Tucked at the very end of Politico's article is this caveat:
"There was no Green Party candidate on the ballot in Tester's 2018 race, when he won by 3.5 points. But there was a Libertarian candidate on the ballot who drew 2.9 percent of the vote."
It was proven last year that the Libertarian candidate didn't take votes away from the GOP ca…
Tucked at the very end of Politico's article is this caveat:
"There was no Green Party candidate on the ballot in Tester's 2018 race, when he won by 3.5 points. But there was a Libertarian candidate on the ballot who drew 2.9 percent of the vote."
It was proven last year that the Libertarian candidate didn't take votes away from the GOP candidates in Montana in all three of Tester's races because the math didn't add up which is why the GOP State Legislature in Montana had to shelve their bull shit version of ranked choice voting but only for Tester's election plan. I don't doubt Democrats would like to get the Green Party nominee off the ballot because he causes headaches for Tester, I also think this part sounds a little fishy:
"Barb replaced the original Green Party nominee after the primary winner dropped out of the race. The state Democratic Party argued that proper procedure was not followed, and that Barb should be booted from the ballot. Their efforts clearly underscored the threat they believe Barb could pose to Tester."
I accept Tester has a very tough race ahead of him and this one might be his toughest hence why he's being considered the underdog. However, I am not ready to write his political obituary. Montana is a hard state to poll and we don't yet have the best grasp on who is the newer electorate in the state of Montana that caused the state to now have two congressional districts. On one hand, one could argue that the state has moved much more rightward but you could also make the same case for Ohio and I have more confidence in Sherrod Brown's chances. I think it's easier to get a better sense of where the swing states are heading but states like Montana, Ohio, Florida and Texas with their Senate races, I think it's safe to treat them as super competitive outliers.
That's interesting analysis and worth the consideration of everyone who frequents this site, but it's hardly "proof":
"In the hypothetical scenario where Jones didn’t run and some of his supporters stayed home, Burns would have needed to win an even larger share of Jones’s remaining voters in order to net 3,563 votes. Let’s dive into the math. If only 90 percent of Jones’s supporters had turned out (9,339 voters), Burns would have needed to win them 6,451 to 2,888 (69 percent to 31 percent)."
We're talking about very small numbers of people. Netting 3,563 votes is easily what might have happened had the Libertarian not taken any votes.
But there's no "proof" that Burns, Rehberg or Rosendale would've easily secured the 3,563 votes had the Libertarian dropped out. They could've just sat it out. So it's hard to say if these Libertarian voters would've voted for Burns by default or had sat it out completely but what is proof is that Tester's campaign always knew it was about voter turnout and not relying on a third party candidate to tip the race in his favor as his Hail Mary to win elections.
Tucked at the very end of Politico's article is this caveat:
"There was no Green Party candidate on the ballot in Tester's 2018 race, when he won by 3.5 points. But there was a Libertarian candidate on the ballot who drew 2.9 percent of the vote."
It was proven last year that the Libertarian candidate didn't take votes away from the GOP candidates in Montana in all three of Tester's races because the math didn't add up which is why the GOP State Legislature in Montana had to shelve their bull shit version of ranked choice voting but only for Tester's election plan. I don't doubt Democrats would like to get the Green Party nominee off the ballot because he causes headaches for Tester, I also think this part sounds a little fishy:
"Barb replaced the original Green Party nominee after the primary winner dropped out of the race. The state Democratic Party argued that proper procedure was not followed, and that Barb should be booted from the ballot. Their efforts clearly underscored the threat they believe Barb could pose to Tester."
I accept Tester has a very tough race ahead of him and this one might be his toughest hence why he's being considered the underdog. However, I am not ready to write his political obituary. Montana is a hard state to poll and we don't yet have the best grasp on who is the newer electorate in the state of Montana that caused the state to now have two congressional districts. On one hand, one could argue that the state has moved much more rightward but you could also make the same case for Ohio and I have more confidence in Sherrod Brown's chances. I think it's easier to get a better sense of where the swing states are heading but states like Montana, Ohio, Florida and Texas with their Senate races, I think it's safe to treat them as super competitive outliers.
"It was proven last year that the Libertarian candidate didn't take votes away from the GOP candidates in Montana in all three of Tester's races"
I think that will come as news to most of us. Exactly how was that "proven"?
Glad you ask because I posted a diary about this last year where 538’s Nathaniel Radich did the math on the Libertarian candidate’s impact in all three of Tester’s races. He proves that even if the GOP candidate won the majority of Libertarian voters that still wouldn’t have been enough for Burns, Rehberg or Rosendale to beat Tester https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/4/11/2163133/-MT-Sen-538-Does-The-Math-Explaining-Why-The-MT-GOP-s-Plan-To-Screw-Sen-Tester-D-Might-Be-A-Bust
That's interesting analysis and worth the consideration of everyone who frequents this site, but it's hardly "proof":
"In the hypothetical scenario where Jones didn’t run and some of his supporters stayed home, Burns would have needed to win an even larger share of Jones’s remaining voters in order to net 3,563 votes. Let’s dive into the math. If only 90 percent of Jones’s supporters had turned out (9,339 voters), Burns would have needed to win them 6,451 to 2,888 (69 percent to 31 percent)."
We're talking about very small numbers of people. Netting 3,563 votes is easily what might have happened had the Libertarian not taken any votes.
But there's no "proof" that Burns, Rehberg or Rosendale would've easily secured the 3,563 votes had the Libertarian dropped out. They could've just sat it out. So it's hard to say if these Libertarian voters would've voted for Burns by default or had sat it out completely but what is proof is that Tester's campaign always knew it was about voter turnout and not relying on a third party candidate to tip the race in his favor as his Hail Mary to win elections.
That's a very different point. No, nothing that didn't happen can be proven 100%. So why did you try to claim above that it was?