To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.
I predict that VanDyk will be the most expensive, insignifigant legislator in Montana history.
Not that he and I have always seen eye-to-eye, but he's definitely one of the rising stars of Montana politics.
Kendall and his allies ran a very negative campaign, and now he finds himself in a 28-22 Senate, because the Dems only concentrated on winning ONE race.
Watch what committees he gets on, and what happens to any of his legislation. The payback will be a bitch.
(BTW - Matt - the estimates I've heard run between $200k and $400k - so I split the difference, as there's no way to know for sure who was paying for the TV ads and barrages of mailings)
Also, if you want to TV $ numbers you can just call the stations and ask.
However, given the fact that the Montana GOP absolutely trounced the Montana Dem party in the vast majority of races, I have a real issue with Forward Montana referring to any single campaign victory as a "tactical gain" in the context of the stark reality of the 2010 Montana elections.
I mean, I've done environmental protection work for a number of years and I simply cannot fathom our organization losing 9 out of 10 campaigns to protect old-growth forests or Wilderness areas, but then hosting up the one victory as a "tactical gain."
Also, I'm wondering what your thoughts are concerning Pat Williams' recent oped (http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/columnists/article_4bfab2fa-fbca-11df-ac40-001cc4c002e0.html) in which he stated, "Montana witnessed an incredible 26 percent drop in voter turnout. In both Missoula and Great Falls the decline was almost 40 percent."
I know Forward MT has done a lot of great voter registration and turnout work (your Trick or Vote people showed up at our door this year), so I'm curious as to your take on low voter turnout in Montana during the 2010 elections. Thanks for your thoughts.
First, I consider it a tactical gain in so much as it involved a takeover. Hold might not count, but takeovers are victories, particularly when they're against a popular, hardworking, well to do incumbent who recently ran for Governor. Additionally, the power of removing party leaders and veterans in a legislature defined by term limits cannot be underestimated. All of this in the context of an election that was brutal for Dems statewide and nationwide.
Turnout is a ground game and face to face works, but it's expensive. That's why volunteers are so important, and doors (particularly with Forward Montana) are fun.
So they question is, if you can get a bus full of young people to drive across the state for a whole weekend and unseat a powerful incumbent in a bloodbath year, do you tell them that wasn't a victory? It is.
I think the metaphor about forest preservation is deceptive. As much as we like to foretell doom or Xanadu after each election, the law is a fluid process, not an ecosystem which takes decades or centuries to recover, if in fact it ever can. You can repeal statute, you can't repeal a clearcut.
I didn't think I could appreciate voter mobilization efforts more until I read Pat's piece. Turnout is more important not just politically, but culturally.
Sold on Trick or Vote yet?
And given the fact that I mentioned Trick or Vote in a positive light - and that we have donated to Forward MT - I'm confused by your statement wondering if I'm sold on it? Yes, I understand that registering voters and then encouraging them (or in some cases helping them) vote is important.
Finally, I'm glad Pat's piece made you appreciate voter mobilization efforts even more; however, you really didn't respond to my honest inquiry looking for your take on the low voter turnout in Montana during the 2010 elections. Do you have any insights into how these numbers came to be? This is an honest question. Thanks.
"Montana witnessed an incredible 26 percent drop in voter turnout. In both Missoula and Great Falls the decline was almost 40 percent."
