Now, we have the first public poll numbers on how such a race would look. Public Policy Polling conducted a survey of 333 usual Democratic primary voters, with a 5.4% margin of error:
Looking way ahead to the 2014 election Brian Schweitzer would crush Max Baucus in a primary contest if Montana Democrats went to the polls today, 51-34. The general perception is that if this race happened Schweitzer would rely on support from the left to defeat Baucus for being too much of a centrist. That's not actually how the numbers play out though. Schweitzer leads across the ideological spectrum but his biggest advantage is with moderates at 28 points (55-27), followed by a 12 point advantage with 'somewhat liberal' ones at 50-38 and then 11 points leads with 'very liberal' (52-41) and 'somewhat conservative' (44-33) voters.
Schweitzer is also up double-digits over Baucus with women (48-36), even bigger with men (55-32).
Governor Schweitzer started his career in politics wanting to go to DC and serve in the senate. Here's his chance. Also, probably the best/only chance for Democrats to hold the seat as it makes sense for Democrats to vote against Max Baucus, as he does more destruction as Chair of Senate Finance then he adds benefit. Baucus needs to go.
Word is that Montana Rep. Franke Wilmer is seriously looking at jumping into the U.S. House race. Everything I hear is that Steve Daines will move over to the House race.
This field is nowhere near settled yet. Other names are bubbling, but nothing with quite the seriousness of Franke's.
We were careful to pay our respects to the most infamous political event in Thanksgiving history....Sarah's great turkey pardon. Around our table, we were taking bets on whether she'll be the next President of the United States.
We had the following scenarios for 2012: 1. Palin gets the GOP nomination and then a resurrected Obama buries her in the General Election. 2. She is leading the GOP primary but Mike Bloomberg jumps in and steals the nomination; and then he goes on to bury the weak incumbent Obama. 3. Bloomberg jumps in as an independent to co-opt a weak Palin and a weak Obama, no one gets 270 electoral votes so the "electors" from the legislative branch choose Bloomberg. It's not impossible, recall that Thomas Jefferson was elected this way. 4. President Palin is elected, highlighting a fundamental flaw in the American system of democracy where voters will choose any idiot who sounds and looks good, regardless of their merits. This isn't impossible either, recall that Reagan got elected this way.
(it's often okay, if you are a Republican. We'll see. - promoted by Rob Kailey)
After President Obama's State of the Union Address Gallatin County inundated with robo calls from Steve Daines, nee candidate for the U.S. Senate race in 2012.
Here's some of the questions.
"Are you a Tea Party Patriot?" and "Does it bother you that ObamaCare would help pay for abortions?" ---"or that it would require people to buy insurance?"
The number he was using was a Washington DC number used to robo call for the Scott Brown race,amoung others. 202-461-3441
It's illegal to do political Robo calls in Montana. The law after the jump.
Wanted to share a new tool that Forward Montana is helping promote: My Ballot, the social sample ballot. Right now, it features statewide races and ballot measures for Montana.
The basic idea is you get you fill out your sample ballot while seeing how your Facebook friends have voted in various races. This isn't a tough call on some items, like the Congressional race, where most people know they'll come down. But the Supreme Court race, the Constitutional Convention, and CI-105 are all areas where some folks should be persuaded. I've also seen the votes cast so far spark a lively conversation over the outfitting initiative.
I've now heard reports of obnoxious automated calls going into at least 4 districts pretending to endorse Democratic candidates. The speaker on the message has a thick foreign accent and the calls often get made repeatedly.
The calls are apparently anonymous and claim to be made by the Democratic candidate's campaign.
I'd be fascinated to know if the new MRLCC treasurer, known for his history of shady behavior, has anything to do with them.
Update -- If you get one of these calls, don't just ask who is paying for it, ask for the name of the firm actually making the calls. Write it down, email it to me or post it in comments.
Jay already posted on this below, but the real story in 2008 isn't that Jake Eaton just challenged the rights of 6,000 voters, including mine, former Rep. Kevin Furey (being deployed to Iraq at the time), and lots of others -- targeted at young Montanans and Indian Reservations. The real story is that Jake Eaton by all available evidence made false sworn statements to affect the outcome of a federal election.
Inexplicably, cowardly prosecutors refused to take up the case -- generally telling people that they didn't want to look political since the issue was rendered moot by Erik Iverson's repudiation of Eaton's actions and his removal by the Montana GOP.
As should now be clear, when sleeping dogs are left to lie, they come back.
Jake Eaton is now in the place of signing off on the statements of the Montana GOP when attacking other candidates for office. In other words, Montana's most famous liar is entrusted to assure the veracity of political communications. It's disgusting.
In a just world, election fraud of the sort perpetrated by Eaton wouldn't result in termination. It would result in prison time.
This, by the way, is why I didn't vote for Fred Van Valkenburg for prosecutor (without an alternate option, I left the race blank). When he decides to do his job, he'll get my vote again.
The Ravalli Republic has a big story today that should be statewide. Rep. Gary MacLaren, a fairly conservative (but reasonable) Republican from Victor, stepped down as treasurer of the Montana Republican Legislative Campaign Committee, saying
"I didn't agree with the negative ads they were putting out. I was appearing on them as the treasurer and everybody figured I was behind it, which I'm not."
To add insult to injury, I understand the MRLCC also put out a mailer with Rep. MacLaren's name on it encouraging residents of House District 88 to vote for Bob Lake. HD 88 is mostly in Hamilton, just down the road from Victor, but Bob is running for Senate this year. Making a sitting legislator look like a fool and a jerk in his own backyard is never a great strategy.
This is another blow to a Montana Republican Party that has repeated leadership troubles of the years. They're also clearly overly reliant on consultants focused on a national message but who don't quite understand the nuts and bolts of Montana's fairly small town politics.
The Montana Hunters and Anglers PAC is apparently running a new TV ad in the race between Kendall Van Dyk and Roy Brown, using the increasingly infamous clip of Roy Brown talking about his friendly representation of insurance companies:
Along with allies across the country, we've launched My Ballot, Montana's first social sample ballot, where can share with your friends how you're voting and learn how your friends are voting.
Unfortunately, that technology only extends to statewide races currently and I'm already getting questions about local races, so I thought I'd post some interesting races here, how I'm voting, and why:
District Court Judge: Karen Townsend. I've heard good things about both Karen and her opponent Brenda Desmond, but the bulk of this work is criminal law and that's where Karen's backers in the legal world, on both sides of the bar, really sing her praises. Brenda's backers note her intense commitment to justice in family law, which is admirable, but a secondary interest in this race.
County Clerk: Vickie Zeier. In recent years, Vickie and I haven't always seen eye-to-eye. That said, the Missoula elections office is the best in the state and Vickie has always been the most reasonable and accessible clerk when it comes to issues of election law. She has earned re-election.
Sheriff: Brad Giffin. I've been torn on this race for a while. What cinched it for me to back Giffin over Ibsen was a few things. First, Giffin had the stones to mount a (much needed) primary challenge to Sheriff McMeek in 2006. Giffin unfortunately lost that race, but his willingness to mount an organized campaign against McMeekin shows good judgment and cojones. Giffin is also strongly backed by the current deputies, who work with him and with Carl Ibsen, who is mounting a strong independent campaign. I question Ibsen's ability to reform a department that apparently prefers his opponent that strongly. My friends close to this world tell me Giffin's the guy. The evidence weighs in their favor. Decision made.
Justice of the Peace Dept. 1: John E. Odlin. I know virtually nothing about this race except that I've heard no complaints about Odlin and that Reichelt has been highlighting that his law school shares facilities with the University of Chicago, which just seems like a really strange qualification. Not the strongest of endorsements, but I'll vote Odlin.
Justice of the Peace Dept. 2: Beverly J. Smith. Incumbent Karen Orzech is, by reputation, a pretty fierce tough-on-crime type. For the sorts of things that end up in front of JPs generally, that strikes me as unnecessary. Beverly Smith is running explicitly because she thinks JPs don't need to be bullies. She's got my vote.
Happy to hear counter-arguments. Fire away in comments.
Judge Jeffrey Sherlock has thrown out Montana's ban on corporate contributions. There aren't many details yet, other than Sherlock is basically indicating that there was no other way for him to rule under Citizens United, which is too bad.
The Citizens United case is a remarkable example of the right-wing majority on the Supreme Court deciding law rather than settling a case. The independent expenditure in question in Citizens United was mostly financed by individuals (as I understand it, corporate financing would round to 0% of the budget pretty clearly) and didn't even actually specifically advocate against Hillary Clinton's election.
Additionally, Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority that the government's anti-corruption interest did not hold sway.
Let's compare that to the facts on the ground in Montana where three plaintiffs appear. The first two are interesting examples:
Montana Shooting Sports Association. I've been under the impression that MSSA is an individual membership organization, so I don't even think the ban on corporate spending would apply to them..
A local small business in Bozeman. This is a corporation that exists basically for liability purposes. The owner argued simply that he wanted to be able to use his business as a disclaimer in ads instead of his own name because he thought it would carry more weight. I'm not sure that creates a legal right to incorporate and use a random name for political argument whenever one chooses, but whatever.
The real plaintiff of interest here is Western Tradition Partnership, a shadowy organization raising foreign money in order to corrupt the American (and Montanan) political process. Think that sounds far fetched?
That's their explicit strategy. As Debra Bonogofsky, a Republican who was targeted by WTP in a legislative primary in June, highlighted, the Montana state investigator looking into Western Tradition Partnership found that they have been soliciting funds from "officers of several foreign corporations." Toward what end? Their own words can speak for themselves:
"Our success won't depend on which party is in power," the presentation [WTP] said. "Politicians get the message loud and clear when their colleagues get beaten in the ballot box."
Western Tradition Partnership is an anonymously-funded (although apparently foreign-backed) corporation run out of Washington, DC, for the sole purpose of influencing Western elections through smear campaigns.
Fortunately, the Montana Supreme Court has a chance to revisit this decision if Steve Bullock chooses to take this fight upstairs.
Give jhwygirl a read as well as she looks at the fact that the Montana GOP is clearly fissuring on this topic. In fact, as noted elsewhere, the Bozeman Mayor taking such a lead on this topic identifies as (although he's not elected as) a Republican.
There's a third interesting story this week, namely an analysis piece about the difficulties the Tea Party has faced as it has become embroiled in social policy.
Wearing my pundit hat, what is most fascinating watching all of this is how the popular ground has so clearly shifted on equality issues. The GOP is fractured. Media and pundits are wondering how they could be so out of touch. Prominent individuals in their party are chastising the GOP for being out of touch with mainstream views. This is a notable shift. It also makes it far more likely that in this next session, we'll see a unified Democratic caucus on at least some equality legislation and a fractured GOP caucus on the same issues.
Where will we make progress? It may simply be bringing state statutes into line with rulings in Gryczan and Lawrence v. Texas. But I think there's a good chance of something bigger -- including LGBT individuals in the state's anti-discrimination laws or some form of relationship recognition. We may even have some very unlikely suspects lining up to testify.
Watching the twin stories engulfing the once and potentially future President of the Big Sky Tea Party and Jason "is that camera on" Priest. These two events are pretty incredible to watch, in part because I know for a fact that a lot of the pushback from their colleagues is genuine. A whole lot of conservatives are gay or know and like gay people. They just really don't have this inexplicable hatred in their heart.
My sources tell me the Carbon County News is lighting up big time due to Priest's bizarrely homophobic/homoerotic/homoeconomic rant on stimulus.
Meanwhile, Tim Ravndal, whose public statements are as indecipherable as the correct pronunciation of his last name, made the mistake of questioning the accuracy of John S. Adams' reporting. John slaps him back with audio of the interview -- an interview where Ravndal doesn't acquit himself well (which may explain his bizarre decision to claim he never spoke with any reporters).
Regardless, I'm curious to watch the Big Sky Tea Party sort this one out over the next few days. I hope they come down on the side of freedom for all. I also hope the voters of Red Lodge and Columbus make the right decision this fall and keep Jason Priest at home, surrounded by his "insane" neighbors -- seems like an appropriate punishment.
Wow, amazing find from Montana Cowgirl, who Jason Priest engaged in more than a bit of hypocrisy. He campaigns publicly on "less divisive government," but says on Facebook that "when Republicans lie down with Democrats, Americans get fleas." That's not even that bad, though, right?
You're right, it doesn't hold a candle to this Facebook comment:
This kinda makes the YouTube video where he insults his current Red Lodge constituents seem sane by comparison.
Senator Roy Brown has been called out by the national League of Conservation Voters as one of their state office "dirty dozen" -- the organization's highest dishonor.
Why did Roy Brown get called out? He opposed the state's renewable energy standard. He fought for a tax holiday for oil and gas companies, profiting out-of-state corporations while shifting taxes on to Montana homeowners.
Roy's opponent, state Rep. Kendall Van Dyk, will take a notably different approach on this front. Kendall is a lifelong conservationist, a farm kid, a dedicated sportsman, and one of the hardest workers in Montana politics.
A number of folks have emailed me of late asking for advice on where to throw a little spare change in Montana. There are lots of great candidates, but Roy Brown is raising a hell of a lot of money off oil industry interests and his fundraising network from his Governor's race. Kendall needs all the help he can get. Contribute to Kendall today!
The longer story has a bit more fodder, including this interesting piece:
In Swandal's TV ad, which began running last week, he notes that he's been criticized for supporting Republican candidates in the past, but then assures viewers that his political opinions have never influenced his decisions as a judge.
The subject of his political contributions hasn't been widely covered, if at all, in the print or broadcast media. The criticism appeared in some left-leaning political blogs, he said.
Here's the thing. Swandal's campaign team -- Brent Mead and Dustin Frost -- is pretty sharp. They're not responding to this criticism. They're elevating it. This is a deliberate play to run for the court as the right-wing candidate.
That tone plays out throughout the piece. It has also strangely put Beth Baker, endorsed by Marc Racicot, firmly into the role of "Democrat" running for the court. At the end of the day, though, I think Baker's decision to campaign in a less partisan, less ideological manner will play better than Swandal's decision to come out hard for a set of ideas rather than for a concept of justice.
Story in this morning's Missoulian regarding the fact that the county's turnout was the lowest in Montana for the primary. Only 21% of the registered voters in the county cast their ballots.
There's some weird stuff in here, like this:
Obviously, the timing of the primary is not ideal for University of Montana students, many of whom leave for the summer break by June. Only six votes were cast during the primary at the University Center polling place. Yet, Zeier said that while the student absence affects voter turnout, it's not significant.
That would be more believable if the story didn't later note that Missoula generally tends toward lower primary turnout (which indicates this is a common issue, not a one-off deal). Also worth noting -- not all students live on campus, even though this concept tends to be overlooked. Off-campus students are more likely to stick around for the summer, but many still leave to work.
There's another strain here, which I think is largely driven by this figure: Of approximately 16,000 ballots cast, just shy of 14,000 were mail ballots. There's some evidence in other states that the move to vote-by-mail dampens enthusiasm and resulting turnout spikes on Election Day itself. That isn't deeply problematic (although it is worth monitoring). But there is a different problem in Montana, which is that our vote-by-mail system currently doesn't work:
Some voters wondered why ballots were not mailed to their homes, especially if they filled out information to make them a permanent absentee voter.
The previous two elections - the 2009 city election and the May 2010 school election - were both mail-ballot elections, so some people expected to receive a ballot in the mail.
But even the people who opt for permanent absentee ballots must annually fill out a green address-verification form that the elections office mails out every January, and return it to the county in order to continue to receive absentee ballots.
This is interesting. Corey Stapleton is apparently running for Governor in 2012.
That reminded me immediately of this story from back in the day, when Corey Stapleton both cracked a joke about the Montana legislature's "Negro caucus" not objecting to working on Martin Luther King, Jr., day and then implied the day carries the same meaning as Groundhog Day.
The result of that "joke?" Corey lashed out at anonymous me (hint: I'm not actually anonymous) for criticizing him for his racially inappropriate humor.
In other words, Corey Stapleton is a thin-skinned, racially insensitive, Constitution-trampling individual. We'll let you know once the field emerges whether he can count on this site's endorsement.
Update -- I misread that last link. Mr. Stapleton did not call for regulation of speech as far as I can tell. My apologies.
This new political gossip blog is something that is currently missing from the Montana blogosphere. We'll discuss breaking news, rumors, and inside scoops from Montana's capital city, along with serious matters of politics and policy. While liberal in outlook, the site will be critical of Republicans, Democrats, and independents and will be accountable only to you, the readers and commenters.
THANK YOU so much (!) to Matt and Jay for allowing me to join them here, and for making an effort to foster more writing from female bloggers.
I've had great fun writing here and I'm most thankful to you all for your tips, comments, and even for the opportunity to discuss our disagreements. I look forward to continuing our conversations at Montana's new political gossip blog: www.MTcowgirl.com and to hearing from you with your news tips at mntnacowgirl@gmail.com
I promise that what I lack in neat technical know-how, I'll make up for with interesting political information!
Our Congressman's use of his office's resources continues to amaze. In addition to using his taxpayer-funded office to encourage people to vote in an election where he faced two primary opponents, Congressman Rehberg is now using tax dollars to lie to Montanans about the health care bill he opposed.
From his latest email, a survey on how to deal with healthcare costs:
If they had been included in the new law, which provision(s) do you think would have helped reduce health care costs? (Choose as many as you want)
Lawsuit Reform
Allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines
Letting small businesses pool their resources like larger corporations and government
Here's the problem. Under reform, insurance companies can compete across state lines and small businesses (and individuals) will pool their purchasing power.
Under the federal bill, states can sign off on eachothers' regulations and allow policies licensed for sale in, say, Montana to be sold in California, provided California's state government thinks that is kosher. In other words, it allows for increased competition while maintaining states' rights. What Rehberg is really calling for here is for the federal government to gut Montana's ability (and every other state's ability) to regulate insurance at all. The federalists in the tea party should be rightfully outraged at this proposal.
As for pooling purchasing power, small employers will soon purchase through the exchanges, which are basically places for employers and individuals to buy in a competitive marketplace and leverage their collective purchasing power. I'm not really sure what other model the Congressman would support. A number of us already "pool" our policies through programs like Chamber Choices. The exchanges do this on a much larger scale and with far more competition.
So there's reality. It's a far cry from what our Congressman is proposing.
I'd also love for him to be upfront about the fact that he wants to undermine Montana's ability to regulate insurance and to move that authority to the federal level alone. I'm sure that would be popular with his base.
