They are increasingly looking like our best shots at a majority since Testers race is inching away from us according to some analysts. I would have hoped by now Schumer would recognize this and start dropping some coin. His job is to protect the MAJORITY and not just incumbents. Yes, protecting incumbents easier than defeating them but when there is a real risk that just one seat will be the difference between 50 and 49 then you need to invest sooner than later.
Schumer didn't invest enough in defeating Johnson two years ago and we barely lost it. Yes, different states than Texas or Florida but it's either cross our fingers on Harris keeping it within 15 in Montana for Tester to squeeze through or start dropping in Florida or Texas. At least Florida has some favorable amendments on the ticket this year so maybe start there.
You're forgetting that Russ Feingold had represented Wisconsin for more than 15 years from 1993-2011. He didn't get defeated for re-election by Ron Johnson because he was too liberal. He got defeated because of low turnout and underestimating the Tea Party wave back in 2010.
Besides, Johnson has barely even won his Senate elections by anymore than less than 5% points and his re-election win margins have continued to shrink. Not a good sign if he wants to hold on to his seat in the future.
As it turns out, when Barnes was the Democratic Senate Nominee he lost by just 1% points. Just because Barnes is "too far left" doesn't mean a liberal Democratic Senate Candidate can't win in WI.
Right. WI also since Trump got elected moved to the left whereas pre-Trump and during the Tea Party wave moved more to the right due to the Koch Bros' influence.
If Tester is behind, it is by a lot less than our candidates in TX and FL are behind. There are reasons the professional ratings people all consider MT a toss-up (or tilt-R) while TX and FL are universally rated Likely R. This is not to say we should write off TX and FL--it's just to say our chances in MT are better.
I disagree. Like Andrew said below me, there is only so much money can do before the market is saturated and it starts to make little difference. They say Tester is spending about even. So maybe he can benefit from more. I don't know. But what I do know is we've spent the last six months dumping money into cheap Montana for him and he's still on the cusp of being outside the margin of error according to most analysts.
In no way am I suggesting we triage him at this point at all. But Democrats are so flush for cash that we can afford to spend in Montana and reserve spots in Florida or Texas too. Rosen is looking solid in Nevada and Gallego has consistently led Lake. So even if we don't end up using it, reserving ads in Florida and Texas could pay dividends if we need to pivot at the last minute. If not now, when? We have the money right now to begin laying groundwork this cycle. This opportunity may not come back around while we are rich and facing highly unfavorable candidates in a presidential year. Now is the time if we ever will.
I do not understand what I wrote that you disagree with. You said Tester had less chance to win than we have in TX and FL. I disagreed. You respond saying you disagree with me because Tester has all the funds he likely needs and donations would make more sense in TX and FL. I never said otherwise. Indeed, I have donated to Allred and DMP every quarter. Please don't try to create a disagreement by disagreeing with something I never said and would not have said.
Considering Tester defeated Rep. Matt Rosendale in the MT-SEN race back in 2018 before he ran for the MT-02 seat, while his margin of victory was just a sliver lower than in 2012, He still defeated Rosendale by 3+% points.
If Sheehy wins, I don’t think it will be anything other than perhaps 500-1000 votes more than Tester. Even then, i have yet to see evidence he’s running a credible campaign.
I'm thinking it would be surprising if Sheehy won. I'm basing this on Tester's Senate election history and the following facts:
Since 2008, the lowest margin of loss in MT for a Democratic Presidential Candidate was Hillary Clinton's back in 2016 where she got 35.75% of the votes in the state. This while Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson who got 5.6% points worth of votes in the state.
President Biden's loss in MT back in 2020 actually was close to President Obama's loss in MT back in 2012 by just 0.8% lower. Tester also ran for re-election the first time in 2012 and won by 3.7% points. This was in light of high turnout back in that year.
If Tester ran for re-election in 2016, there would have been a higher probability he would have lost simply because Hillary Clinton performed worse than Obama and Biden did. The lower-than-expected turnout is not something Tester has faced in all of his Senate elections.
I'm not sure yet about Kamala Harris' performance in MT but if there's high turnout in the state, she'll likely benefit from it by getting at least 40%+ of the votes. This will certainly help Tester in his Senate election.
FYI, I believe in certain polling I've seen of the MT-SEN race that there was 10+% of Trump supporters who would vote to re-elect Jon Tester. That's an edge he can have on top of the support he has from Democrats and Independents if he wants to win.
Also, the problem Steve Bullock faced in 2020 was that Steve Daines was an incumbent Senator and COVID-19 was a factor in campaigning across the state. Daines is also not a Republican Senator who has generated controversy and to my understanding wasn't a vulnerable Republican up for re-election. He also got lucky by being elected to the Senate back in 2014 when turnout was low and when the Democratic Nominee Amanda Curtis barely had even enough time to campaign and get enough support for her candidacy.
If Daines faced Bullock in 2020 when he wasn't an incumbent, the dynamics might have changed. Hard to say.
Lastly, per the US Census women represent 49% of the population in Montana, barely even a minority in the state. Assuming Tester is able to get 42% of the votes from women, all he'd need would be to have 9+% of the votes from men and he wins the election.
Bullock also lost the Senate election in 2020, before the Dobbs decision.
If you are arguing that Trump is going to win by a large margin, then by how much?
The math is the math. If Kamala Harris gets less than 40% of the votes, then I can see how Tester will lose. Otherwise, it would be hard for me to see the probability of Tester losing simply because of his ability to capture the regular Democrats voting + crossover voters.
While we're at it, donation pages for the Democratic Senate Candidates in the FL-SEN and TX-SEN races are below:
Debbie Mucarsel-Powell for Senator of Florida https://secure.actblue.com/donate/dmp_website?refcode=main-donate-link
Colin Allred for Senator of Texas https://secure.actblue.com/donate/mw-allred-web-fr-homepage_2024?refcode=web-header&amount=25&amounts=10%2C25%2C50%2C75%2C100&ask=25
They are increasingly looking like our best shots at a majority since Testers race is inching away from us according to some analysts. I would have hoped by now Schumer would recognize this and start dropping some coin. His job is to protect the MAJORITY and not just incumbents. Yes, protecting incumbents easier than defeating them but when there is a real risk that just one seat will be the difference between 50 and 49 then you need to invest sooner than later.
Schumer didn't invest enough in defeating Johnson two years ago and we barely lost it. Yes, different states than Texas or Florida but it's either cross our fingers on Harris keeping it within 15 in Montana for Tester to squeeze through or start dropping in Florida or Texas. At least Florida has some favorable amendments on the ticket this year so maybe start there.
I think Tester is probably still the most likely of the three to win. Polling has previously underestimated him.
Mandela Barnes was too far left to win. A more moderate candidate would’ve had a shot there.
You're forgetting that Russ Feingold had represented Wisconsin for more than 15 years from 1993-2011. He didn't get defeated for re-election by Ron Johnson because he was too liberal. He got defeated because of low turnout and underestimating the Tea Party wave back in 2010.
Besides, Johnson has barely even won his Senate elections by anymore than less than 5% points and his re-election win margins have continued to shrink. Not a good sign if he wants to hold on to his seat in the future.
As it turns out, when Barnes was the Democratic Senate Nominee he lost by just 1% points. Just because Barnes is "too far left" doesn't mean a liberal Democratic Senate Candidate can't win in WI.
WI isn't the same state as FL or OH.
He lost by like 10,000 votes or something. Totally winnable. And he was outspent. Which was the main issue.
Right. WI also since Trump got elected moved to the left whereas pre-Trump and during the Tea Party wave moved more to the right due to the Koch Bros' influence.
If Tester is behind, it is by a lot less than our candidates in TX and FL are behind. There are reasons the professional ratings people all consider MT a toss-up (or tilt-R) while TX and FL are universally rated Likely R. This is not to say we should write off TX and FL--it's just to say our chances in MT are better.
I disagree. Like Andrew said below me, there is only so much money can do before the market is saturated and it starts to make little difference. They say Tester is spending about even. So maybe he can benefit from more. I don't know. But what I do know is we've spent the last six months dumping money into cheap Montana for him and he's still on the cusp of being outside the margin of error according to most analysts.
In no way am I suggesting we triage him at this point at all. But Democrats are so flush for cash that we can afford to spend in Montana and reserve spots in Florida or Texas too. Rosen is looking solid in Nevada and Gallego has consistently led Lake. So even if we don't end up using it, reserving ads in Florida and Texas could pay dividends if we need to pivot at the last minute. If not now, when? We have the money right now to begin laying groundwork this cycle. This opportunity may not come back around while we are rich and facing highly unfavorable candidates in a presidential year. Now is the time if we ever will.
I do not understand what I wrote that you disagree with. You said Tester had less chance to win than we have in TX and FL. I disagreed. You respond saying you disagree with me because Tester has all the funds he likely needs and donations would make more sense in TX and FL. I never said otherwise. Indeed, I have donated to Allred and DMP every quarter. Please don't try to create a disagreement by disagreeing with something I never said and would not have said.
Whatever Tester may be behind with, it's certainly helping that GOP Senate Candidate Tim Sheehy's candidacy is imploding with problems.
Afflicted by problems, anyway. It wouldn't be too shocking if he won, anyway, though.
I’m not convinced.
Considering Tester defeated Rep. Matt Rosendale in the MT-SEN race back in 2018 before he ran for the MT-02 seat, while his margin of victory was just a sliver lower than in 2012, He still defeated Rosendale by 3+% points.
If Sheehy wins, I don’t think it will be anything other than perhaps 500-1000 votes more than Tester. Even then, i have yet to see evidence he’s running a credible campaign.
You're not convinced of what? That it wouldn't be too shocking if Sheehy won???
I'm thinking it would be surprising if Sheehy won. I'm basing this on Tester's Senate election history and the following facts:
Since 2008, the lowest margin of loss in MT for a Democratic Presidential Candidate was Hillary Clinton's back in 2016 where she got 35.75% of the votes in the state. This while Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson who got 5.6% points worth of votes in the state.
President Biden's loss in MT back in 2020 actually was close to President Obama's loss in MT back in 2012 by just 0.8% lower. Tester also ran for re-election the first time in 2012 and won by 3.7% points. This was in light of high turnout back in that year.
2012 https://archive.ph/20121212090806/http://electionresults.sos.mt.gov/resultsCTY.aspx?type=FED&rid=450001349&osn=100&map=CTY
2020
https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/montana/
If Tester ran for re-election in 2016, there would have been a higher probability he would have lost simply because Hillary Clinton performed worse than Obama and Biden did. The lower-than-expected turnout is not something Tester has faced in all of his Senate elections.
I'm not sure yet about Kamala Harris' performance in MT but if there's high turnout in the state, she'll likely benefit from it by getting at least 40%+ of the votes. This will certainly help Tester in his Senate election.
FYI, I believe in certain polling I've seen of the MT-SEN race that there was 10+% of Trump supporters who would vote to re-elect Jon Tester. That's an edge he can have on top of the support he has from Democrats and Independents if he wants to win.
Also, the problem Steve Bullock faced in 2020 was that Steve Daines was an incumbent Senator and COVID-19 was a factor in campaigning across the state. Daines is also not a Republican Senator who has generated controversy and to my understanding wasn't a vulnerable Republican up for re-election. He also got lucky by being elected to the Senate back in 2014 when turnout was low and when the Democratic Nominee Amanda Curtis barely had even enough time to campaign and get enough support for her candidacy.
If Daines faced Bullock in 2020 when he wasn't an incumbent, the dynamics might have changed. Hard to say.
Lastly, per the US Census women represent 49% of the population in Montana, barely even a minority in the state. Assuming Tester is able to get 42% of the votes from women, all he'd need would be to have 9+% of the votes from men and he wins the election.
Bullock also lost the Senate election in 2020, before the Dobbs decision.
https://data.census.gov/profile/Montana?g=040XX00US30
None of these things would make it surprising for a Democratic senator to lose in a Republican state that's going to vote for Trump by a large margin.
If you are arguing that Trump is going to win by a large margin, then by how much?
The math is the math. If Kamala Harris gets less than 40% of the votes, then I can see how Tester will lose. Otherwise, it would be hard for me to see the probability of Tester losing simply because of his ability to capture the regular Democrats voting + crossover voters.
I don't know. Double digits, though.
Tester might be reaching the saturation point in terms of donations soon.
Maybe, but I'll see if he could still use online volunteers.
So hire field staff. Guarantee he’s not saturated on that.