Red Montana

[Irrelevant]

Republican governor wins in Montana, raising fears for beloved wilderness

Greg Gianforte, who pleaded guilty to assaulting a Guardian reporter, has previously tried to strip environmental protections

www.theguardian.com

I wonder how much of the anti-D sentiment is based on non-Montana based D actions, like Portland and Seattle rioting? It seems like for all the conservation success stories you hear about from Montana, this is kind of going the opposite direction, at warp speed. I don't mean to imply that conservation is Montana is one sided politically, that's generally one of the things I like about MT. But it also doesn't include any of the recently elected officials.

 

[HighWildFree]

Gonna be rough. Seems like single party control is a bad thing. Rs or Ds get total control and they just can't help themselves. Kinda makes me think of predator surplus killing

 

[Nameless Range]

Republican governor wins in Montana, raising fears for beloved wilderness

Greg Gianforte, who pleaded guilty to assaulting a Guardian reporter, has previously tried to strip environmental protections

www.theguardian.com

I wonder how much of the anti-D sentiment is based on non-Montana based D actions, like Portland and Seattle rioting? It seems like for all the conservation success stories you hear about from Montana, this is kind of going the opposite direction, at warp speed. I don't mean to imply that conservation is Montana is one sided politically, that's generally one of the things I like about MT. But it also doesn't include any of the recently elected officials.

I think that is a lot of it, and frankly, it isn't surprising. In the same way that in many folks' minds, so many R's are guilty by association because they have willingly joined a party that advocates for public lands transfer and other BS, to many, Ds are associated with a party that gaslights violence and lawlessness into something condonable and obsesses over demographic subsets and identity politics to the point that it shapes their tent and language into some sick cousin of puritanism.

Montana does not appear to be purple, ticket splitting didn't really happen this time around, and though it is unpopular and politically incorrect to say, for a D to win in MT moving forward, it will really help for them to be a man and a rancher/farmer/veteran and willing to demean and speak in opposition to and down on some of the popular incantations of the left.

That or the Democratic Party could change nationally, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that, as the tail that wags the dog in that political party comes from the brains of people incredibly distant from the values of most Montanans.


My two cents. YMMV.

 

[texwest44]

Grew up in rural TX, surrounded by baptist weirdos who tried to stop us from dancing at school. Spent a few years overseas where I wasn't allowed to do anything, then came back to Seattle where I was surrounded by liberal weirdos who tried to stop me from smoking on the sidewalk.

Then I moved to Montana where people were both sensibly mellow AND sensibly orderly, and have loved every minute of it. Until about 4 months ago. People here seem to be sucking down the kool aid, and throwing Trump flags on their trucks and BLM signs in their yards. Trump wouldn't be caught dead in the presence of those flag-toters outside of one of his creepy cult "rallies", and BLM doesn't give two shakes about Montana or anyone in it (guess why). Folks need to put down those solo cups and take off the track suits. They don't care about us or our issues and I certainly feel obligated to reciprocate.

 

[MThuntr]

I'm afraid of what might happen with him at the helm...especially related to FWP matters. A new friend has expressed fear of what will happen when the likely lead of FWP is also associate with Montana Outfitters and Guides and this person has also expressed fear for how the agency may be dismantled fiscally.

Potential legislation this coming session won't have to pass the bipartisan sniff test.

I know the Stream Access Law has been upheld in court however constant pressure from all sides may weaken it the point of being invalid

 

[Carnage2011]

The one nice thing about Montana is that many of the people here are huge advocates for public land and will go to bat for them. It may take a rough few years with Greg to wake some people up, but if he starts affecting access and peoples ability to hunt;I do believe they will throw a fit and move on from him.
The bullshit going on in Portland/Seattle has definitely had an impact on the political scene here. It allowed the media to portray Williams and Cooney as “radical Democrats” and people associate that with rioting and looting at this point.
Montana isn’t Utah....people will vote for a Democratic if the Greg starts acting like Mike Lee.

 

[Irrelevant]

What would have happened if D's in montana, which let's agree are actually R's in WA, OR, and CA, ran under the independent flag? We've seen some success in local politics in eastern WA with candidates who simply aren't R but don't want to D label.

 

[Nameless Range]

What would have happened if D's in montana, which let's agree are actually R's in WA, OR, and CA, ran under the independent flag? We've seen some success in local politics in eastern WA with candidates who simply aren't R but don't want to D label.

I think it would help significantly,but the system has rigged hurdles against Independents.

My understanding is if you wanted to run as a Democrat tomorrow you could. If you want to run as a Republican tomorrow you could. But if you wanted to run as an Independent you would have to go around and collect a crap load of signatures. They force those occupying the sane middle, who have no interest in appealing to the fringes of either base, to jump through a disproportionate amount of hoops.

 

[406dn]

Voters get the government they deserve. Whatever happens going forward should not surprise anyone.

The turnout was pretty strong and the GOP ran the table.

I don't expect the various shoulder seasons on elk will end. I think outfitters will like new policies more than most resident hunters.

Actually I think that there will be a run at a lot of things that had been kept under wraps with Bullock and Schweitzer veto power.

 

[SAJ-99]

Just random thoughts: I don't think anyone in MT voted R instead of D because of the recent protests/riots/"defund" police rhetoric. They voted R before that, it just gave them a convenient justification for their vote. I noticed that a lot of the anti-Democrat mailings (OH, the mailings!) tried to tie the candidate to well-known national Dems - Schumer, Pelosi, AOC. I guess R's need to have their Boogie-man. Almost all of those mailings from both sides came from PACs. (Side note- I'm convinced PACs are mostly set up to provide a salary for the organizer, because they don't spend much money on messaging.). We have to get money out of politics. The political financing system prevents a lot of independents from running, in addition to practically having to get signatures from half the state to get on the ballot. Once you put a D next to your name, you will have 40% of the population that refuses to vote for you because of that- even if they agree with your positions. I would love to hear candidates talks about actual issues and potential solutions. All things change. Lots of people from Cali and OR and WA moving into the state. People better start paying more attention to positions or they will end up in a really bad spot, if we aren't already.

 

[Carnage2011]

Just random thoughts: I don't think anyone in MT voted R instead of D because of the recent protests/riots/"defund" police rhetoric. They voted R before that, it just gave them a convenient justification for their vote. I noticed that a lot of the anti-Democrat mailings (OH, the mailings!) tried to tie the candidate to well-known national Dems - Schumer, Pelosi, AOC. I guess R's need to have their Boogie-man. Almost all of those mailings from both sides came from PACs. (Side note- I'm convinced PACs are mostly set up to provide a salary for the organizer, because they don't spend much money on messaging.). We have to get money out of politics. The political financing system prevents a lot of independents from running, in addition to practically having to get signatures from half the state to get on the ballot. Once you put a D next to your name, you will have 40% of the population that refuses to vote for you because of that- even if they agree with your positions. I would love to hear candidates talks about actual issues and potential solutions. All things change. Lots of people from Cali and OR and WA moving into the state. People better start paying more attention to positions or they will end up in a really bad spot, if we aren't already.

I’d say you are wrong. Montana has had no problem voting for D’s before. Greg isn’t popular in this state, but Montana isn’t going to stand for the acts that have been going on around the country and potentially allow that in MT. I have a fair number of friends that didn’t vote in the last election but were adamant about voting R in this one. Call it a Boogieman if you want, but the “progressive movement” on the D side isn’t well liked in this state, outside of a few towns.

 

[406dn]

It is evident to me that a strong turnout did not hurt the GOP in MT this fall. I expected most of the races to go to them,,, I did think that Bullock might win. None of the races ended up being all that close.

I crossed paths with Arntzen maybe thirty years ago. She is good proof that brand loyalty goes a long ways.

 

[Irrelevant]

I’d say you are wrong. Montana has had no problem voting for D’s before. Greg isn’t popular in this state, but Montana isn’t going to stand for the acts that have been going on around the country and potentially allow that in MT. I have a fair number of friends that didn’t vote in the last election but were adamant about voting R in this one. Call it a Boogieman if you want, but the “progressive movement” on the D side isn’t well liked in this state, outside of a few towns.

This is the general sense I got in E. WA

 

[BigHornRam]

Good luck getting money out of politics SAJ-99, and in this case, the one with the biggest pile got beat handily.

Spending in Montana's U.S. Senate race tops $160M

Spending on Montana’s U.S. Senate race broke records for a state campaign more than a month ago – and now has surpassed a stunning $160 million, by both the candidates and nearly 60 outside groups.

missoulacurrent.com

Just think what RMEF or the like could have done with the $160 million pissed away on this one Senate seat?

 

[SAJ-99]

I’d say you are wrong. Montana has had no problem voting for D’s before. Greg isn’t popular in this state, but Montana isn’t going to stand for the acts that have been going on around the country and potentially allow that in MT. I have a fair number of friends that didn’t vote in the last election but were adamant about voting R in this one. Call it a Boogieman if you want, but the “progressive movement” on the D side isn’t well liked in this state, outside of a few towns.

Fair to disagree. Most people in this state can't understand why that stuff is happening. But we are over 90% caucasian.

 

[LopeHunter]

I think that is a lot of it, and frankly, it isn't surprising. In the same way that in many folks' minds, so many R's are guilty by association because they have willingly joined a party that advocates for public lands transfer and other BS, to many, Ds are associated with a party that gaslights violence and lawlessness into something condonable and obsesses over demographic subsets and identity politics to the point that it shapes their tent and language into some sick cousin of puritanism.

Montana does not appear to be purple, ticket splitting didn't really happen this time around, and though it is unpopular and politically incorrect to say, for a D to win in MT moving forward, it will really help for them to be a man and a rancher/farmer/veteran and willing to demean and speak in opposition to and down on some of the popular incantations of the left.

That or the Democratic Party could change nationally, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that, as the tail that wags the dog in that political party comes from the brains of people incredibly distant from the values of most Montanans.


My two cents. YMMV.

I would say the donors have to change rather than the party. Anytime I hear a politician speak on a subject when they need to raise $250,000 or more before their next political race then I imagine a hand inside a puppet where the politician is the puppet. The hand is the donor and they have zero interest in running for office. They prefer to be in the shadows.

The House runs for election every two years and that means by summer they are in full fund-raising mode if not right now. A third of the Senate is in fund-raising mode as they are up for election in 2022 just like the House. The Republican 2024 Presidential candidates are shaking the tress right now.

Every big-time donor (Soros, Koch brothers, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Unions, Business PACS, Wall Street, etc) has a litmus test that the candidate must agree to adhere to in order to get funds. If a D then to get money to win the primary have to be pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-union, increased environmental laws, etc. If an R then to get money to win the primary have to be pro-life, pro-gun, anti-union, reduced environmental laws, etc. If a candidate can't win the primary then they will never get to the general election where might have a better chance to win compared to the primary winner of their party. As long as a lot of money is needed, politicians fall in line with donor interests rather than the politician announces a set of heartfelt positions and hopes donors gather around with their checkbooks. Can love or hate Bernie Sanders' positions though I found him to have heartfelt positions which made him so very different than the others D Presidential competitors for President in 2016 and 2020. My two cents as well.

 

[BWALKER77]

Voters get the government they deserve. Whatever happens going forward should not surprise anyone.

The turnout was pretty strong and the GOP ran the table.

I don't expect the various shoulder seasons on elk will end. I think outfitters will like new policies more than most resident hunters.

Actually I think that there will be a run at a lot of things that had been kept under wraps with Bullock and Schweitzer veto power.

Well, the Bullock administration did nothing to right the situation with shoulder seasons and the constant pandering to the guide lobby that I could see.

 

[BuzzH]

Well, the Bullock administration did. Nothing to right the situation with shoulder seasons and the constant pandering to the guide lobby that I could see.

I agree, but they didn't make it worse either...and there's lots of room for things to sink even deeper into the tank in Montana for the sportsmen/women of average means.

I fully expect ranching for wildlife, no meaningful change to the EMP, more elk reductions, outfitter sponsored tags, less funding, no land acquisitions, a total tool running the MTFWP, etc.

I'm just done worrying about Montana, going to take every last thing I can from that state, just like the politicians there want me to do.

 

[406dn]

I agree, but they didn't make it worse either...and there's lots of room for things to sink even deeper into the tank in Montana for the sportsmen/women of average means.

I fully expect ranching for wildlife, no meaningful change to the EMP, more elk reductions, outfitter sponsored tags, less funding, no land acquisitions, a total tool running the MTFWP, etc.

I'm just done worrying about Montana, going to take every last thing I can from that state, just like the politicians there want me to do.

I think you have the tenor right, if not all of the details. Do not be surprised if the stream access issue is revisited. That issue sticks in the craw of many wealthy landowners, right up to,,, well everyone knows.

Since I'm starting to lean on being 70 years old, most of my outdoor life is in in the memory bank. No one can take that away. It can be taken from a young person with many chapters in front of them. Montana has been very kind to me, in every regard. I hope that thirty or forty years from now, a person at the same stage of life I am presently can feel the same.

 

[BuzzH]

I think you have the tenor right, if not all of the details. Do not be surprised if the stream access issue is revisited. That issue sticks in the craw of many wealthy landowners, right up to,,, well everyone knows.

Since I'm starting to lean on being 70 years old, most of my outdoor life is in in the memory bank. No one can take that away. It can be taken from a young person with many chapters in front of them. Montana has been very kind to me, in every regard. I hope that thirty or forty years from now, a person at the same stage of life I am presently can feel the same.

I agree with you on this post, Montana has been good to my family and I as well. But I'm 100% confident that in thirty or forty years, the next generation will not have had the same type of quality hunts I've enjoyed there in the past.

I'll just take what's left and call it good...