14 Comments
User's avatar
тна Return to thread
TheDude415's avatar

It seems like Montana has gone from libertarian right to fill on MAGA. Gianforte was the first sign of that IMO. Dude assaulted a reporter and still got elected.

Expand full comment
Mark's avatar

Probably wouldn't have won if 70% of voters hadn't already cast their ballots before the reporter assault. Live by the gimmick, die by the gimmick.

Expand full comment
Caspian's avatar

"libertarian right" was always "MAGA."

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

I disagree. Goldwater was libertarian but far from MAGA.

Expand full comment
Paleo's avatar

Goldwater wasnтАЩt exactly a libertarian.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

He was literally the face of libertarianism.

Expand full comment
sacman701's avatar

He was probably closer to the libertarian ideal than anyone else who served in the Senate in the 20th century.

Expand full comment
James Trout's avatar

Goldwater had no problem sucking up to bigots in his 1964 run for President though. Lest we forget he made comments about how "Negroes run this country" as if that were a bad thing. The Republican Party didn't go from receiving 32 per cent of the African American vote in 1960 - and BTW that was AFTER JFK called Coretta Scott King and got Georgia Governor Ernest Vandiver to release MLK Jr from prison - to SIX per cent in 1964 for nothing.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

I'm well aware of his appeals to segregationists, though I didn't know he made that horrible lying remark about who ran the country. However, he was dead-set against any entanglement of religion and state, supported abortion rights and gay rights, took the constitution as he saw it seriously, and didn't hesitate to work with Democrats, notably including his friend Ted Kennedy, on legislation of mutual interest. He was not close to MAGA.

Expand full comment
Jonathan's avatar

Imo Goldwater would have been appalled by MAGA ideology

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

Unquestionably!

Expand full comment
Tim Nguyen's avatar

Hard to say whether it's the new transplants causing this or the locals. At the very least tho MT-01 remains very competitive and the colleges and universities continue to draw in more educated people and students. So at the very least Montana won't go full stupid like Idaho or the Dakotas. Also with fairer redistricting now, there will be at least more left leaning representation at the state level. Much work to be done in Montana and elsewhere.

Expand full comment
michaelflutist's avatar

When you talk about Idaho, how is Boise doing politically? Isn't it still a growing, fairly liberal city?

Expand full comment
Tim Nguyen's avatar

Hard to say. It was definitely growing and potentially becoming a tech and urban hub pre-pandemic. But the pandemic slowed it down a lot and all the deaths in places like Idaho seemed to scare off many potential newcomers. Several of my cousins once even considered moving to Boise, but ultimately the problem with places like Boise are they lack infrastructure and development around them. My cousin from San Diego whose going to med school in Iowa complains that it's boring and there's nothing to do out there. You may attract some conservatives and retirees to these places but the majority of the wealthy and young want places they can not just save money with, but also have a family, have fun and enjoy.

Expand full comment
ErrorError