Election commentary

It's not like John Esp WASN'T a right-wing nut. (0.00 / 0)

I've done a huge amount of research on his voting record in 2009. John Esp's a nut. If I remember correctly, he voted against funding dental care education in schools (along with just 2-3 other GOPers) and against putting up signs commemorating US Veterans on Montana interstate roads (also dissenting in a 48-2 vote or so).  

---

by: Twohundertseventy @ Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 18:21:09 PM UTC

Another Tea Party Winner (0.00 / 0)

Derek Skees, in HD-4. He won the GOP nomination with 55 percent of the vote in a 3-way race. I have a photograph of him at a tea party rally in Kalispell proudly displaying a pamphlet touting Willard Cleon Skousen's "The Five Thousand Year Leap." Skousen was a Bircher who was fired by the Mormon mayor of Salt Lake City for being too far right.

HD-4 is the Whitefish district that Mike Jopek represented for three terms. Will Hammerquist is the Democratic nominee for 2010.

---

by: jrconner @ Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 18:27:44 PM UTC

Sounds like Hammerquist is someone one should get (0.00 / 0)

behind. Is he progressive?

---

by: Twohundertseventy @ Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 20:10:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And also, can he raise money? (0.00 / 0)

That's pretty much the only significant predictor for performance in state legislature races.  

---

by: Twohundertseventy @ Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 20:11:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hammerquist (0.00 / 0)

Given Skees, Hammerquist is someone progressives will want to get behind. Can he raise money? We'll find out.

---

by: jrconner @ Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 21:35:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't forget (0.00 / 0)

Mike Comstock won rather resoundingly in sd32, currently held by Democrat Larry Jent.  Though he's tried very hard to clean up his image, he won't be able to shake his Tea Party radicalism, and his history of lunacy in letters to the editor.  It will be very interesting to see how he fares in the general.

Comstock's young protege, Nick Landeros running for the right to be crushed by Franke Wilmer in hd64, currently enjoys a 2 vote lead over his opponent Clint Field.  For those who say that voting doesn't matter, Nick can thank me for one of those votes.  If only I had voted for Field instead; that would have been majorly fun.  

---

by: Rob Kailey @ Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 18:53:26 PM UTC

Establishment candidates (0.00 / 0)

I think Professor Lopach's theory holds for Rehberg, but I don't think it is the full explanation for McDonald's 38 percent plurality. Yes, McDonald was the choice of party regulars, and benefited from that loyalty and familiarity, but three of five Democrats voted against him. And Sam Rankin and Melinda Gopher did far better than they should have. Gopher no doubt was helped by identity politics and a small turnout. But Rankin? Do 16 percent of Democrats really support cutting Medicare and Social Security? I hope the pollsters and number crunchers can make some sense of McDonald's weak showing.

---

by: jrconner @ Sat Jun 12, 2010 at 21:54:39 PM UTC

Analysis on the McDonald/Gernant race is all over the map (0.00 / 0)

First, I'm not sure that McDonald's numbers were that bad in a four-way race. There were many who thought Gernant would make it a much closer contest, maybe even win.  

Then there's Gopher, possibly the most progressive and an American Indian woman with passion ... if it hadn't been for some missteps at the end of her campaign, and a lack of funding and organization ... hell, I almost voted for her.

I have no clue on Rankin's numbers except he's known in Billings, the state's biggest city.  I suppose having the last name of Rankin didn't handicap him either.  

Here's what I'm reading and hearing: Gernant was an establishment candidate, Gernant wasn't establishment enough; the electorate didn't really know who it was voting for, the electorate knew exactly what it was doing.

The most cogent analysis is that early voting helped McDonald and in an off-year primary election that didn't have a lot of glamor, the party faithful turned out for the party's standard bearer.

I'm sure there are other explanations for these results.  Some of the Montana legislative races deserve a closer look, too.  

How about that South Carolina Democratic primary, though?

 

---

by: pete talbot @ Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 04:26:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Analysis (0.00 / 0)

I've argued that early voting (which I oppose; see Flathead Memo Dot Com for my arguments) hurt Gernant, and Twohundretseventy's preliminary number crunching (adding him to Left in the West was a great idea) tends to confirm that. Pete and I agree on that.

We disagree on whether McDonald's numbers were acceptable in a 4-way race. More than three of five Democrats, for the most part establishment Democrats, voted against him. I'd like to know why. Perhaps extended analysis of the returns will provide some insights. But I think 38 percent is a weak showing and low enough that a top two runoff or other electoral instrument (see William Poundstone's "Gaming the Vote" for ideas) should be triggered.

I suspect Gopher's impressive showing was due to the effect of identity voting (Indians and women) and a small turnout. As for Rankin, I'm utterly baffled. He did very well in precincts 500 miles from Billings, so it was not just a hometown vote. I await more data.

In the meantime, I draw everyone's attention to Gernant's handsome and gracious endorsement of McDonald, posted on his website on 9 June -- and I invite everyone to compare Gernant's classy behavior with Gopher's reaction to the election (and to some analyses thereof), published on MelindaforMontana Dot Com on 11 June.

---

by: jrconner @ Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 21:22:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Real classy guy (0.00 / 0)

especially his Sarah Palin smear:  http://www.mtvoters.org/newsro...

At a recent candidate forum at the University of Montana, McDonald said unequivocally that he supports coal mining in Montana's Otter Creek area, stating "I have been very much in favor of developing all of our resources; coal should be a big part of it." Gernant responded, "I thought I was in a Democratic primary, but it sounds like I'm running against Sarah Palin. McDonald is using the same rhetoric to describe his energy policy that Sarah Palin used to describe her backward-thinking ideas for America's energy future."

Y'all now supporting McDonald's "Sarah Palin" energy policy?

---

by: Craig Moore @ Sun Jun 13, 2010 at 21:33:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dennis, Denny, and Coaled Sarah (0.00 / 0)

The honor of having the most Palinesque energy policy goes to Rehberg. It's not even a close call.

---

by: jrconner @ Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 00:10:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

JR, that 's not what Tyler (0.00 / 0)

said.  He was very clear. Since when are there degrees of being pregnant????

My point is that "class" is not determined when its easy to be gracious.  Gernant owns his Palin smear against McDonald. Said to generate a vote buzz and put McDonald in a bad light. Very cheap, and it didn't work.  That's not class, just sleazy politics. That defines the source, Gernant.

---

by: Craig Moore @ Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 00:43:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The primary is over (0.00 / 0)

Moore is entitled to his opinion that Gernant's debating point was a smear, and while I'll defend his right to express his opinion, I don't share it. And I'm not going to debate it: the primary is over. Voters can visit McDonald's website, read his Energy Independence plank, and arrive at their own conclusions.

---

by: jrconner @ Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 13:13:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"smear"? (0.00 / 0)

Wait...are you saying comparing someone to Palin is a "smear"? Interesting.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Mon Jun 14, 2010 at 13:49:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]