13 points better than his party's last presidential candidate. When was the last time a blue state Republican did that well? Yeah.. exactly. Any Republican incumbent in a Clinton +18 state would have been DOA and headed for a 12+ point loss from day one, even in a GOP wave.

Also, comparing Senate (Tester, Manchin, etc.) with gubernatorial races (Baker, Hogan, etc.) is a disingenuous and deliberately misleading apples to oranges comparison. Baker and Hogan would have lost by 25+ points if they had run for Senate in 2018 (or any other year, really), and you know it.

Maybe Atlas is right and Daines is really heavily favored and I know nothing about my state's politics, but given this forum's (poor) track record when it comes to predicting Montana elections I’ll happily stick with my prediction. Underestimate Bullock/MT Dems to your heart's content, Republicans, but don’t say you weren’t warned when the first poll of this race shows Bullock up by 8 points or something like that.

[MT Treasurer]

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.

I think you were the one that missed my point? I obviously know that you, as a fairly partisan Democrat, support these candidates. And I'm well aware that you believe that your "hicks" narrative is a fact. I'm simply saying it's not a fact. Let's not forget how you so adamantly denied the possibility of a Senator Doug Jones until the last moment.

Or Jim Justice/WV-GOV 2016, which was as "Safe R" as AL-SEN 2017 because of racist hicks.

[MT Treasurer]

Remember when MT Treasurer spent months and months telling us all that Heitkamp is favored and will easily win because of retail politics (TM).

Sorry to say MT Treasurer, but you aren't as intelligent as you think. You can write a lot of posts but that doesn't mean what you say will come true. Idk why you are still talking so confidently when ND and NH proved you massively wrong.

Projecting a little too much here, no? Judging from your posting history, I don’t think you’re in the position to rebuke other posters for their rude, smug, and pretentious behavior, but I digress. I’m not talking "confidently" at all, all I’m saying is that it would be foolish to declare Bullock DOA, and if people ridicule me for my supposedly "delusional" Toss-up or Tilt D rating, I have the right to respond to that. The only ones talking "confidently" are the same people who told me that AL was Safe R, that WV-GOV was Safe R, that Hyde-Smith was going to easily win by double digits, etc. and are now saying that Bullock couldn’t possibly beat Daines in 2020, that Jim Hood couldn’t possibly win a gubernatorial race in MS because of "polarization" (which has essentially become a handy but ridiculously overused and nebulous buzzword), etc.

Yeah, you’re absolutely right, I was wrong about TN, ND (although I certainly wasn’t the only one who overestimated Heitkamp, and in case you couldn’t tell, many of my posts about ND-SEN were exaggerated, especially the retail politics part) and NH (2018 more so than 2016). Congrats! I’ll still readily admit that I’m conceited enough to believe that I know a little more about Montana than any other state, and at least my Bullock +3 (2016), Gianforte +6 (2017), and Tester +3 (2018) predictions weren’t all that bad. I also never said that Bullock (assuming he runs, of course) will make this an automatic pick-up for Democrats, but Toss-up is definitely a fair rating and not one people should be ridiculed for. Like it or not, everyone's entitled to their own ratings and predictions, so if you don’t like my posts, put me on ignore instead of making snarky posts like that.

[MT Treasurer]

Is your logic about Montana seriously any different than these arguments you made prior to Bredesen getting completely crushed on Election Day as Dems would go on to win the House vote by 8-9 points?

I don’t know why you’re so unwilling to accept that polarization in senate races is a very real thing since you clearly got egg on your face about Heidi’s retail politics and Bredi’s 39 point 2006 governor win.

Yeah, TN was definitely somewhat of a surprise to me, and I already admitted that I was wrong about that race (fortunately). That said, Democrats did have other problems to worry about in the Senate, as Nelson, Heitkamp, Donnelly, O'Rourke, and McCaskill all lost. Sure, Blackburn won by double digits, but I remember when people unironically thought that she would win by 10%+ while people like McCaskill and Donnelly would win reelection simultaneously, so that was what I strongly disagreed with (and I was right about that, no?).

Anyway, Montana is obviously far more Democratic than Tennessee, and if polarization was an unstoppable force, Tester would have lost reelection this year, especially with how high turnout was and the fact that Trump actively campaigned against him. Yeah, Rosendale wasn’t exactly a great candidate by any means, but he wasn’t an Akin tier candidate either, and it’s a Senate race after all, so you’d think "candidate quality" wouldn’t matter as much in a federal race, no? An incumbent Republican Senator badly underperforming the fundamentals of his race is hardly something that’s unprecedented, or how else do you explain Roberts 2014 or Blunt 2016 (who won by 3% even though Trump carried the state by 18%)? Like I said, if this was a state like Arkansas, North Dakota, Wyoming, etc. we were talking about, yeah, I’d feel much more confident about our chances, but Montana isn’t a deep red state, Steve Daines is certainly no John Hoeven, popular incumbent governors are stronger challengers than retreads like Bredesen or Bayh, the MT Democratic Party is probably one of the most competent and well-organized Democratic state parties in the country, the most populous counties (except Yellowstone) in Montana are actually becoming more Democratic, etc. Yeah, maybe you could rate it Lean R if you view Daines as a "stronger incumbent" than I do, but Toss-up is also a fair rating.

[MT Treasurer]

It will be the least shocking news ever if the only lesson Republicans take away from Tester's victory is that any Republican candidate who doesn’t have a Baltimore accent and has "incumbency advantage" will automatically be heavily favored even against the most popular statewide elected official (Bullock is more popular than Tester), and they inevitably blow it again in 2020 even if Trump wins reelection. Yeah, we get it, Rosendale wasn’t a strong candidate, it’s true, but it’s silly and absolutely lazy to lay all the blame for Tester's victory on him. Even many Republicans have already admitted that the late and half-hearted NRSC involvement in Montana was the most decisive factor in his defeat, and the Democrats' ground operation (particularly on college campuses and reservations) shouldn’t be underestimated. There’s zero reason to believe that Democratic base voters aren’t going to turn out in 2020 or that they will be more supportive of Daines than Rosendale.

I maintain that this seat is more likely to flip than Iowa, even if Bullock declines to run for some reason (which would hardly make the race Safe R). Daines is absurdly overrated on this forum and among pundits in general and very beatable if Democrats play their cards right and/or 2020 is a favorable year for Democrats.

[MT Treasurer]

Looks like Wilmot Collins might run.  Very interesting candidate.

https://twitter.com/CollinsWilmot/status/1126595634750844928?s=09

He’s really charismatic and has a compelling story to tell. He’d have zero issues exciting the Democratic base and I could see him force the NRSC to at least allocate additional resources to the race. While Bullock staying out of the race (for now) is undoubtedly good news for Republicans, people need to stop acting like Daines is running for reelection in Wyoming.

Speaking of Wyoming, there’s also this, FWIW:

'The Revenant' author considering run for Montana Senate or governor

Michael Punke, the author of the best-selling survivalist novel “The Revenant” and a former U.S. ambassador to the World Trade Organization in Geneva, is considering a Democratic run for Senate or governor in Montana, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Neither race has an announced Democratic candidate yet, though people are circling both campaigns, and Punke hopes to use his long career of experience in public policy and his public profile as a hit author to make himself an interesting and attractive candidate, according to one of the people familiar with his plans.

[...]

Punke was born and raised in Wyoming and went out East to attend George Washington University and then Cornell Law School. He also worked in international economic affairs in the Clinton White House and as a senior policy adviser in the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

[MT Treasurer]

He’s in.