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.
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.