Happy birthday, and thanks!

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:00:31 AM MST

After a failed presidential bid in 2004, Dean took over the DNC with the controversial mission of building credible political operations in all 50 states. Grass-roots -- and net-roots -- activists, who propelled Dean's presidential bid and helped get him elected party chairman, embraced the strategy. But the party's Washington political establishment bristled at using resources in deeply Republican states such as Mississippi and Idaho, insisting the money was better spent in places where Democrats were more likely to win.

I said this before, but if it weren't for the DNC, I wouldn't be blogging or involved in Montana politics. It was a short notice in the Missoula Independent about a meeting with a DNC representative in Missoula that brought me out of my political un-activism to where I am today: a two-bit hack with tens of readers. I couldn't have done it without Dean.

The opening from Howard Dean's coming-out speech at the California State Democratic Convention, on March 15, 2003:

What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting the President's unilateral intervention in Iraq?

What I want to know is what in the world so many Democrats are doing supporting tax cuts, which have bankrupted this country and given us the largest deficit in the history of the United States?

What I want to know is why the Congress is fighting over the Patient's Bill of Rights? The Patient's Bill of Rights is a good bill, but not one more person gets health insurance and it's not 5 cents cheaper.

What I want to know is why the Democrats in Congress aren't standing up for us, joining every other industrialized country on the face of the Earth in providing health insurance for every man, woman and child in America.

What I want to know is why so many folks in Congress are voting for the President's Education Bill-- "The No School Board Left Standing Bill"-- the largest unfunded mandate in the history of our educational system!

As Paul Wellstone said-- as Sheila Kuehl said when she endorsed me-- I am Howard Dean, and I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

Interesting to note all of Dean's proposals now seem matter of course, but back in the dark days of 2003, universal health care and an end to the Iraq War seemed as realistic as putting a man on Mars.

Anyway, the DNC needs cash after putting all of its chips on the table these past four years. I think a nice thank-you note in the form of a donation is appropriate...

Oh, yeah. And today's his birthday, too...

Idle thoughts: Ryan Zinke and CHIP

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 12:07:50 PM MST

...yet Ryan Zinke won SD2 by 1,000 votes, despite not only opposing I-155, but oposing the concept of CHIP altogether, while running against a candidate who had real health-care bonafides, Brittany MacLean. While I've heard a buzz that Zinke's ideology is a lot further right than he let on during the election, on most other issues, especially on conservationism, Zinke and MacLean's rhetoric was similar.

Question: was Zinke's win a failure in getting the message out about his stance on health care? Or did voters not care about the issue as much in a race for state legislature?

Fox News punk'd!

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 18:59:48 PM MST

It was among the juicier post-election recriminations: Fox News Channel quoted an unnamed McCain campaign figure as saying that Sarah Palin did not know that Africa was a continent.

Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. "Turns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks," Mr. Shuster said.

Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesn't exist. His blog does, but it's a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow - the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy - is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes.

The funny thing here is I was bombarded by emails linking to Eisenstadt's videos for weeks before the election. It was pretty obvious the whole thing was a ruse. The funny thing was "Eisenstadt" was able to infiltrate McCain operations across the country...but it was so over the top, it seemed patently obvious the dude wasn't who he claimed to be.

Dang, and I hadn't realized this guy was the same as the "source" of the McCain campaign "leak" about Palin's intelligence and knowledge. Nice going, Fox News!

Montana teeny bopper wins bid for New Hampshire county treasurer job

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 12:24:50 PM MST

A county treasurer who lost her bid for a fourth term last week to a 20-year-old Dartmouth College student from Montana blames her failed candidacy on "brainwashed college kids."

Republican Carol Elliott said students just voted for the Democratic ticket, which included Dartmouth junior Vanessa Sievers. Sievers won by nearly 600 votes out of 42,000 cast after targeting voters at Dartmouth and Plymouth State University through a $42 ad on the Web site Facebook.

"It was the brainwashed college kids that made the difference," Elliott, 66, told the Valley News of Lebanon. She said she had little faith that Sievers will fulfill her duties adequately.

"You've got a teenybopper for a treasurer," said Elliott, who has held the position for six years. "I'm concerned for the citizens of Grafton County."

If you pay attention to conservatives for any length of time, you'll hear a fundamental disrespect of the judgment of the electorate they serve. You know what I'm talking about, calls for tests for potential voters, stricter registration procedures, etc & co. That's why voter fraud gets traction on the right: it taps into a dislike of what they perceive to be non-normative peoples. In short,like people not on Saxby Chambliss' "side."

Only problem is that there's a lot of us "non-normative" people out there. And we like to be included in the goings on of our society. And who knows? Maybe some of us just simply will be better at the job.

Sievers, by the way, is from Big Sky, Montana.

CNN's Montana exit poll

by: Jay Stevens

Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 19:23:25 PM MST

18-29 y.o.s (22%): Obama 61, McCain 37

A much bigger gap than many of us had guessed. But then there was this:

30-44 y.o.s (23%): Obama 36, McCain 60

I weep for my generation.

Okay, that comes with the usual caveats, that this is a poll, and could be skewed. But! Still! McCain won 30-44 year olds, 60-36?

Fun election stats!

by: Jay Stevens

Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 15:19:27 PM MST

Anyway...numbers, with thoughts:

Number of votes cast for Barack Obama in Montana in 2008: 229,700
Number of votes cast for John Kerry in Montana in 2004: 173,710
How many more votes Obama won in Montana than Kerry: 55,990

Number of votes cast for John McCain in Montana in 2008:  241,836
Number of votes cast for George W Bush in Montana in 2004: 266,063
How many fewer votes McCain won in Montana than Bush: 24,227

Number of votes separating Barack Obama from John McCain in the 2008 election: 12,136
Percentage of Montana's 2008 total votes that difference is: 2.50%

Number of votes separating John Kerry from George Bush in the 2004 election: 92,353
Percentage of Montana's 2004 total votes that difference is: 20.50%

In short, that's quite a swing in votes Barack Obama managed in 2008. For anyone out there who knocked on doors, or worked the phones, or donated to Barack Obama's campaign and is feeling a little blue about the outcome in the state, just consider those numbers for a moment, and realize what an excellent base we have in Montana who'll be receptive to progressive ideas.

Percentage of votes cast for third-party presidential candidates in Montana in 2008: 3.19%
Percentage of votes cast for third-party presidential candidates in Montana in 2004: 2.37%

Quick realization: Ron Paul either doesn't have the support everyone assumed he did in Montana, or else Paul-Bearers, like Nader-ites, held their noses and voted for one of the two main candidates. Looks like the polls before the election got Paul's Election-Day support right.

Number of votes cast for Brian Schweitzer in 2008: 316,509
Percentage of total 2008 votes cast: 65.37%
Number of votes cast for Brian Schweitzer in 2004: 225,016
Percentage of total 2004 votes cast: 50.44%
How many more votes Schweitzer won in Montana in 2008 than 2004: 91,493

Not much to say here, other than Schweitzer obviously pleased Montana's voters during his first term. Those re-election numbers are remarkable.

Number of votes cast in 2008 for president, but not for governor: 1,839
Number of votes cast in 2004 for president, but not for governor: 4,288

Less down-ballot blanks in 2008 than in 2004. One of the biggest fears many had going into this election is that new and sporadic voters brought to the table by Obama would leave their ballots blank under the President, like what happened in the primary. Didn't happen. In fact, this generation of voters was more likely to vote down ballot...

Number of votes cast for Linda McCulloch in the 2008 SoS race: 232,070
Number of votes cast for Brad Johnson in the 2008 SoS race: 227,595
Number of votes cast for Bill Kennedy in the 2004 SoS race: 210,972
Number of votes cast for Brad Johnson in the 2004 SoS race: 219,821
How many more votes Johnson won in Montana in 2008 than 2004: 7,774

New voters won this election for McCulloch. Johnson increased his support from 2004 to 2008, and still lost the race. During the same period, the number of supporters for the Republican presidential candidate diminished.

Number of votes separating McCulloch from Johnson in the election: 4,475
Number of votes cast in 2008 for the Constitution Party SoS candidate, Sieglinde Sharbano: 11,523
Number of votes cast in 2004 for third-party SoS candidates: 0
Percentage of votes cast for third-party SoS candidates in 2008: 2.54%

Or maybe the Constitution Party did in Johnson. I know a lot of conservatives were less than pleased with his job performance. Maybe instead of pulling the lever for McCulloch, they opted for Sharbano. On the other and, 2.54% is not much, kind of what you'd expect in any election with third-party candidates.

Number of votes cast in 2008 for president, but not for SoS: 15,843
Number of votes cast in 2004 for president, but not for SoS: 19,641

Again, 2008 voters were more likely to vote down-ballot than their 2004 brethren.

Number of votes cast in 2008 for Bob Kelleher: 128,762
Percentage of votes cast Kelleher won in his 2008 bid for Senate: 27.12%
Number of votes cast in 2004 for Bob Kelleher: 8,393
Percentage of votes cast Kelleher won in his 2004 bid for Governor: 1.88%

That's right, folks! Bob Kelleher is the big winner of the 2008 election! He picked up more than 120,000 votes over his 2004 gubernatorial bid, and advanced more than 25 percent in the polls!

I have no idea what this means. Twenty-five percent will vote for the other guy, no matter who it is? Still, not many standing Senators can post of winning 72 percent of their electorate's approval in any re-election bid.

Number of votes cast in 2008 for John Driscoll: 154,710
Percentage of votes cast Driscoll won in his 2008 "bid" for MT-AL: 32.35%
Number of votes cast in 2008 for Roy Brown: 157,894
Percentage of votes cast Brown won in his 2008 bid for Governor: 32.61%

So Roy Brown outpolled John Driscoll by about 3,000 votes, despite the fact that Driscoll refused to campaign and endorsed his opponent. You have to see this as a shocking rejection of Roy Brown by Montanans, and a ringing endorsement of Schweitzer. It also shows how vulnerable Rehberg was this cycle. If a Democratic House candidate would start where a Republican gubernatorial candidate ended up...man...

Fun. I'll take a closer look at county and geographic distribution of votes later this week.

What does it all mean?

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:35:38 AM MST

So, on one hand, I'm tempted to day there's a clear mandate for a progressive agenda.

On the other hand, we suffered setbacks in the legislature. And not just minor setbacks, but some major ones, because, if anything, the Republican legislators should be even more radical and weird this legislative session. I mean, we're talking about a world in which Dan McGee is probably Senate president or Senate majority leader.

I don't get it. I know Montanans are notorious ticket splitters, but generally speaking the state's voters are issue driven. So...they flock to Brian Schweitzer in droves, who touts alternative energy and progressive tax policy...then proceed to vote in a legislature that's anti-alternative energy, dominated by global warming deniers, and overwhelmingly in favor of deregulation and trickle-down economics.

And this year, especially, Democrats up and down the ticket were saying the same things. It wasn't as if Schweitzer, Gutsche, and Brittany MacLean weren't talking about the same things...health care...clean and green energy...smart taxation...etc & co.

So what gives?

The 2008 election: the good, bad, and the ugly

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 07:19:52 AM MST

Obama. Even though he lost Montana, he won 47.1% of the state's vote, the highest total for a Democratic presidential candidate since LBJ. Not bad for a Harvard-educated, skinny black kid with a funny name, as he himself put it. The base of support is in place for Obama's progressive agenda.

Schweitzer & Baucus. Here's some amusing statistics. Max Baucus' opponent, Bob Kelleher garnered 128,762 votes. Brian Schweitzer's opponent, Roy Brown, won 157,894 votes. Which means Brown's spending several hundred thousand dollars, touring the state over several times, and debating the governor --- what? five times? -- earned him 29,132 more votes than an unrepentant parliamentarian socialist who, essentially, didn't campaign. Not sure what that means, other than Montanans didn't like Brown very much, which was evidenced in his unfavorable ratings throughout the race.

Steve Bullock winning the AG's office. A triumph of ideas, ability, and experience over divisiveness and fear mongering. Tim Fox' campaign manager, Chuck Denowh, probably should consider getting into another line of business.

Denise Juneau winning the Superintendent's job. Particularly awesome. This was probably the clearest choice on the ballot this election. Juneau has the talent and intelligence to really make her tenure as Superintendent something special. My only regret is that my kids won't be enrolled in the Montana school system during her tenure. And has a Native American ever won a statewide seat in Montana before?

Lindeen's win over Grimes for Auditor. Everything I've heard about Grimes was positive, so this race, unlike the AG or Superintendent's race wasn't simply a matter of who was more capable, or who'd be better at the job. Instead it came down to ideology: it seemed like a referendum on regulation of business in general, and a good indicator of how Montanans view health care. In short, the state's voters rejected deregulation, and seemed inclined to support a government-aided approach to health care reform. Good.

Johnson losing his SoS re-election bid. Sure, his heart was in the right place during Eaton's voter suppression folly, but the office always seemed a little greater than the man. Having egregiously botched the 2006 election, he proceeded to blame same-day voter registration and lobbied the legislature to overturn it, despite its popularity with the state's voters. For that alone, he deserved to be kicked out of office. We'll miss those billboards, though.

The PSC. Gail Gutsche's win over Doug Mood was huge. Huge. Sadly, I neglected that race on the blog, but it was one of the more important races in the state. (Then, given the outcome of most of the battleground legislative races, maybe my neglect was a good thing.) John Vincent also won his bid for the PSC, which leaves half-mad Brad Molnar the only Republican on the board. (See "ugly," below.) Now we've got near unanimous consent to plow forward with a smart, green energy agenda. If only...

Easy election predictions

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 23:58:38 PM MST

I'm calling that the CHIP expansion initiative will pass.

I'm also calling for an end to vote counting on CI44. It's getting pummeled. It's too brutal to watch.

It's late in PA. I'm tired. I'm also tired of waiting for the d*mn returns. At this point, though, things look great for Bullock, McCulloch, Lindeen, and especially Juneau. We'll probably squeak out a majority in the state House, and the state of the state Senate...well...we'll be hearing a lot about Dan McGee next session.

Obama's chances in Montana look grim, too. An early lead has faded. With 68% of precincts reporting, McCain has a 5,000 vote lead.

A couple of things. First, Missoula gave Obama a little less than a 12K margin. That's not as much as a bump that either Tester or Schweitzer got in their election wins. Additionally Obama didn't carry Yellowstone county. Far from it; he lost 52-45.

Anyway. I'm going to bed.

Right-wing blogs vs. reality, the "Black Panther" edition

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 17:04:09 PM MST

Oops. Looks like they're not. Like Ben Smith, I was a little dubious that a precinct that votes like 90+% Democratic would need thugs to "intimidate" anyone. Hey, it looks like they're intimidating Obama voters!

Hm, I wonder how the rightie headlines will spin this. Still, it's quite funny thinking of Malkin et al. coming up with a narrative without actually finding out what's going on. What we're reading tells us more about the paranoid fantasies of these people than what's actually happening.

This is blogging at its worst.

Election, with hiccups

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 15:41:20 PM MST

But instead of taking a hard look at why the execution of conservatism in government led to these massive failures, the supporters of the GOP are looking to make these election results look controversial. Hey, the 2000 election helped keep the fire lit under liberals, right? So...how to go about it? Hey! How about invoking voter fraud? Of coruse, there is no scandal here. And note that even the right's claims show no evidence of actual fraud.

Meanwhile in Virginia and Pennsylvania, there are voting machine malfunctions and long lines for voting. And Virginia Tech students -- you may remember them as targets of voter suppression efforts -- found that their polling place had been moved suddenly off campus, 6 miles distant, to a tiny church with 30 parking spots for 5,000 voters.

Oh, and then there are the text messages floating around Montana telling folks, in order to avoid the long lines, to vote tomorrow. The messages are apparently part of a national effort to confuse voters.

Whatever. All in all, it seems like a well-run election, given the number of people who probably will vote and the craziness of this election.

Got any stories? Tell me your voting story? Mine is dull: I voted absentee. I sat on the couch with my coffee after dropping the kids off at school and filled out my ballot. The mail carrier took it later that day. Here in Erie, it's a gorgeous day, warm and sunny, and the maple trees throughout the city are bright yellow, their litter carpeting the streets with gold. I canvassed a predominantly African-American precinct this morning; at the neighborhood's polling place, spirits were high and voters were dressed up, as if for church. A little girl took my Obama literature on her stoop. "How did Obama get my number?" she asked. I tried explaining. But when I was done, all she said was, "tell Obama I like him."

Done.

Senator Obama, there's a little girl on West 4th Street in Erie, Pennsylvania, who likes you.

Public Policy Polling: Obama +1 in Montana

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 06:13:41 AM MST

The trends:

11/3 - PPP: McCain 47, Obama 48 (Obama +1)
10/31 - Rasmussen: McCain 50, Obama 46 (McCain +4)
10/28 - Mason-Dixon: McCain 44, Obama 40 (McCain +4)
10/23 - MSU-B: McCain 40, Obama 44 (Obama +4)
10/19 - Research 2000: McCain 49, Obama 45 (McCain +4)
10/7 - ARG: McCain 50, Obama 45 (McCain +5)
10/1 - Rasmussen: McCain 52, Obama 44 (McCain +8)
9/23 - Research 2000: McCain 52, Obama 39 (McCain +13)
9/22 - CNN: McCain 49, Obama 40 (McCain +9))

Of course, this only means you need to work harder to see this through the finish line. Two more days of work, and we're done!

So, what are you waiting for? Get on the doors already!

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 13:22:32 PM MST

Now Matt's been talking a lot today about the "ground game." Door-knocking. Canvassing. The mobilization of the people. Call it what you want, but it's the way we win elections. We round up all of our targeted voters, innuendate them with campaign materials and polling place information, and we make sure they vote.

Matt's got the numbers in his post. Let's just say that this works.

Don't have enough time? You'll have less time after the election when you have to get that third job to pay for gasoline, health care, and education costs should the conservative, free-market ideologues get another four years in the White House and win control of our state legislature.

All you need to do is commit to few hours of work. Consider this: roughly every shift you do gets a vote.

Never knocked on doors before? A little nervous? Yeah, it's a little weird at first. But GOTV is the easiest, most fun volunteer work you can do. They're expecting you; most of the time, they're friendly voters; and people, even those disposed against you and your candidates, rarely treat you poorly to your face. (Unlike, say, on the phone or, even worse, in the comments of blogs.)

This is the last push. This weekend, and Monday and Tuesday. I'm out here in Erie knocking on doors, and I've got a full-time job, two kids, and an ugly blogging habit. You can, too.

Here are the meetup places, days, and times, across the state:

Kalispell: Friends of Max Baucus office, 419 1st Avenue East, 406-755-5180
Flathead County Democrats office, 627 Denver, Whitefish

Canvass begins on Saturday at 10:00 am, and on Sunday at 12:00 pm.

Missoula: Friends of Max Baucus office, 218 East Front Street, Missoula 406-830-3500
Volunteers can show up anytime after 9:00 am on both Saturday and Sunday

Hamilton:Friends of Max Baucus office, 127 W. Main, Suite 10,  406-546-9450
Volunteers can show up anytime after 9:00 am on both Saturday and Sunday.

Great Falls: Friends of Max Baucus Office, 319 1st Avenue North, 406-453-0059
Volunteers can show up anytime after 9:00 am on both Saturday and Sunday.

Helena: Friends of Max Baucus Office, 326 Fuller Avenue, 406-422-1500
Canvass begins on both Saturday and Sunday at 10:00 am

Butte: Campaign for Change field office, 110 S. Dakota (right behind the uptown post office), 773-459-7391. Canvass shifts are 9 am to 1 pm, 12 pm to 4 pm, and 3pm to 7 pm on Saturday. 12 pm to 4 pm, and 3 pm to 7 pm on Sunday.

Bozeman: Friends of Max Baucus Office, 422 East Mendenhall, 406-551-2502
Saturday and Sunday at 9:00 am and again at 1:00 pm for canvass Monday and Tuesday anytime.

Billings: Friends of Max Baucus office, 906 Broadwater Ave, 406-839-9500
Call ahead for shift sign up. Canvass shifts will be 10:00 am to 2:00 pm and 3:00 pm to dark.

Rasmussen: McCain +4 in Montana

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 10:08:32 AM MST

It has McCain with 50 percent and Obama with 46. Again, Ron Paul not part of the sampling, although the pollster did say, "Six percent (6%) of McCain voters might vote for a third-party candidate while Obama faces no such threat."

Okay, folks, here are the trends:

10/31 - Rasmussen: McCain 50, Obama 46 (McCain +4)
10/28 - Mason-Dixon: McCain 44, Obama 40 (McCain +4)
10/23 - MSU-B: McCain 40, Obama 44 (Obama +4)
10/19 - Research 2000: McCain 49, Obama 45 (McCain +4)
10/7 - ARG: McCain 50, Obama 45 (McCain +5)
10/1 - Rasmussen: McCain 52, Obama 44 (McCain +8)
9/23 - Research 2000: McCain 52, Obama 39 (McCain +13)
9/22 - CNN: McCain 49, Obama 40 (McCain +9)

Matt also noted that today's Rasmussen poll shows the youth vote going for McCain. Rasmussen lists Montana as a "tossup." Duh.

One thing this poll does tell us with some accuracy is that the Big Mo' is with Obama.

Mason-Dixon's "Republican lean" makes Obama-McCain a dead heat in Montana

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 07:13:01 AM MST

Mason-Dixon is a pretty strong pollster. So, however, are many others from among the literally dozen or so agencies that have conducted polling within Pennsylvania over the past 72 hours. And none of those other pollsters shows the race that tight.

Mason-Dixon has also had a Republican "lean" this cycle of perhaps 2-3 points. They are quite frequently the most favorable number for John McCain in any given state. That doesn't mean that they are "biased", and it doesn't mean that they are wrong - there are many different (and legitimate!) ways to think about this election. But it does mean that their polls need to be interpreted in that context. Let's say the average poll in Pennsylvania has Obama ahead by 9.5 points. Mason-Dixon will probably start out seeing a 9.5-point state at a 7-point state. If they then end up toward the McCain side of their margin of error -- and they don't use huge sample sizes - that's how you get to Obama +4.

Now I'm not saying Mason-Dixon's Montana poll is necessarily leaning 2-3 points towards McCain. It might be. But that possible lean and the fact that Ron Paul wasn't in the sampling makes it pretty clear what all of us know anyway: it's a dead heat in Montana between Obama and McCain.

Later today I'll post about GOTV efforts for Obama and the Democratic party. Where, when, what. If you've never knocked on doors before, this is your big chance. It's a little scary at first, but it's much, much more, oh ever so muchly more easy and fun to do than phone banking.

Five days, people!  

Brittany MacLean's 15 minutes on Left in the West

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 06:05:50 AM MST

MacLean is a candidate for SD2, which is one of the key races this year in controlling the state senate. Again, I conducted the interview over the phone; the sound quality is poor, so I offer you only the transcription, which you can find below the fold.

One of the interesting bits of information to come out of this interview was how committed to health care MacLean is, especially preventative care and care for children in the earliest stages of development, the kinds of care that make a remarkable difference in the lives of people, and that also coincidentally save health care and other taxpayer-funded infrastructure costs in the long term.

MacLean's opponent, Ryan Zinke, has not only come out against I-155, the Healthy Montana Kids initiative, he's against CHIP altogether. (By the way, he's still shown wearing his uniform on his website without a disclaimer, which is against DoD regulations. Tsk, tsk.) Instead, Zinke seems more willing to boast of the number of people he's killed -- not something most veterans I know don't even like to talk about, let alone to highlight on a campaign web page.

The choice seems clear to me.

Check out Brittany MacLean on her webiste, and, as always, you can donate to her or any other battleground state Senate candidate at LiTW's Battleground Senate Races page.

Obama in Montana

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 09:38:04 AM MST

"Why?" I asked. And you all provided some excellent answers. Here's commenter Steve Lohrenz:

1. Psycological. Instead of the usual big swath of red across the middle of America on maps, Montana is good sized chunk of it that'll be blue. Suddenly it doesn't seem like the R's control most of America.

2. Knows the importance of winning in the western states to the future dominance of the Democratic party. Montana is the first test case.

3. Brian Schweitzer. Obama's activity, manpower and money in Montana is going to have an impact on the downticket races. Schweitzer needs an agreeable Montana congress to ensure he accomplishes enough for his 'legacy'. A favorable legacy will help out the gov if he decides for a higher office run. (In addition, how many times has Obama mentioned clean-coal - the guv's pet project???) I think Obama has a keen eye towards the gov.

I think Obama isn't thinking about Montana in the context of just this cycle. He's already thinking about 8 years from now, which people he wants in the Democratic primaries and what the party is going to look like in the long term. In essence, a team player.

An excellent answer, and I think spot on.

Remember when Karl Rove early on in Bush's first term said he wanted to build a "permanent Republican majority"? For him, the means to achieve that was by dividing the electorate against each other under the auspices of a "culture war," discouraging new and intermittent voters through negative campaigns, politicizing the government (illegally) to use it as a campaign tool, and using tatics like voter suppression. In short, the Rovian "majority" was about reducing democratic participation, relying on a small and ideologically motivated "base," and dirty campaigning.

I think Montana is proof that Obama is looking to create a permanent progressive majority. But not through dirty campaign tricks. But through a large and vigorous grassroots campaign that's meant to continue long after the election. By bringing in new voters and empowering them with organizational responsibilities and giving them a say in the process and message. And through the force of argument.

That is, Obama's majority is about people and ideas.

Which campaign is vigorously contesting the state, building a network of volunteers, and opening offices across the state, even though it doesn't need Montana's Electoral College votes? And which campaign relied on a local political party's (possibly illegal) efforts to scrub young voters off the voting rolls? Which campaign wants to bring new voters into the process? And which campaign wants to push people out?

Which campaign speaks directly to Montana?

Mason-Dixon: McCain +4 in Montana

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 17:53:17 PM MST

10/28 - Mason-Dixon: McCain 44 48, Obama 40 44 (McCain +4)
10/23 - MSU-B: McCain 40, Obama 44 (Obama +4)
10/19 - Research 2000: McCain 49, Obama 45 (McCain +4)
10/7 - ARG: McCain 50, Obama 45 (McCain +5)
10/1 - Rasmussen: McCain 52, Obama 44 (McCain +8)
9/23 - Research 2000: McCain 52, Obama 39 (McCain +13)
9/22 - CNN: McCain 49, Obama 40 (McCain +9)

The only thing I know about this most recent poll that it had 600+ respondents.

Not much to say. It could confirm that MSU-B is an outlier. Still, it's about what you'd expect.

Update (by Matt) -- Mason-Dixon is probably the gold standard of Montana polling. They typically handle Lee's polling and have pretty hefty experience in the state. That said, one of the clear emerging trends with the MSU-B poll in this and previous years is that it doesn't push leaners at all. So what we may be seeing is simply an enthusiasm gap, combined with a lack of a Ron Paul option.

That's not to say that the MSU-B numbers are more accurate. John McCain probably is the preferred candidate of slightly more Montanans. But a significant number of those Montanans display a fair amount of antipathy toward McCain still.

Bottom line -- this thing is pretty close and the race is to the point where a good field effort can change the outcome. The Obama campaign is still pushing super heavy for volunteers, so I assume that they still need help.

I won't be helping them as I'm focused on the down ballot, but I'd certainly encourage folks with bandwidth right now to lend a hand.

...because Jake Eaton's voter challenge was such a good idea!

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 10:52:26 AM MST

State Sen. Greg Barkus, R-Kalispell, has filed formal challenges over 10 people registered to vote in recent years under the address of Rep. Mike Jopek, D-Whitefish.

While it may appear unusual, Jopek maintains it isn't unusual for a small organic farm that relies on volunteer labor by mostly young people who have lived at his farm and registered to vote using the farm's address at different times over the last few years.

Curiously, Jopek's Republican challenger, John Fuller, also has four non-family members registered at his home address, yet no challenge was levied at those folks.

Here's what Justice Molloy had to say about this kind of voter challenge:

A self-described guardian of the integrity of a political system designed to guarantee the right of the people to govern themselves, Eaton targeted counties with young and likely Democratic voters, who might have changed their mailing addresses without changing their voter registration information. The challenge theory must be that such voters might compromise the democratic process by going off to college or serving in the military overseas, and forwarding their mail to their new location or to a family member - both examples of
voters Eaton challenged.

In his zeal to protect what he sees as Montana's fragile democracy from these transient hordes, Eaton ignored the very law that answers his challenges. How can one so concerned with the integrity of the State's democratic process be adept at invoking the law to keep people from voting, without realizing that the same law renders his claim meritless if not frivolous?

This is so obviously a partisan ploy -- heck, it even crosses the line into a personal attack -- that the challenge should be met with the same contempt with which it was written and promptly be thrown in the trash.

Oh, and if you wanted to throw some money at Mike Jopek to express your disdain, I bet he wouldn't mind.

Cheryl Steenson's 15 minutes on Left in the West

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 09:01:04 AM MST

First up is Cheryl Steenson, candidate for HD8 up in Kalispell.

I conducted a phone interview with Cheryl and recorded it...but the quality was so poor I decided just to post the transcription, which you can find below the fold.

(Apologies to Cheryl for not having a good recording setup. I actually bought some device for recording phone calls, but it sucks. Go figure. Any advice out there?)

Anyhow, as you know, Steenson and HD8 were identified here as being one of the battleground races that will decide the composition of the next legislature. Which, as you know, because I've said it here repeatedly, is critical to education, energy, and the environment in Montana.

So, be sure to check out Steenson's website, and drop her or any other House battleground candidates a dime.