MT Poll: (R) Gianforte, (D) Busse, or (L) Leib.

[hank4elk]

1975. MT was dark blue rural. Like most of the west still.
I still have the hat I bought in Butte, the day Nixon resigned. The whole town was a street party.
Election Day was eff Repubs in those days.

 

[88man]

Can't believe John Dutton wasn't on the ticket

 

[SAJ-99]

...where republicans align more with old school dems

The racist ones?

Here is the data for Montana for the TLDR. You can easily pinpoint the exact year MT switched from Dem to Rep. (website attached for those that want to play around for their state). The explanation is well understood for anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the 1960's. A lot of states look similar. Sometimes when the the candidate was from that state, things can switch (Carter in Georgia for example). Obama came the closest to having major surprises in 2008 in some of these states, and that was because we were in a major recession.

Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections

Detailed national results of US Presidential Elections from 1789 through 2012, US Senate and Gubernatorial Elections since 1990. Site includes election data, county maps and state maps, charts. State and county results from 1892 through 2012.

uselectionatlas.org

 

[Nameless Range]

Like clockwork on social media today:

 

[SAJ-99]

Like clockwork on social media today:

View attachment 348010

The MT guys keep saying they want better candidates. Can someone give me a list of the things they want to hear? I would generally say that voting Americans are a diverse group, but the trend of the presidential victors over the last 45 years is to dumb stuff down. No one wants the details or hear about complexities of tradeoffs. Stay simple and tell them they will benefit $$$ and while giving up nothing. It doesn't even have to be true.

 

[Southern Elk]

The MT guys keep saying they want better candidates. Can someone give me a list of the things they want to hear? I would generally say that voting Americans are a diverse group, but the trend of the presidential victors over the last 45 years is to dumb stuff down. No one wants the details or hear about complexities of tradeoffs. Stay simple and tell them they will benefit $$$ and while giving up nothing. It doesn't even have to be true.

A democrat governor candidate that doesn’t work for the gun control lobby would be a good start. You can laugh that off all you want, but it is a major issue here.

 

[SAJ-99]

A democrat governor candidate that doesn’t work for the gun control lobby would be a good start. You can laugh that off all you want, but it is a major issue here.

Great. But hard to believe you still elected Steve Bullock twice and his NRA rating is F, which I don’t think stands for fantastic.

 

[noharleyyet]

Like clockwork on social media today:

View attachment 348010

...there it is

 

[Carnage2011]

Great. But hard to believe you still elected Steve Bullock twice and his NRA rating is F, which I don’t think stands for fantastic.

An NRA rating is a far cry from writing a book and working for an anti gun lobby group. Also, Steve Bullock is a long ways from the past two democrat candidates in MT. I don’t see Montana going purple anytime soon unless they come forward with a very moderate candidate.

 

[SAJ-99]

An NRA rating is a far cry from writing a book and working for an anti gun lobby group. Also, Steve Bullock is a long ways from the past two democrat candidates in MT. I don’t see Montana going purple anytime soon unless they come forward with a very moderate candidate.

Sure. I get that. What was Cooney's problem in 2020?

Hind sight is always 20/20. I just think that "guns" is an oversimplification of Montanans general decision when they walk into the booth. When I look at the historical results, Montana is all over the place, especially in the Governor races. Again, paint your perfect candidate. I'm sure the Dem party would love to see it. And then find someone to run and subject themselves to the scrutiny.

Once GG terms out, it will be very interesting given the anti-public land and anti-FWP sentiment Knudsen has shown. Good luck.

 

[rogerthat]

Sure. I get that. What was Cooney's problem in 2020?

Hind sight is always 20/20. I just think that "guns" is an oversimplification of Montanans general decision when they walk into the booth. When I look at the historical results, Montana is all over the place, especially in the Governor races. Again, paint your perfect candidate. I'm sure the Dem party would love to see it. And then find someone to run and subject themselves to the scrutiny.

Once GG terms out, it will be very interesting given the anti-public land and anti-FWP sentiment Knudsen has shown. Good luck.

I predict Knudsen will be our next Governor.

 

[noharleyyet]

Sure. I get that. What was Cooney's problem in 2020?

Hind sight is always 20/20. I just think that "guns" is an oversimplification of Montanans general decision when they walk into the booth. When I look at the historical results, Montana is all over the place, especially in the Governor races. Again, paint your perfect candidate. I'm sure the Dem party would love to see it. And then find someone to run and subject themselves to the scrutiny.

Once GG terms out, it will be very interesting given the anti-public land and anti-FWP sentiment Knudsen has shown. Good luck.

Montana needs me telling them what to do like a fish needs a bicycle....what am I missing

 

[Nameless Range]

The MT guys keep saying they want better candidates. Can someone give me a list of the things they want to hear? I would generally say that voting Americans are a diverse group, but the trend of the presidential victors over the last 45 years is to dumb stuff down. No one wants the details or hear about complexities of tradeoffs. Stay simple and tell them they will benefit $$$ and while giving up nothing. It doesn't even have to be true.

It's a fair question, and I am well aware I am in the cheap seats and not "in the arena". I admire those who step up regardless of their bent, and I think everyone should.

That meme is as much about national politics as it is about Montana's. Trump gained ground in essentially every demographic, and Montana is a microcosm of that. Aside from some of the other stuff mentioned, Democrats need to abandon the identity-politics BS, and issues x,y,z,b,c, and a that I won't call out here because it will just send the thread into the chitter. Normal folks don't give a rats bass about any of that stuff, and usually disagree with it.

I went to a mule deer event at the capital a couple years ago and Busse was there as was Gianforte, Busse was up front in the crowd, and when Gianforte spoke he turned his back on him. Just very performative. Last night when it was obvious it was over, he tweeted this:

This type of thing is off-putting to Montanans.


Man, normal people don't sympathize with Democrats being partisan. Yes, Republicans get a longer rope. The people I interact with every day, they just care about other stuff than what is so often whinged about by Ds on TV/Internet. It's dang clear that Montana is red as hell now, and any D is gonna have a hell of a time, but there were over 40,000 Montanans who voted for Tester, who didn't vote for Busse. That's about 8% of the entire pile of folks who voted, which is meaningful in a race that wouldn't even be considered close. I've said it a handful of times on here, but I believe that the Democrat party nationally brings down Montana Democrats locally. It'd be tough to be one, but the ideal candidate wouldn't bash on newcomers - there's too GD many of em, would probably be tied to agriculture, would talk to Montanans about how crazy Democrats are on the national scale, and so I suppose in a perfect world would be an Independent.

Fair to call it out as a pipedream, but we shouldn't be surprised when the outcomes hit us Good and Hard.

 

[Sytes]

Sure. I get that. What was Cooney's problem in 2020?

Hind sight is always 20/20. I just think that "guns" is an oversimplification of Montanans general decision when they walk into the booth. When I look at the historical results, Montana is all over the place, especially in the Governor races. Again, paint your perfect candidate. I'm sure the Dem party would love to see it. And then find someone to run and subject themselves to the scrutiny.

Once GG terms out, it will be very interesting given the anti-public land and anti-FWP sentiment Knudsen has shown. Good luck

Guns Giffords donated a chit ton of $ to push their agenda and to have their Senior Advisor at the helm of Montana... the optics alone rates as a huge win for Giffords, border security USMCA, Criminal Sanctuary Cities - all the other platform agendas the fringe (including Giffords - remember on their page they seek to regulate bb guns...) push for their payment to assist the person into office.

Hey though, always good to play devil's advocate. Prompts good conversation.

 

[Irrelevant]

This.

Democrats caused this. Time they look in the mirror vs pretending it's everyone else's fault.

An interesting comparison:

Quist vs Gianforte: 6% win.
View attachment 347987

Busse vs Gianforte: 22% win.

View attachment 347988

Says volumes when Quist held 16% more voting power than Busse.

Democrats nationally need to revamp their platform and present options viable to vote.

I doubt a single person here thought Busse had a chance. Again, look in the mirror. It's time for a change from the inside.

I respectfully think you are completely wrong.

The complaint the last go round was that Quist was an idiot, that was an argument about a person (right, wrong, or indifferent). Now it's that Busse is a Democrat. That it's a party issue. The fact that people can't separate party from person is the $*)Q!#@$ problem. And that boils down to tribalism, lack of critical through, and people spending too much friggin' time in their own political echo chambers.

You could make the argument that members of congress can be viewed as more "party based" because it is shocking how much unity is required by the party to maintain support during election cycles. But for State gov't? Com'on it should be about the person, not the party. As I've said before, our R's are Montana's Ds, if you look take a look at an individual's actual policy stances... which clearly people don't do.

 

[SAJ-99]

Montana needs me telling them what to do like a fish needs a bicycle....what am I missing

I'm not "telling" them to do anything. Just trying to understand what kind of candidate they want to see. Maybe I'll move back there.

...abandon the identity-politics BS, and issues x,y,z,b,c,

True. I think the discussion is more about American voters in general and not specific to Montana. I do like looking back at how Montana voted and ask "what drove that?'. Voters do stuff for weird reasons. People hate inflation and just voted in the guy with a "Reflation" agenda. But that is too much in the weeds.

I don't think you can avoid "identity politics". If you don't define what you are what you stand for, the opponent will. I do think that just sticking to a few issues is probably best, and every solution has to be able to be narrowed down to a soundbite. Unfortunately I still think it is a popularity contest on the national stage. No one dominates that aspect like our past and future president. But there can be too much of anything. It will be interesting to see if people are sick of him in two years and wonder what the hell they were thinking.

 

[cgasner1]

I respectfully think you are completely wrong.

The complaint the last go round was that Quist was an idiot, that was an argument about a person (right, wrong, or indifferent). Now it's that Busse is a Democrat. That it's a party issue. The fact that people can't separate party from person is the $*)Q!#@$ problem. And that boils down to tribalism, lack of critical through, and people spending too much friggin' time in their own political echo chambers.

You could make the argument that members of congress can be viewed as more "party based" because it is shocking how much unity is required by the party to maintain support during election cycles. But for State gov't? Com'on it should be about the person, not the party. As I've said before, our R's are Montana's Ds, if you look take a look at an individual's actual policy stances... which clearly people don't do.

Should change the poll now that it’s over and ask if people voted the line or not. My ballot had r/d on it I tried to vote for the person not the party

 

[Hem]

Yeah, 60% all about the symbolism of the words on the red hat. Not much more.
The competition was pitiful , needed a good punch in the guts anyway.
Sorry state of affairs...this pendulum of ours.

 

[Sytes]

I respectfully think you are completely wrong.

The complaint the last go round was that Quist was an idiot, that was an argument about a person (right, wrong, or indifferent). Now it's that Busse is a Democrat. That it's a party issue. The fact that people can't separate party from person is the $*)Q!#@$ problem. And that boils down to tribalism, lack of critical through, and people spending too much friggin' time in their own political echo chambers.

You could make the argument that members of congress can be viewed as more "party based" because it is shocking how much unity is required by the party to maintain support during election cycles. But for State gov't? Com'on it should be about the person, not the party. As I've said before, our R's are Montana's Ds, if you look take a look at an individual's actual policy stances... which clearly people don't do.

I appreciate your respect and I return the same.

I believe you are isolating select points - extremely oversimplifying people's reasons for voting as we did.

There was MUCH more than Quist was an idiot (That I voted for). Same as there is MUCH more than Busse is a Democrat. The main content shared was NOT that Busse was a Democrat - the tribalism is NOT the issue with Busse - it is Busse himself!
I can quote numerous member comments that do not comment about him as a democrat, rather his receipt of Gifford campaign $, his role as the Senior Advisor to the most powerful Anti 2A organization in America. Giffords is a smart and well spoken person and to have roots that show a success for one of the MOST heavily armed citizen States in the U.S. to vote in the Senior Advisor of Giffords???

Giffords is the start - then there IS the Democrat platform. His embellished book shitting on his own county as racist because he brought his children to a children promoted (by their Adult parents) Black Lives Matter protest and was surprised his children experienced the settings he, IMO, embellished! There were credible threats made to deface our statues we have in our park, etc... I could go on and on though his book SOLD to liberal anti 2A thinkers and myself though halted my reading after he shit on my county for sake of selling books! - thus promoting his Giffords stature!

Montana elects Giffords Senior Advisor as Governor? Not a chance in hell! In that sentence, zero mention of Democrat. In this sentence - yes, Democrats thought this was the best person to push their agenda/platform?

Democrat leadership need to pull their head out of their arse and realize Montana is one of the main states that hold tight to our 2A values. Really, WTF were they thinking??? I've voted Democrat governors up until Busse was placed on their pedestal. Sad that Democrat leadership is that far out of touch with Montanans.

Thus 21% voter strength for Gianforte. I believe Democrats enhanced the red nature of this cluster we are set to deal with. I don't want all red nor blue. Democrats sure took a crap in their own campaign office.

 

[WanderWoman]

Not stoked about the results but this is how our country and state voted, and we will either deal with or be dealt the consequences, good or bad. However, since this is a hunting forum and we (I believe) all care about public lands and the Public Trust, I hope all y’all are ready to roll up your sleeves and keep fighting for these things come the MT leg session and whatever may come nationally. Election’s over but the advocacy and work isn’t.

As the saying goes, “buckle up, Buttercups!”