Democrats Senate majority is in serious trouble as Montana moves to "leans Republican".

Missourian

Diamond Member
Aug 30, 2008
35,773
26,741
2,905
Missouri
The election momentum is moving in the right direction as Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are only separated by 1.2 points nationally post-debate.

To add insult to injury...Cook Political Report has moved Montana from "toss up" to leans Republican.

This is especially bad news, as the all but certain loss of West Virginia with Manchin's retirement has already place Democrats hopes of retaining the Senate in jeopardy.




"The Cook Political Report shifted the Montana Senate race from “toss up” to “lean Republican” on Thursday as polls show Republican Tim Sheehy leading incumbent Sen. Jon Tester (D) in a contest critical to control of the upper chamber.

The nonpartisan prognosticating group made the move with less than two months before Election Day, giving Republicans a shot in the arm in the process..."

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4876084-montana-senate-tester-sheehy-cook-report/
 
The election momentum is moving in the right direction as Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are only separated by 1.2 points nationally post-debate.

To add insult to injury...Cook Political Report has moved Montana from "toss up" to leans Republican.

This is especially bad news, as the all but certain loss of West Virginia with Manchin's retirement has already place Democrats hopes of retaining the Senate in jeopardy.




"The Cook Political Report shifted the Montana Senate race from “toss up” to “lean Republican” on Thursday as polls show Republican Tim Sheehy leading incumbent Sen. Jon Tester (D) in a contest critical to control of the upper chamber.

The nonpartisan prognosticating group made the move with less than two months before Election Day, giving Republicans a shot in the arm in the process..."

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4876084-montana-senate-tester-sheehy-cook-report/
Meh...the numbers in 2024 favored Republicans taking the Senate back based on the seats up for election. Trump would be the only wildcard that might affect that (as he did with the two slam dunk GA Senate seats in 2020).
That flips back to Democrats in 2026 and 2028. :)
 
The election momentum is moving in the right direction as Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are only separated by 1.2 points nationally post-debate.

To add insult to injury...Cook Political Report has moved Montana from "toss up" to leans Republican.

This is especially bad news, as the all but certain loss of West Virginia with Manchin's retirement has already place Democrats hopes of retaining the Senate in jeopardy.




"The Cook Political Report shifted the Montana Senate race from “toss up” to “lean Republican” on Thursday as polls show Republican Tim Sheehy leading incumbent Sen. Jon Tester (D) in a contest critical to control of the upper chamber.

The nonpartisan prognosticating group made the move with less than two months before Election Day, giving Republicans a shot in the arm in the process..."

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4876084-montana-senate-tester-sheehy-cook-report/
democrats fucking up another state,,

sorry to say my sister is one of them,,
 
Seriously? How could Montana not be heavy republican?
We elected some Democrats too.

A Missouri Blue Dog Democrat could still get elected in a Red District here in Missouri, right up until Obamacare.

That was the end of that.

At the end of the 2008 election, Democrats held 4 of 9 House Seats,

One Senator was a Democrat, the Governor was a Democrat.

Today...every statewide Officeholder is a Republican.

Both Senators are Republicans.

Only 2 of 9 Representatives are Democrats, and there was a big redistricting push after the 2020 census to make that only 1 of 9.

Jon Testor was elected in 2006.

He's a Blue Dog hold over from the pre-Obama and pre-Obamacare vote.

Since the Democrats need every vote in the Senate...he was no longer able to abstain from votes that his constituents disagreed vehemently with.

And now it's going to cost both him and the Democrats.
 
The election momentum is moving in the right direction as Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are only separated by 1.2 points nationally post-debate.

To add insult to injury...Cook Political Report has moved Montana from "toss up" to leans Republican.

This is especially bad news, as the all but certain loss of West Virginia with Manchin's retirement has already place Democrats hopes of retaining the Senate in jeopardy.




"The Cook Political Report shifted the Montana Senate race from “toss up” to “lean Republican” on Thursday as polls show Republican Tim Sheehy leading incumbent Sen. Jon Tester (D) in a contest critical to control of the upper chamber.

The nonpartisan prognosticating group made the move with less than two months before Election Day, giving Republicans a shot in the arm in the process..."

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4876084-montana-senate-tester-sheehy-cook-report/
We've got Montana and we also have a great shot at Maryland too. The Senate is going red and it is going to stay red for a very long time.
 
Fact is, there are more red states than blue states.
Fact is. There are a lot of COUNTIES that vote red save blue. But that don't make it so. :) Since we don't tabulate overall votes via county.
Which is why our electoral system sucks. Too much power given to sparsely populated states that can be placed in the "red" column before one vote is cast.

Amend all states to be like Nebraska and Maine and split the electoral votes. :)
 
Fact is. There are a lot of COUNTIES that vote red save blue. But that don't make it so. :) Since we don't tabulate overall votes via county.
Which is why our electoral system sucks. Too much power given to sparsely populated states that can be placed in the "red" column before one vote is cast.

Amend all states to be like Nebraska and Maine and split the electoral votes. :)
Rural areas should not be railroaded into having to follow big city rules. There is a reason why voting is the way it is. In any event, it has nothing to do with the post I wrote, stating there are more red states than blue states, hence, it is more likely there will always be more red Senators than blue Senators.
 
Rural areas should not be railroaded into having to follow big city rules. There is a reason why voting is the way it is. In any event, it has nothing to do with the post I wrote, stating there are more red states than blue states, hence, it is more likely there will always be more red Senators than blue Senators.
No one is saying such. Rural areas have both blue and red voters. Same with states like CA and NY. You do know there are large parts of those supposedly "BLUE" states that are abjectly RED!...and those..are COUNTIES! :)
 
No one is saying such. Rural areas have both blue and red voters. Same with states like CA and NY. You do know there are large parts of those supposedly "BLUE" states that are abjectly RED!...and those..are COUNTIES! :)
What are you babbling about? We are talking about the Senate. That has nothing to do with counties. I guess I have to explain to you how it all works. There are 50 states in the country. Each state has two Senators. Every six years each state has elections for their senators (not always in the same year). Everyone in the state who votes votes for the senators. That includes, counties, cities, rural areas, etc. There aren't separate elections for senators. It is statewide voting. Since there are more red states than blue states, the odds are in favor of having more red senators than blue senators. I don't know if I can explain it any simpler than that.
 
What are you babbling about? We are talking about the Senate. That has nothing to do with counties. I guess I have to explain to you how it all works. There are 50 states in the country. Each state has two Senators. Every six years each state has elections for their senators (not always in the same year). Everyone in the state who votes votes for the senators. That includes, counties, cities, rural areas, etc. There aren't separate elections for senators. It is statewide voting. Since there are more red states than blue states, the odds are in favor of having more red senators than blue senators. I don't know if I can explain it any simpler than that.
Blah, blah, blah. Please. It comes down to seats up for election. In 2024, Democrats have more seats up for election. The numbers favor Republicans. But in 2026 and 2028 that changes.
You keep blathering on about "red" states vs "blue" states. And how there are more "red" states than "blue" states. I can assure you, there are a lot of wide open spaces that are considered "red". Blank, open, empty spaces that have both red and blue voters.
Which is why Montana has a Dem Senator. :)

It ain't about that It's about who's up for election.
 

Forum List

Back
Top