Liberals Wanted a Fight in Montana. Democratic Leaders Saw a Lost Cause.

[DonViejo]

By JONATHAN MARTIN and ALEXANDER BURNSMAY 26, 2017

BOZEMAN, Mont. — The Democratic defeat in a hard-fought special House election in Montana on Thursday highlighted the practical limitations on liberal opposition to President Trump and exposed a deepening rift between cautious party leaders, who want to pick their shots in battling for control of Congress in 2018, and more militant grass-roots activists who want to fight the Republicans everywhere.

Rob Quist, the Democratic nominee in Montana, staked his campaign on the Republican health care bill, but he still lost by six percentage points, even after his Republican opponent for the state’s lone House seat, Greg Gianforte, was charged with assaulting a reporter on the eve of the election.

The margin in this race was relatively small in a state that Mr. Trump carried by more than 20 percentage points last year. But Mr. Quist’s defeat disappointed grass-roots Democrats who financed nearly his entire campaign while the national party declined to spend heavily on what it considered, from the outset, an all-but-lost cause in daunting political territory.

This tension — between party leaders who will not compete for seats they think they cannot win and an energized base loath to concede any contests to Republicans — risks demoralizing activists who keep getting their hopes up. It also points to a painful reality for Democrats: Despite the boiling fury on the left, the resistance toward Mr. Trump has yet to translate into a major electoral victory.

In part, this is because the few special elections for Congress so far have taken place in red-leaning districts, where the near-daily barrage of new controversies involving Mr. Trump has not damaged him irreparably and where he remains fairly popular.

more
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/us/montana-special-election.html?emc=edit_th_20170527&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=57435284

[Yurovsky]

1. I was just about to post this same link...

and was scanning to make sure it already hadn't been. I know, great minds...

Seriously I have purposely kept a low profile for some time. But this hits the nail on the head. Had the party picked off a couple of these special elections in the heart of Trump-land, the rats would be scurrying off that ship so fast it would have caused a level of panic amongst the "establishment" GOP in DC that, well, the end that is inevitably coming would have been expedited by months, if not years.

For fucks sake, get out your goddamn checkbook at he DNC and support these candidates. You'll have plenty of time to replenish the coffers.

[Zambero]

3. Yes, a +3.5% shift to Quinn would have made the difference

Heavily outspent and it was still a close race in a state where Trump's margin was 21%. The deep pocket Kochs et al would certainly see their money as being well-spent on this race.

[librechik]

2. Montana is one set of teeth away from being Confederate Alabama.

Still not a antebellum as Idaho. We have a lot of work to do.

[KingCharlemagne]

14. LOL. Nice bon mot! - nt

[dalton99a]

23. +1

[Greybnk48]

4. I've identified as a Democrat since 1960

and I've voted Democratic since 1968 when I was 19. Today, I'm really losing my patience with the Democratic Party. The leaders of the DNC are deaf and "supine," to use a newly popular term.

They are non-existent in Wisconsin, just have thrown us to the dogs YEARS ago. WE WANT A FIGHT TOO! And now that's how it is nationally? What the hell?

[emulatorloo]

35. I hear that's a problem w the state party in Wisconsin. Friends in Texas tell me the state party

there is hopeless and incompetent.

I don't think Perez and Ellison are 'supine' but they need to figure out a way to get those folks in State Parties some training, support and get them motivated.

[pnwmom]

57. The problem is money. We don't have an unlimited amount to spend on every race

across the country, so there is a need to target. We could pretend that we have the same chance in every district and divide the money up evenly. Or we could decide which districts are most likely to turn blue and divide the funds accordingly.

[Else You Are Mad]

85. If that is the case

The the party needs to stop spending money on New York, New Jersey, California and every other reliably deep blue state and district right now and heavily fund races in non-safe states. The Republicans/tea party did that in 2010 and now they control all branches of federal government and over half the states.

[pnwmom]

86. Where is your evidence that the GOP spent no money on the red states

and that is how they control the government?

They DID spend money on the red states, and they did it to install GOP governors and legislatures that then gerrymandered the House so that it is disproportionately Republican. And because of Citizens United, and the support of the billionaires, they had a lot more money to spend everywhere than we did.

[Else You Are Mad]

88. What I meant was...

That the GOP poured money into every race and fought tooth and nail in every race and they beat the Democrats into near extinction. This is about the future of our nation, we should be spending money to win back red states. Also, we have billionaires and millionaires on our side. Why spend money on states that will obviously go to the Democrat? The money used on ads in LA or Manhattan would be better spent in Iowa or Montana.

[still_one]

102. The Democrats threw Wisconsin to the dogs? Really? So that is the reason Russ Feingold lost to Ron

Johnson? How about Walker? Not only did he win the recall, but has won re-election multiple times, and then of course then there is Paul Ryan.

Perhaps we can blame Wisconsin's Joe McCarthy on President Obama. Oh wait, President Obama wasn't born yet

[H2O Man]

5. Recommended.

[socialist_n_TN]

6. This is not surprising to me. The Democratic Party is NOT a "fighting" party...........

and really never has been. Which is why it's ridiculous to consider them any sort of "resistance" to Trump. They don't even usually rise to the level of an "opposition" party like under the British system. They are a "compromise" party. Their job is to take the shit sandwich that the bourgeoisie hands down through the Republicans, put a little relish on it in the form of "compromises" and serve it up as a "victory".

[NastyRiffraff]

32. Really?

Why then did Quist turn down a visit from Tom Perez? You can't have it both ways. You can whine about how Democrats should have done more for Quist OR you can admit that by accepting Bernie Sanders' support instead he lost a lot of votes he possibly could have had in a deep red state.

[mcar]

49. +1000 for reality!

[emulatorloo]

79. "Don't confuse us with the facts!"

Some folks have convinced themselves of something on a somewhat less than factual basis. Appreciate your post.

[LBM20]

45. No, Quist was a very weak candidate who sang songs instead of holding rallies and had no experience.

He refused outside help. Perez and Ellison are working hard to reform the party. They deserve some time.

[BzaDem]

89. Could you ever imagine a situation where it would not make sense to fight?

Assuming you could imagine such a hypothetical situation, wouldn't this campaign be a perfect example?

The DNC's purpose isn't making people feel warm and fuzzy inside. It is about maximizing the chances of Democratic victories, with limited resources. A choice to spend money in this election is a choice to not spend money in the 300+ districts that we have a better shot in.

It sounds like they were rightly skeptical of the benefits of investing in this race, but they decided to spend anyway. After realizing that their spending was not moving the needle at all, they declined to continue. Isn't that exactly what we would want them to do?

[bullwinkle428]

7. So much for the 50-state strategy.

Yeah, how could we possibly expect to win this race? The state only has a Democratic governor and Senator.

[wildeyed]

10. Who are nothing like Quist.

Both are experienced politicians. I looked at Tester's bio. He started on school board waaaay back in the day. All politics are local. Both Dems have been working in their communities for most of their adult lives and have a huge amount of personal credibility with their constituents. Enough to overcome the huge partisan bias in the state, even. Quist has none of that.

[Demsrule86]

17. Both are centrist...Quist was the wrong guy. It is a shame really.

[LBM20]

43. Quist REFUSED outside help and was a weak candidate with no political experience. Nice guy but no

credentials. Weak speaker and weak debater. Still it was a good vote shift from 23% for Trump and relatively good showing all things considered.

So he was way outspent and many early votes were cast before started turning toward and well before the scandal on the eve

of the election.

[Demsrule86]

110. There were other candidates with more experience and who would have had a better chance.

Quist was the worst of the lot. Here are a few words from the last person besides Quist left standing. You can't fix stupid.

"They had to vote four times before one of the eight candidates won a majority. Ultimately, delegates had to choose between Quist and State Representative Amanda Curtis of Butte. Curtis addressed the electabilty issue in her speech to delegates.

“Many in this room have said that the one thing weighing on your mind," Curtis said, "even though I am the most qualified person here, I’ve proven I can raise money, you really like me as a person and as politician, and you really think I’d make a great congressperson, but, can a woman really win right now?"...Within minutes of his nomination, Republicans, including the National Republican Congressional Committee, issued press releases saying Quist is too liberal for Montana, pointing to his support for registering guns and for Bernie Sanders."

Montana selected someone way to liberal for a state that only moderates win in and for a seat not held by the Democrats 'in two decades'. This is not the Democratic Party's fault. Montana could have been ours had the local Party picked a better candidate.

http://mtpr.org/post/montana-democrats-pick-rob-quist-run-congressional-seat

[wildeyed]

8. But a Democrat beat Gianforte recently for Governor.

They have a 2-term Dem Senator too. Quist was straight-up not a great candidate. He is inexperienced, avoided the press, and played music instead of doing stump speeches. The fact that he gave the GOP such a fight was amazing. I am very disappointed by the outcome too. Bu if I'm mad at the Dem Party for anything, it's for failing to recruit a better candidate in a race we could have won.

[KPN]

9. The same kind of thinking that led to the 40,001 vote shortfall in MI, WI and PA.

If the Democratic Party doesn't wake up and realize it can't just depend on urban/suburban areas, it stands little chance of accomplishing a lasting socially and economically progressive agenda.

[Nevernose]

11. Reminds me a lot of 2000. You can check my DU posts

From 2001.

I called, I emailed. I was an extremely poor single parent. I literally couldn't have afforded as much as a five dollar donation. But I could volunteer.

Turns out they neither wanted nor needed volunteers, they had enough thank you very much, but could really use even a small donation.

Lately it feels the same way.

[Paladin]

12. Most of the votes were sent in by mail, PRIOR to the assault.

And PRIOR to the state's newspapers' withdrawal of their Gianforte endorsements. Those factors aren't guarantees that Quist would have won---but it would have been a closer race, for sure.

That being said, the national leaders of the Democratic Party better get off their asses and get effective in a big damn hurry. trump is handing 2018 and 2020 to us, if we just take advantage of things. If we don't and the trump forces prevail, the resulting civil war will be blamed on the ineptitude of what once was a powerful political force.

[Demsrule86]

16. How about contacting all those organizations founded for the express purpose

of primarying Democrats by those still bitter about 2016. If we lose it will be because of these folks...not the much maligned DNC.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/joe-manchin-bernie-sanders-primary-challenge-west-virginia-senate-2018/525918/

[Paladin]

38. Agreed. (nt)

[QC]

13. As Homer Simpson said, "Trying is the first step toward failing."

I always kinda liked Homer but I didn't know he was a high party official.

[StevieM]

24. I remember Homer's line to Bart and Lisa about trying and failing.

"You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is never try.”

[QC]

26. Yep. Turns out he was a political strategist.

Who ever knew?

[Demsrule86]

15. Total more wrong headed blame for the DCCC...Quist was a bad candidate for the district.

A moderate candidate should have run...the governor is a Democrat who beat the asshat thug who just won in November. The DCCC and the DNC should drop the unity bullshit and get to work choosing appropriate candidates for 2018...any dollars for this guy was wasted...the fact it was even close was surprising and makes me think with the right centrist candidate, we can win in 18...could we please finally admit you can't run progressive candidates in solidly red states except in Dem districts?

[R B Garr]

21. +1, and maybe they didn't want to step on Bernie's toes. Plus, apparently Quist was ruminating

about the benefits of a 90% tax rate in a debate or forum. That is really an irresponsible thing to do in a state like Montana. Why make yourself more of a target for misguided attacks. Some candidate's comments are just not supportable.

[Demsrule86]

34. To me the fact it was close after a lackluster debate and some misstatements is a miracle.

And give me hope for 18...after all a moderate Democrat beat this asshat for governor.

[uponit7771]

37. +1, and the KGOP outspending us 16 to 1

[Demsrule86]

58. They have lots of dark money. I don't know if people realize this but we did stop taking

corporate donations which in the age of United was insane. Sure if you are a big name candidate in a presidential year, you do OK, but midterms and house races and state races were badly effected and look at the results...widespread losses...this has been rolled back and I hope we have enough money to take on the GOP in 17,18 and 20. We all need to donate too..to the DNC/DCCC especially for state races.

[LBM20]

46. General unity just means everyone coming together under one big tent at the end of the day. Now, at

the same time, of course Quist was a weak candidate and there should have been a better candidate for the district. Did anyone else bother to run? Can we blame the party for not recruiting someone? Maybe they tried. From what I understand the national party tried to directly help Quist and he refused it. If they could have given more money that may have been good. On the bright side there was a significant vote shift compared to Trump's win in November and it was a fairly good showing considering Quist was such a flawed candidate.

In 2018 they do need to get a better candidate in there. Get a moderate economic populist military veteran or an active rancher who also at least has some city council experience or someone like that. Quist had no experience and was too liberal for the district on some issues.

[JCanete]

73. This line that we need moderates to run as Repub light needs to be explained to me. More contrast,

not less, when the principles are on our side, seems like the better way to go. We have to continue to push liberal ideas, not subsume them, if we want them to take hold in these states.

[Demsrule86]

74. It is a deep red state...much as we want progressive's everywhere it won't happen right now.

And in order to win and get anything important done...we need to run moderates in red states.

[JCanete]

83. but I have no idea how it happens if we just continue to push moderates who are funded by

big corporations, in those states. I think it does damage to our brand personally, and it certainly arrests our progressive message. We wouldn't want to demand something more progressive than the candidates we're trying to elect or reelect because that would make them look bad. I'm not sure an occasional vote in our favor is worth that.

[Demsrule86]

95. Our brand is not damage by our funding;it is damaged by those who claim to be with us yet engage

in endless attacks. No one will support a party that is attacked in this way...they want GOP rule forever.. than keep it up. With United, we have for fund our campaigns ...if we win , we can deal with campaign finance reform...but we have to win which takes money.

[JCanete]

105. Our brand is damaged when the product we release is damaged. In those rare moments when we are in

charge, we should get the best possible thing we can get for the american people, not be hamstrung by the likes of the Manchins and the Lieberman's of our party. That DOES hurt us. If we hadn't had lousy people in our own party, we could have gotten a public option, or price caps and Obamacare would have been near unassailable, the way Social Security was. Instead, we're in danger of losing it.

[Demsrule86]

107. Our product is not damaged...voters who claim to be progressive and did not vote for

Hillary Clinton are not progressive period...and we will never be in charge without the Manchins and Liebermans.... reality bites sometimes.

[JCanete]

113. well shit, if that really is the case, then why are we fighting at all, because we will never really

be in charge. That's a very low bar to fight for, and one that in my opinion, will make us less popular, not more, popular with the American people, and will give our shitty media the easiest time in their mission to prop of the GOP via false equivalences.

We could have jettisoned Lieberman and had Lamont. We did in fact. Our own team tried to stop that from happening. No, we don't need the Liebermans.

[Demsrule86]

115. That is reality...and even with blue dogs we get more done when we are in charge.

[R B Garr]

91. It is truly stunning the pushback you are getting just for dealing in reality,

especially with this subthread here. The response that votes are not worth it if Democrats raise money from "corporations" is just downright suspicious. Who would hobble Democrats like that. Like it or not, it takes money for campaigns, and if only Republicans deal with that reality, then it puts Democrats at a permanent disadvantage. It's a very suspicious position to want to insist that Democrats stay disadvantaged.

[Demsrule86]

94. I think so too.

[flamin lib]

18. This is what educators call the "self fulfilling prophecy".

When a student is passed into the next grade his/her progress will be determined by the previous teacher's comments NOT BY ACTUAL PERFORMANCE!

An 'A' student described as struggling will usually receive one grade point lower scores than previously. Conversely a mediocre student described as gifted will get a one grade point boost from the new teacher. EXPECTATIONS ARE AS IMPORTRANT AS PERFORMANCE.

It's about God damnd time the national party starts seeing EVERY RACE AS WINNABLE AND EVERY CANDIDATE AS SUPERIOR TO THE REPUBLICAN OPPONENT.

I give my money directly to candidates, not filtered through a national party that does not behave as if a Democrat can win in a red state. I live in Texas, I geo NO help from the DNC, DNSCC OR THE DCCC. Fuck them and the horse they rode in on.

[Demsrule86]

36. Replace 'national party' with voters and you have something.

Quist called for a 90% + tax in red Montana...had we run a centrist, we would have won in my opinion...but until voters everywhere vote for the candidate with the "D" next to his name, we will continue to lose and the DNC can not do anything about it.

[PufPuf23]

19. If the party leaders won't support the grassroots base, it is time for them to go. Shameful.

The only way to build a broad base and win local elections is to start at the grassroots and make all elections competitive.

We have been being told this now by Democratic party leadership for over 20 years.

[LBM20]

47. Quist REFUSED outside help and was a weak candidate with no political experience.

[ATL Ebony]

53. Was just about to post the same comment.

I remember clearly the Quist clearly refusing DNC help and wanted to do things their way. Not sure how now, after the loss people are blaming the DNC. When he first started campaigning I questioned his platform and wondered if he was going to be strong enough. It turns out he was weak and not to criticize the guitar but hey it was an important political campaign not a concert. I don't know if it hurt or helped his image and message. It didn't impress me but he was a "D" so I supported him anyway.

I agree with those posters that a stronger candidate would have yielded significantly different results.

[JCanete]

114. I've read that he refuse perez's May offer of coming out and stumping for him.

Did he refuse actual money from the DNC? I've only seen articles saying the DNC had decided not to put money into the race. Those are two very different things.

[Demsrule86]

65. Montana ruined it for themselves by choosing a candidate who could never win.

Why should the DCCC throw away good money in a futile attempt to elect a person who was never getting elected in a red state...the fact there is a two term moderate governor and Senator shows clearly that moderate Dems can win. But Quist was a bad candidate for the area. The idea that you 'build the base' by running candidates that are inappropriate for a district or state is a pernicious one and leads to lost opportunities...I see an election that could have been won with the right candidate...in 2018 we have another chance...lets make the best of it. You have to accept the fact that progressive's can not win in red states generally (always exceptions but Quist wasn't one) and building the base mean choosing the right candidate for a given district or state.

[PufPuf23]

84. That is a bullshit excuse, the same excuse that will be cited all over the USA in 2018.

If there is not a potentially strong local candidate, the national party should be working with the grassroots starting from a lost election so there is a strong candidate with name recognition, financial backing, and a strong relationship with he Democratic party by the time of the next election.

This does not happen. There is no reason to expect this pattern to happen without a change in method and personality by the Democratic party. One change is for the DCCC and DNC to listen and support the grassroots unique to specific elections and also paying more than lip service at the national level.

What has occurred has worked so well losing Congress and Governors and Statehouses, top to bottom.

Your excuse is bullshit and as long as you and so many others believe that bullshit the Democratic party will continue to lose elections and have minority status in most political bodies.

I agree that the "right" candidates need to be found plus developed and supported over a duration. Candidates unique and able to win in a given district or state requires a wider reach of the Democratic party and more than lip service. Things are not going to get better for the Democratic party until there is an honest assessment of what needs to be done.

[Demsrule86]

96. Quist campaigned for a 99% tax in a red state... he was a bad candidate.

We need money and good candidates...but the DNC doesn't have a great deal of money and will have to pick and choose until funds improve.

[PufPuf23]

101. There was a bad candidate because the DNC did not plan ahead to identify and support a "good"

candidate that is also popular with the local Democratic party.

Where your argument fails is that it is the same tired excuse served up for the last several decades.

[Demsrule86]

109. You do know that he is replacing a guy who joined Trump right?

Quist was chosen by State Democrats and the DNC had nothing to do with it. Any of the other candidate would have been better but Quist had been barnstorming Montana with a Bernie Sanders message...why they thought such a message would work in red Montana, I have no idea. A better question for you is why you ignore what really happened (Google is easy) and run to blame the DNC. and worse you may make others believe it something that is not true. The relentless attacks against the Democratic Party can only lead to more Republican wins in 18 and beyond. Link below.

"When the May 25 election was announced by the governor last week, Montana’s political parties started scrambling to select a candidate and organize campaign efforts.

More than a hundred and fifty democratic party members gathered in Helena yesterday to vote on who should represent the party in the sprint race.

Their choices included two state legislators, lawyers, and political newcomers, who, like Quist, who had never campaigned for public office before."

http://mtpr.org/post/montana-democrats-pick-rob-quist-run-congressional-seat

[PufPuf23]

112. You are not listening. Quist is not the issue but a symptom of the

failure of the DNC.

The DNC should have been prepared and had something to do with it rather than blame Montana Democrats.

The DNC failed to be prepared to influence the selection of a candidate and then failed to support the candidate that was picked.

Pointing out that the DNC is a big bucket of fail (the recent election in Montana is an example) is an is not a relentless attack on the Democratic party but pointing out the obvious that needs to be accepted and remedied.

Who did the DNC support? Why had the DNC not been working with the Montana Democratic party to have qualified candidates for local elections? Who would the DNC supported other than Quist? The DNC failed to be prepared and had everything to do with it and it is not just Montana.

[Demsrule86]

116. Quist is the issue and nominating him which Montana Democrats

did over better qualified candidates who might have won is the problem. They did it to themselves. Now why should Democrats give money to a guy that was always behind and never going to win. Quist and the Montana Democrats are a" big bucket of fail" as you call it...and why did they nominate this guy...because he was a Bernie style Democrat and they bought the notion that Sen. Sanders policies are popular in red states, and he can unite the vote-such a lovely notion but completely false...it won't happen as Nebraska and Montana clearly show...the Democratic Party can not make every Democrat win...and that is a fact. The issue is Quist...and I only hope this will put the notion of running Bernie style Democrats in red areas to rest. And stop attacking the Democratic Party. It helps no one but the Republicans. Quist ran a better race than I expected although he made gaffs and had baggage not easily dealt with. A better candidate could win in 18. But even good candidates will not win every race and it is nobody's fault this happens. It is called politics.

[PufPuf23]

117. I am the Democratic party. I have voted faithfully Democratic

since 1971 and would pass any "purity" test far better and more consistent than most of the current party leadership.

Some folks should quit attacking the base and making excuse for their own failures.

How can I be attacking the party when I do nothing more than point out a strategy of failure? That is politics. That helps the GOP.

There were probably better candidates than Quist but even so he ran a close race without other than local Democratic party support.

I am not in Montana but the excuse is getting old because it has been repeated in one form or another for years now and all over the geography.

Some folks are really consistent in never admitting failure.

[Demsrule86]

118. Calling a party a 'failure' over and over does not encourage new voters to join.

It is in the end self defeating...I am not talking about purity...the state party made a bad choice in candidates , it happens and has nothing to do with the DNC...you call it an 'excuse'. It is not an excuse but a reality...it is hard to elect Democrats in red states. That particular seat had not been won in over two decades...so if you want to the blame Democratic Party, I just don't agree with you. I think many believe that if we only got our message out, we would win.; people really agree with our progressive values. I see little evidence of this. Folks in red states simply don't believe as we do and it takes a moderate candidate to win and a carefully crafted message to win. Now the the GOP is a disaster in terms of governing so over time that should help...but blaming the party does not help.

[LWolf]

20. I say fight for every seat.

That's how we'll begin to win some.

[Demsrule86]

97. Right...100's of seats...now how much do you contribute?

[bluecollar2]

22. Which is why I donate directly to the candidate

I gave up on the National party after Pelosi took impeachment iff the table.

[Demsrule86]

66. Well that is find but then you can't complain when they don't have the cash to spend

on any but the most certain candidate.

[bluecollar2]

72. there are other ways to fight that don't require cash

[Demsrule86]

75. Yeah right... sorry I have no idea what to say about that...you can't win without money.

And how exactly is the DNC supposed to help in ways that don't require money.

[bluecollar2]

90. simple...give Maxine Waters a microphone...n/t

[Madam45for2923]

25. We are DEMs. I really hope that all the comments above are from people that wish us well.

Because I get the feeling many that don't wish us well are quick to try to discredit/poohpooh DEMS any way they can.

Many foes come as "friends" with an agenda to sabotage MY PARTY.

I am DEM.

Proud of my party.

The DEM party is what I DO.

The DEM party is not outside of me.

So if you come here and talk about the DEM party in the 3rd person, I wonder, why do you bother coming here, FRIEND!?

[mhw]

81. Wasn't discrediting the Dem Party, dividing it, weakening it the whole point of 2016?

The concerted effort to divide the only "people's Party" that ever had the strength to take on the corporate, banking, money Party, has been the ongoing mission since the beginning of this nation.

Divide & Conquer, & now we have Trump & the Money Party.

Thanks for falling for it folks. You all made it so easy for them.

[JCanete]

92. I talk about the Dems in both the first and third person, though I tend to try to talk about our

party in the first person, sometimes, on certain issues or strategies/approaches to politics, I feel a separation and sometimes that's reflected in my language. I can't speak for others, but it's not a hard thing for me to fathom this occurring, even when people are, like me, longtime Dems who have never cast a vote for a person in any other party.

[hrmjustin]

27. What this shows is that picking the most progressive candidate is not a winning strategy in red

states and swing districts.

[killbotfactory]

29. They didn't even try to run a centrist in this district. It was considered a lost cause.

We can't view every election as a short term investment. Why would red state people vote for democrats if we don't even attempt to build a party presence there?

[hrmjustin]

30. Montana has a Democratic Governor and Senator so they have a party presence.

The Montana Democratic party clearly made a mistake in their choice.

[wildeyed]

41. Recruiting good candidates is difficult.

There are not an unlimited supply out there. I read up a little on Tester and the Dem Governor. They are both exceptionally good campaigners with deep roots in local politics. They win despite a huge partisan disadvantage because their constituents trust them. Candidates like that are decades in the making. They don't grow on trees.

On the plus side, with more enthusiasm on the Dem side, it will be easier to recruit good candidates in the future.

[Demsrule86]

98. That is not true...a centrist Democrat won the governorship in 2016 and they

have a Democratic Senator. For whatever reason, party leaders chose Quist. However, they have not elected a democrat in 22 years and he was way to liberal for the area...there was a state convention with two other candidates.

[killbotfactory]

103. They ran a centrist in a 6 months ago and lost by 20 points, so...

I'm not sure "too liberal" is the explanation for the loss, as much as centrists want that to be true. I'm not even sure what a centrist is anymore. They certainly don't exist on the republican side. After trump, I'm not sure anybody actually gives a shit about policy. People in general, well republicans mostly, just like confident bullshitters.

Too inexperienced? Didn't campaign long enough against someone who was already a known quantity? Way outspent by rich republican donors? Didn't those also influence the race? It was an uphill battle to begin with.

[Demsrule86]

108. The centrist was running against a popular incumbent and it was pre-Trump.

The centrist governor won. And Quist had no shot. There were three candidates...either one would have had a better chance than Quist.

[wildeyed]

40. There is ample evidence in Montana and many 'red' states that this is true.

This is not the fault of the DCCC.

[SaschaHM]

31. My bone to pick isn't w/ the DCCC for not spending heaps on Quist..

It's for not recruiting a better candidate to begin w/. I also find it hilarious how folks eschew big money to the point that a certain delegate tried to add a $1000 donation limit to the platform, but are shocked w/ they make strategic choices w/ their funds. Hell, even here on DU folks advocate not giving to the DNC/DCCC one week and then complain the next when funds can't be found for long-shot candidates.

And before someone says "well XYZ did it through grassroot donors in 2016", remember that the DNC tried to get "XYZ's email list" to solicit donations for races, but were denied.

That being said, Gianforte will be a damaged candidate in 2018. It's time for the DCCC to start headhunting potential popular candidates to run against him.

[Demsrule86]

67. The DCCC is not up and running with fallout from 16...and all this unity angst is getting in the

way of electing Democrats which starts with choosing good candidates. Time to leave 16 behind. I think many here truly believe the star power of Sen. Sanders (which he has undoubtedly) can get progressives elected in red states, but recent evens in Kansas and Montana show this is not the case. God, I wish it was true. Also, we need to stop endorsing candidates in primaries...endorsing Perriello was a bad mistake in Virginia and could lead to a GOP win in the general. Now is the time to stick together and fight Trump not each other.

[Foamfollower]

33. As opinion pieces go, this one is a complete crock of shit.

Last edited Sat May 27, 2017, 01:27 PM - Edit history (1)

[NurseJackie]

39. I completely agree.

[Demsrule86]

68. I agree with that the DCCC was asked to stay away and he had rallies with Sen. Sanders

which I never understood how that helped in a red state.

[LAS14]

42. I don't think "picking their fights" is how the Tea Party gained ascendancy!!! nt

[SaschaHM]

44. The Tea Party was bankrolled by Billionaires like the Koch brothers.

You don't have to "pick your fights" when your source of funds in pretty much unlimited.

[LAS14]

50. I keep reading stories about money pouring in to various....

.... organizations. Is there some way the official Democratic party organizations could take more of a role in coordinating/helping to coordinate such giving?

Personally I'm a fan of the idea behind ItStarts.Today, where all donations are divided equally among all Dem candidates. I'm not recommending that for the DNC/DCCC, but I do donate myself. I don't know how they're doing. Haven't heard much since the initial launch.

[Demsrule86]

69. No there isn't and that is why I give to the DCCC and Democratic

organizations. You want to win support the party.

[karynnj]

48. Questions for Montanans,

The NYT makes this story about the national/state party not adequately backing a candidate, while activists across the country did. They suggest that the Democratic party considered the race unwinnable. Yet, the opponent was a man, who lost to the governor running in an election year where Trump won by 20 points! Given that Gianforte lost then, were they simply unhappy that Quist won the nomination? If so, were they unable to find someone better to run given the short time between when the election was called and happened? It seems that making the story the PARTY vs the ACTIVISTS might be missing the local dynamics.

The NYT refers to the Trump/Clinton race in 2016, ignoring the re-election of the Democratic Governor by 4 points over Gianforte. Ignoring this and ignoring that Montana has a Democratic Senator, is that it is NOT as red as, say, neighboring Idaho. The difference in the two races shows a strong willingness to consider the candidate, not the party. Was the Governor really well liked or did Gianforte have real negatives as a Republican nominee (ie was his behavior this week not unexpected.) ? Was Trump's popularity based on being an outsider or was Clinton really defined so negatively that he won people who were willing to vote for a Democratic governor?

I have seen some articles that likely are based on the opposition research that the NYT alludes to - which suggests that Quist has had multiple financial problems over more than a decade. The question I have is would a candidate who was a clone of either the Governor, Senator Tester, or former Senator Baucus done better?

I get that the Republicans spent something like 10 times as much money and that the national and state party was not too supportive of Quist. It seems weird when there is a Democratic Governor and a Senator, that they would rule out a statewide race. Did they have problems with the candidate?

[LAS14]

51. There shouldn't be anything like a "lost cause." All inroads...

.... are good inroads. It's one thing to budget limited funds where they will be the most effective, but another to simply ignore a fight. It sounds like a compromise could be reached with a shift in PR emphasis.

[Demsrule86]

70. It was a lost cause...did you watch the debates? Did you know this candidate called for 99%

taxation in red state Montana? The fact that it was so close gives me hope that we can win in 18 with a better candidate...but all those who refuse to contribute to the Democratic Party are making it more likely that only candidates who can win will be backed because there won't be money for any other course of action. We may miss an opportunity of a lifetime to take back the house and stop Trump cold. Many races are under the radar;they don't get many individual donations especially during midterms and depend on DNC money. This is how we lost the states in 10. We kicked out corporate giving and literally ceded the states to the GOP by not funding important state elections, and they promptly gerrymandered the house. At the same time, many of use withheld money to punish the Democrats over single payer and other issues in 10. The result was a terrible loss in all branches of government by 16...we literally snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory.

[Binkie The Clown]

52. "The man who is afraid to lose, has already lost." --Syrio Forel (From Game of Thrones, the book) nt

[Tatiana]

54. We have to take risks sometimes. This is a good sign.

Instead of just conceding R-controlled districts, we have to run people and be competitive. Even if we don't have the perfect candidate, we should still run a D. This will help develop, grow, and motivate the base for subsequent elections, including local contests and other statewide races.

We have to compete for ALL the seats. We need to build the small donor base to do so, instead of relying on Wall Street fat cats.

[FlightRN]

55. Great Commentary on this thread

K & R

[Adrahil]

56. We had almost no chance of taking thst seat....

... that 's just reality.

[Motownman78]

60. But a Dem won the Governor by 4 points

last November.

[Adrahil]

64. With a much better candidate.... NT

[nini]

77. Lots of states have Dem governors

AND extremely red districts within those states.

[Motownman78]

80. The district for Montana is the whole state

With a more centrist candidate who had experience we could have won. Despite what people here say, we need to reach out more to rural voters and play to their issues. 60% of people are apolitical. They can be reached if our message is delivered in the right way.

[nini]

93. thanks

I stand corrected.

[Hamlette]

59. I'm a liberal and I'd tell the party not to waste money in Utah.

I agree with the 50 state philosophy but some causes are lost from the start. Montana is a great example. You can beat up a reported on TV (practically) and still win. Find some vaguely purple areas and work there.

[Steven Maurer]

61. The Republican literally committed assault...

...and still won anyway.

I'm not exactly sure how one could find fault with the national party's take on the situation, to be frank.

[davsand]

63. The Republican polled higher during the entire race.

There were something like 70% of the votes cast early--meaning before the assault happened. Montana is a same day registration state and there was some hope that election day might turn out enough votes to offset that early voting. It didn't happen.

I will say, that the total money spent in that election was an obscenely high amount by the Republican and maybe half as much by the Dem. That I do find concerning, because we know advertising--the right kind of it anyway--can make a huge difference in the outcome of a race. I have seen it happen, however, that candidates that take money from the DCCC and other outside PACS don't get to control the advertising, and it ends up hurting them. An example of that is something like choice or gun issues. A candidate might be in an area that historically leans GOP but be making real inroads there and then a big advertising blitz comes in from outside the district that is WAY outside the comfort level of those voters. Not gonna say it always happens, but I have seen it happen several times over the years. I've heard but never confirmed that the Dem in this race was not receptive to outside help, so that may have played a role in the money, I don't honestly know.

I think it is very telling that this race finished off with a much smaller margin than the one tRump had against Hillary. I do think there is some buyer's remorse going on, but maybe not quite as strong in the areas where these special elections are being held. Think about this, if it is a special election it is usually due to somebody getting a job with the new administration. The ones that are leaving those open seats were probably pretty hard core GOP guys just to getting "promoted". These are not districts that are good Dem turf, and the numbers are looking much better than they have been in the past.

Laura

[mvd]

62. I agree that we should fight everywhere. I loved the 50 state strategy

In this case, Quist was resisting party support for a while because he wanted to be seen as independent. Maybe the party wouldn't have sent enough anyway, but it got him a late start. Unfortunately money still influences elections. The only thing I agree with Quist naysayers on is maybe he could have run locally first to get some experience. But the lack of candidates shows how this race was perceived. We haven't won that seat since 1997. Just because they have a Democratic governor doesn't mean that a race won't be a nearly impossible pickup. The platform was great and Quist came within single digits. I give him credit for making progress! Deplorables wouldn't have changed for someone more "moderate." Every Democrat is too liberal for them.

[Nevernose]

71. If you dare to struggle, you dare to win

"If you dare to struggle, you dare to win. If you dare not struggle, then damn it, you don't deserve to win."

-- Fred Hampton

[nini]

76. If they guy hadn't assaulted the reporter very few would even be aware of this election

It was close because Gianforte did what he did. IF there hadn't been early voting Quist may have won after that attack but how would the Dem leaders know this months ago????

But lets get real - this is a very red area of Montana and without the incident was pretty much a wash. Now if the incident hadn't happened and Quist was close there'd be a point. But the facts don't support the hand wringing in this case.

It's must more divide and conquer crap.

[Beartracks]

82. "new controversies involving Mr. Trump [have] not damaged him"...

... 'cuz they don't break through the bubble. If FOX says it ain't true (or doesn't mention it at all), then it ain't true for these people.

===============

[Awsi Dooger]

87. Activists are inept handicappers

That's the basic problem, now and going forward. The 50 state strategy is great as long as electing Democrats in the cause. The problem with activists is that they won't accept that alone. They prefer to dictate the nominee, and when activists dictate the nominee we end up with liberals who really should receive a spot, like a handicap in golf, a stagger in a track race or weight in a handicap horse race.

With a liberal in Montana the bar should really be 43%.

Hey, we won, didn't we! The handicap was just enough.

Activists richly deserve to be mocked, at least the ones on this side. I hate to keep mentioning it but it has played out exactly as I warned Chris Bowers on MyDD more than a decade ago. He was the first prominent online activist who was determined to cleanse the party by dictating nominees and getting rid of weak moderates. I posted repeatedly that it was fine as long as we evaluated each state/district/race on its own accord, as opposed to force feeding lefties in every spot. Bowers actually sent me an internal message basically telling me to shut up, that I was causing too many problems on the site. I responded that if my warnings weren't heeded, we were destined to become a minority party at every level, one that could hold the House only when an extremely unpopular Republican was in the White House.

Right wing activists are allowed to be morons. To be vile. To be liars. To applaud grabbers and body slammers. That's the residue when you own a 3/2 ideological advantage across the country, and that advantage swells to 2/1 in so many rural states and districts. As in 35% conservatives to 25% liberals nationwide, and 40-20 or thereabouts in rural states without many major cities. Unbelievable mathematical edge. So much margin for error. That allows the right to hunt for brutally unqualified hacks and actually get them elected in some cases.

[Kentonio]

106. In November it was a 16 point margin. Now with a 'liberal' candidate it was 6%.

Not sure how liberals are the ones to blame here (yet again).

[Expecting Rain]

99. Democrats need to stop running left-wing populists

If we hope to win elections.

[NCTraveler]

100. I can't even bring myself to read an article with such a shady headline.

[BainsBane]

104. We have to try

It's one thing to prioritize resources in an election cycle with lots of candidates around the country and another to decide a special election is a lost cause. Certainly odds of picking up such seats are slim, but if we don't try, we will never win.

[uponit7771]

111. +1, if we were awash in resources they wouldn't hold back on competing​ everywhere