Nov 3 - Independents’ Day?

[INMT]

"Montana" has always been disappearing, ask any of our friends on the reservations. It has never been a static state, it is constantly in flux since white people first moved here for beaver pelts, gold, cattle, sheep, copper, wheat, skiing, breweries, fly fishing, amenity ranches, creationist museums, trophy hunts, data centers, etc. At the top of the stairs on the second floor of the State Capitol are statues of the leader of a vigilante lynch mob, Wilbur Sanders, next to a statue of one of the most vocal pacifists of the 20th century, Janette Rankin; two people who could not be more different. Which one is more "Montana"? Neither and both. Montana has constantly and always been disappearing and reappearing.

The entire theme of A.B. Guthrie Jr.'s The Big Sky is "man destroys the thing he loves." We've all loved Montana to death, in our own way.

Every single state in the union in one way or the other. Montana just took longer.

 

[Gerald Martin]

That's the other problem. I have too many friends now with toddlers, as well as two nieces, and I have also briefly practiced some divorce law and have litigated countless domestic violence cases.

If I am going to start a family with anyone they need to be an awesome partner, so sadly the standards keep going up.

The quantity needed for ultimate success is one. Sometimes less straw in the haystack makes it easier to find the needle! Good luck

 

[jimh406]

I think the difference is people moved to Texas from California for the jobs when the companies moved. They brought their politics with them which makes sense.

On the other hand, I feel like most people move to Montana to escape the politics of other states like CA, WA, and OR. Sure, some are buying second homes, but those people don't really count since they probably aren't legally voting here and where their primary home is. Some are moving for the beauty, but there are other states for that. Of course, those second homes are still driving the prices up which hurts those who don't already have a home.

I saw a blurb that said California has officially annexed Texas. Maybe not too far from the truth, but I found it kind of funny.

 

[Bonasababy]

I think the difference is people moved to Texas from California for the jobs when the companies moved. They brought their politics with them which makes sense.

On the other hand, I feel like most people move to Montana to escape the politics of other states like CA, WA, and OR. Sure, some are buying second homes, but those people don't really count since they probably aren't legally voting here and where their primary home is. Some are moving for the beauty, but there are other states for that. Of course, those second homes are still driving the prices up which hurts those who don't already have a home.

I saw a blurb that said California has officially annexed Texas. Maybe not too far from the truth, but I found it kind of funny.

Really? Texas republicans are one of the best examples of doing it completely wrong. Turned latinos towards them in 24 in a historic change...completely flipped that around with the ICE/BP abuses by 26. You have a new Latino governor from border country...you blame CA?

Jerry rigged districts. Dumping Cornyn in favor of the horrible, un-electable Paxton.

Read where the last time any Dem held a statewide office was back when Ann Richards was governor...who Dubya beat, before he ran for President.

Dems just swept all of them in this election I believe. Republicans there and elsewhere seem to be incapable of looking in the mirror for their problems.

 

[406dn]

I think the difference is people moved to Texas from California for the jobs when the companies moved. They brought their politics with them which makes sense.

On the other hand, I feel like most people move to Montana to escape the politics of other states like CA, WA, and OR. Sure, some are buying second homes, but those people don't really count since they probably aren't legally voting here and where their primary home is. Some are moving for the beauty, but there are other states for that. Of course, those second homes are still driving the prices up which hurts those who don't already have a home.

I saw a blurb that said California has officially annexed Texas. Maybe not too far from the truth, but I found it kind of funny.

We moved to Montana 45 years ago. It was, almost entirely, my desire to have the hunting and fishing opportunity that Montana offered. The politics was not a factor, at all, in our decision.

Most of the population growth in Montana is in western Montana. They are about to elect a Democratic congressman. The ruby red portion of Montana is the eastern part of the state. Outside of Billings, which tilts red, the rest of eastern Montana is losing population.

It is close minded to think that any place should be immune from change. Everything in the history of mankind shows that change is continuous. Every generation has a unique set of circumstances that shape their lives. Those circumstance also shape their world view.

 

[jimh406]

Really?

I was talking specifically about the difference between how the electorate changed for different reasons. On X there have been plenty of transplants from CA that were happy to vote for a D in Texas for no reason other than they are a D and not due to a specific policy or policies. I think that is pretty reasonable for them to bring their politics with them although some in Texas might not like it.

You can say it was for policies, but it's typical for the party in power to lose seats. Sure, maybe a few more than normal, but not that crazy in the grand scheme of things.

Year	President	Party	Net House change	Outcome notes
2010	Obama	D	−63	Largest modern midterm loss; Republicans took the House
2014	Obama	D	−13	Modest loss; Republicans expanded their majority
2018	Trump	R	−41	Blue wave; Democrats took the House
2022	Biden	D	−9	Smallest recent loss; Republicans narrowly took the House
2026	Trump	R	≈ −30 to −45+(preliminary)	Democrats flipped at least 25–32 seats (projections often 250–268 total Dem seats); Democrats took the House

 

[Elkmagnet]

Republicans there and elsewhere seem to be incapable of looking in the mirror for their problems.

This is so true. Democrats could solve the same problem by getting rid of Jeffries and Schumer. The old guards way of thinking has to go. ON BOTH SIDES.

 

[Elky Welky]

The quantity needed for ultimate success is one. Sometimes less straw in the haystack makes it easier to find the needle! Good luck

I've never heard that one @Gerald Martin, I like it!

I really wasn't complaining though, to be clear, I'm quite content.

Democrats could solve the same problem by getting rid of Jeffries and Schumer.

I don't see it so much as an old guard/new guard thing, but more regional. Dems need to stop only putting people from New York and California in charge.

 

[antlerradar]

I was talking specifically about the difference between how the electorate changed for different reasons. On X there have been plenty of transplants from CA that were happy to vote for a D in Texas for no reason other than they are a D and not due to a specific policy or policies. I think that is pretty reasonable for them to bring their politics with them although some in Texas might not like it.

You can say it was for policies, but it's typical for the party in power to lose seats. Sure, maybe a few more than normal, but not that crazy in the grand scheme of things.

Year	President	Party	Net House change	Outcome notes
2010	Obama	D	−63	Largest modern midterm loss; Republicans took the House
2014	Obama	D	−13	Modest loss; Republicans expanded their majority
2018	Trump	R	−41	Blue wave; Democrats took the House
2022	Biden	D	−9	Smallest recent loss; Republicans narrowly took the House
2026	Trump	R	≈ −30 to −45+(preliminary)	Democrats flipped at least 25–32 seats (projections often 250–268 total Dem seats); Democrats took the House

That pattern goes back as far as I can remember. Republicans lost badly in 82 after Reagan was elected in 80. After Clinton was elected in 92, Republicans won big in 94. Bush won in 04 and Republicans lost badly in in 06. The only time the party in the white house gained was in 2002 and that likely had a lot to do with 9 11.
History was not on the republicans side.
History is on the Republicans side for 2028, More often than not the party that loses big comes back and wins the next election. Reagan won in a 49 state landslide in 84. Clinton won handily in 96 and Obama won easily in 2012. It is uncommon for a political party to win big two elections in a row. Obama did after the democratic win in the mid terms of 06, and Biden won after the 2018 midterms. However, while I think Obama would have still won in 08, he was greatly aided by the 2008 financial crisis. and without covid, Trump wins reelection easily in 2020.

 

[Elky Welky]

The Ivory Tower has decided to weigh in:

Commentary: Who owns the Montana Democrats? • Daily Montanan

Last week’s midterms were historic, one of the biggest sea-changes in U.S. history. Much-needed checks and balances soon will be returned to our federal government. At the state level, Montana will send its first Democrat, Sam Forstag, to Washington in two years. But the state Democratic Party...

dailymontanan.com

A few thoughts, at first glance, after reading this:

Democrats are not interested in learning anything about the independent Montana electorate after this race, but are instead going to lean into "copper kings" rhetoric to try and lambast people with far more experience in MT democratic leadership than they will ever have.

The machinations behind Tester and other moderate leaders' choice to run Bodnar were developed long before Trump started bombing Iran. The political map in January of 26 was very different as the year went on, and Tester and co should be judged for the decisions they made with the information they had. Nobody could have anticipated what was to happen in the coming year.

This article is a great example of manipulating the numbers to make a point. I can do the same: Bankhead's supporters loved to argue that she got 40k primary votes (while leaving out that that was less than half of democratic primary voters support). Bodnar got around 30k signatures to run as an independent. Bankhead ended up picking up only about 20k more votes to end the race at slightly less than 60k. Bodnar got about 155k more votes on top of the signatures to end at almost 185k.

From those numbers, I would argue it is delusional to think that Bodnar only picked up democrats, or to put it another way, that Bankhead would have picked up all the votes Bodnar did if only he somehow dropped out.

The ultimate lesson from this op-ed, to me at least, is that the Montana Democratic Party will keep floundering so long as they continue to ignore the will of the voters and try to blame their problems on some "dark money establishment" boogeyman.

 

[SAJ-99]

The Ivory Tower has decided to weigh in:

Commentary: Who owns the Montana Democrats? • Daily Montanan

Last week’s midterms were historic, one of the biggest sea-changes in U.S. history. Much-needed checks and balances soon will be returned to our federal government. At the state level, Montana will send its first Democrat, Sam Forstag, to Washington in two years. But the state Democratic Party...

dailymontanan.com

A few thoughts, at first glance, after reading this:

Democrats are not interested in learning anything about the independent Montana electorate after this race, but are instead going to lean into "copper kings" rhetoric to try and lambast people with far more experience in MT democratic leadership than they will ever have.

The machinations behind Tester and other moderate leaders' choice to run Bodnar were developed long before Trump started bombing Iran. The political map in January of 26 was very different as the year went on, and Tester and co should be judged for the decisions they made with the information they had. Nobody could have anticipated what was to happen in the coming year.

This article is a great example of manipulating the numbers to make a point. I can do the same: Bankhead's supporters loved to argue that she got 40k primary votes (while leaving out that that was less than half of democratic primary voters support). Bodnar got around 30k signatures to run as an independent. Bankhead ended up picking up only about 20k more votes to end the race at slightly less than 60k. Bodnar got about 155k more votes on top of the signatures to end at almost 185k.

From those numbers, I would argue it is delusional to think that Bodnar only picked up democrats, or to put it another way, that Bankhead would have picked up all the votes Bodnar did if only he somehow dropped out.

The ultimate lesson from this op-ed, to me at least, is that the Montana Democratic Party will keep floundering so long as they continue to ignore the will of the voters and try to blame their problems on some "dark money establishment" boogeyman.

This all comes from Montanas move to the right. As Ds get further shut out, the more extreme element takes the helm. Find an Independent candidate that leans right and let me know how that works out.