Forest Service Reorg - Progress or Politics

[SAJ-99]

This article is the perfect example of concurrent truths. Concurrent truths that apply, from my view:

1. Montanans care about public lands and oppose the sale/transfer of those lands.

2. Montanans continue to vote for Republicans who have a platform plank advocating for the transfer of public lands to the states.

Other concurrent truths not listed in the article.

3. Party loyalty is stronger than it ever has been, with voters often prioritizing party over other issues they might have.

4. Montanans have many other priorities in addition to public lands, many of which they place higher than public lands when it comes time to vote.

5. Democrats are often tone deaf on many of the other issues that Montanans prioritize, resulting in the landslide losses they have experienced lately.

l like Rob's writing. He asks the right question: "So What?"

Yet, I would have liked to see further investigation of why much of this happens. Not the normal Democratic BS that voters vote against their own self-interest, or voters are stupid, or this is the result of a misinformed electorate.

The Dems want to blame all their losses on MAGA voters. 35-45% of Montanans identify as Republican, depending upon the district. News Flash - Rs can't win with 35-45% of the vote.

With only 28-32% of Montana voters registered as Democrats, the Dems need to work harder at appealing to the Independents, but they are too tied to issues driven by the DNC, its donors, and the national Democratic leadership.

I've given up on discussing this topic with any of my ardent Democratic friends. Their responses are border on arrogance. There is little self-reflection as to why this is happening, just blaming the voters for being dumb/uninformed/misinformed. They use terms like "Leopard ate your face" or "Tree voted for the axe" or other statements that voters purposefully voted against their self-interest.

Nobody votes agains their own self-interest. People vote for what they think is in their best interest. It just happens that Democrats, both in Montana and nationally, haven't come up with candidates or ideas that the majority Montana voters think represent their best interest, with "best interest" being weighed around many issues, including public lands.

When a party, its platforms, and its funding, is coming from NYC, Chicago, CA, and other urban areas, forcing rural state candidates to have loyalty to that party/platform is going to result in what we see in Montana.

Summary for me - Multiple things are true at the same time. Montanans care about public lands. Public lands rank lower than party loyalty. Until Democrats craft a message and provide candidates that have broad appeal on the many other issues Montana voters prioritize, Republicans will continue to have majorities that protect them from any consequence for their bad public land ideas. I accept those concurrent truths in how I approach our advocacy.

So as Carnage put it, all the candidates suck. And to be honest, it isn’t R vs D because there is still a primary and voters can select their best choices. They won’t. Instead they get the choice forced down their throat and then complain about the other choices. If voters aren’t willing to try something different, we can all kiss public lands goodbye. Everyone wants their piece of the pie and accountability for the other guy, but won’t keep the same standard for their guy. It’s no-win for everyone, or almost everyone.

And yes, I agree with the view on Ds. As Rahm Emanuel has said “their best chance is to stop being Democrats”, which I think is much of what you described.