Wow, did you read the post James Conner put up today?
I’m not sure if the guy took one too many outdoors photos or got too many old-time songs in him, but damn, he’s putting himself out there today!
What I’m talking about is the post called What happens if Jon Tester doesn’t run for re-election in 2018?
Well, with a headline like that, how can you not click?
I did and I was blown away by some of the speculation in this post.
Here are some highlights:
Well, that’s about it. You can read the full post and I encourage you to do so.
I’m not sure if the guy took one too many outdoors photos or got too many old-time songs in him, but damn, he’s putting himself out there today!
What I’m talking about is the post called What happens if Jon Tester doesn’t run for re-election in 2018?
Well, with a headline like that, how can you not click?
I did and I was blown away by some of the speculation in this post.
Here are some highlights:
- Questions about Tester running or not running “are quietly being discussed in some Democratic circles these days.”
- “Private polls show Tester losing badly to Rep. Ryan Zinke.”
- If Tester did not run in 2018 then “Democrats best positioned to replace him” would be Bullock or Jesse Laslovich.
- Conner feels “Bullock has a better shot against Daines than against Zinke,” meaning Bullock would do better to wait for a U.S. Senate run in 2020.
- Conner thinks Zinke in 2018 “would beat both Bullock and Laslovich.”
- Angela McLean would become governor if Bullock became a Senator in 2018, perhaps due to Tester’s retiring early.
- Still, Conner says he’s “beginning to hear talk that there may be a move afoot to replace her” on the 2016 Bullock gubernatorial ticket.
- Conner speculates on this because “something is making some people around McLean uneasy.”
- One reason for this uneasiness could be the “recent changes in Bullock’s office.”
- Conner things taking McLean off the ticket would be a mistake.
Well, that’s about it. You can read the full post and I encourage you to do so.
Now let’s speculate some more.
I’ve mentioned Bullock’s 2020 U.S. Senate run before.
I’ve also wondered about Tester’s ability to hang-on for another election cycle, back when we compared Tester to Montana’s Senator Murray.
That’s all great…but who cares?
I’ll tell ya – you won’t hear anything about this Flathead Memo post, no major Democrats will talk about it, and it will be swept under the rug and people will do their darndest to forget about it.
Why?
Because it creates cracks, sows doubt, and gets people thinking.
Are the current leaders right for us?
That’s what we’re getting at here, and that’s the thought a majority of people in Montana are probably having. That makes Tester uneasy and for that reason he could be thinking of hanging it up.
I bet he’s pissed at Washington, pissed at how silly and ineffective it is. No one listens to him talk, no one cares what he says.
He knows the Senate has no power anymore, like we mentioned with the UN Security Council deciding the Iran Deal months before Congress had to. On top of it we get social media posts like this:
June, 2015 – Senate passes long term highway bill.
<4 months later >
Nov, 2015 – House starts voting on long term highway bill. #mtpol
— Senator Jon Tester (@SenatorTester) November 5, 2015
So he’s frustrated. And maybe he’s done enough.
How long do you have to serve, anyways? Nothing says you have to stay until you die.
How long do you have to serve, anyways? Nothing says you have to stay until you die.
Is Jon Tester Good for Montana?
Back in May I started putting a post about Senator Jon Tester together.
He gets a lot of flak at times, and from members of both political parties.
So the question is…is Jon Tester good for Montana?
It’s hard to answer this question, and to do that it’s best that we look at his record and some of the things he’s ‘accomplished.’
It’s clear that if you want a cold, calculating machine serving you in Washington, Senator Tester isn’t the man for the job. If you want a human being that cares, he’s ready to help.
He’s ready, but is he able? Again, Washington is broken. I’m sure he’s damn frustrated by that.
He gets a lot of flak at times, and from members of both political parties.
So the question is…is Jon Tester good for Montana?
It’s hard to answer this question, and to do that it’s best that we look at his record and some of the things he’s ‘accomplished.’
- On May 12, 2015, Senator Tester sent a letter to the head of the FCC, saying in effect ‘speed up the damn internet, will ya!’
- On May 12, 2015, Senator Tester introduced the Parental Bereavement Act into the Senate. This is a companion bill to the Sarah Grace Act of 2015, a House bill that lets parents take off work after a child dies.
- On May 13, 2015, Senator Tester made it easier for 1,500 people to get jobs with the VA as medical health specialists for veterans.
- On May 20, 2015, Senator Tester opposed cost increases for local radio stations, though this also could hurt artists who rely on royalties…like me.
- On May 21, 2015, Senator Tester got damn pissed when the Senate Appropriations Committee blocked his attempt to get veterans the support they need.
- On May 28, 2015, Senator Tester grilled the US Postal Service over delays in rural delivery.
- On June 17, 2015, Senator Tester got $65 million in funding to Montana Community Development Corporation to help startup businesses in Montana.
- On Jun 26, 2015, Senator Tester saw a skate park built in Browning, as well as protections for the Badger-Two Medicine Area.
- On June 29, Senator Tester announced that he’d be proposing legislation to make Montana’s PILT funding permanent.
It’s clear that if you want a cold, calculating machine serving you in Washington, Senator Tester isn’t the man for the job. If you want a human being that cares, he’s ready to help.
He’s ready, but is he able? Again, Washington is broken. I’m sure he’s damn frustrated by that.
The Party Deciding Things
I first heard the idea of Laslovich replacing Bullock in 2020 from James Conner.
It made sense and I’m sure that’s in the cards. Again, these things are decided long before elections.
That’s done because we don’t want you deciding. Instead it’s party brass and business elites that get together and say, ‘hey, why not that guy?’
Now, you do have to come up the ranks a bit, but really, this is party hierarchy stuff here.
The fact that Democrats don’t have secret voting for their get-togethers only makes this elite-power-mentality harder to get rid of.
So what can you do?
Nothing, really. I mean…
Despite all this there are no consequences for these things.
Democrats in Montana will support the status quo no matter what.
It sucks. It sucks and it’s frustrating and we stay home because of it.
I have no intention of voting for president in 2016, and I probably won’t vote for governor either.
Yeah, I’m a bad person, a real piece of shit.
I’m sorry, but I’ll never vote for foreign-banker-controlled Hillary. I know Bernie will never beat her because the media totally ignores him. It’s so obvious that he’s not important!
That’s disheartening.
I’d vote for Trump or Carson probably, but I’m sure something will come along to take them down. Remember, the elites in the back rooms have already decided all this for us.
Here in Montana I won’t be voting for Gianforte because he’s archaic. At the same time, I won’t be voting for Bullock because he’s bought.
Perhaps I should wait until the 2016 issues form themselves, but that’ll never happen until the top two presidential candidates come forth. At that point we’ll get the talking points.
Those aren’t issues – their just ways for the power-elite of this country to stay in power while pretending they give a damn about you and your family.
Here in Montana that meant paying $67 million in unnecessary interest payments for infrastructure when we had more than enough cash.
We still have enough cash – the bankers are lending it to each other at interest rates three times what you get. Yeah, bankers get special rules.
This is called the Federal Funds Rate or the Prime Rate and currently it’s set at 3.25%.
You know how I feel about this because I’ve written about our problem with foreign bankers and I’ve written about what banks did to Montana and how this eventually affected America.
But no one cares about that – that stuff was another time, happened to another set of people.
So that’s the mentality we’re dealing with – the deaf, dumb and blind. That’s what you become when you listen to the TV news and follow the talking points, fall into line behind our favorite party.
Sadly, none of our lives ever seem to improve. Why is that?
Hey, this is America – don’t ask!
It made sense and I’m sure that’s in the cards. Again, these things are decided long before elections.
That’s done because we don’t want you deciding. Instead it’s party brass and business elites that get together and say, ‘hey, why not that guy?’
Now, you do have to come up the ranks a bit, but really, this is party hierarchy stuff here.
The fact that Democrats don’t have secret voting for their get-togethers only makes this elite-power-mentality harder to get rid of.
So what can you do?
Nothing, really. I mean…
- We saw Bullock do one terrible appointment with Walsh;
- We saw the Democrats throw Amanda Curtis under the bus;
- We saw the terrible infrastructure debt-bondage deal.
Despite all this there are no consequences for these things.
Democrats in Montana will support the status quo no matter what.
It sucks. It sucks and it’s frustrating and we stay home because of it.
I have no intention of voting for president in 2016, and I probably won’t vote for governor either.
Yeah, I’m a bad person, a real piece of shit.
I’m sorry, but I’ll never vote for foreign-banker-controlled Hillary. I know Bernie will never beat her because the media totally ignores him. It’s so obvious that he’s not important!
That’s disheartening.
I’d vote for Trump or Carson probably, but I’m sure something will come along to take them down. Remember, the elites in the back rooms have already decided all this for us.
Here in Montana I won’t be voting for Gianforte because he’s archaic. At the same time, I won’t be voting for Bullock because he’s bought.
Perhaps I should wait until the 2016 issues form themselves, but that’ll never happen until the top two presidential candidates come forth. At that point we’ll get the talking points.
Those aren’t issues – their just ways for the power-elite of this country to stay in power while pretending they give a damn about you and your family.
Here in Montana that meant paying $67 million in unnecessary interest payments for infrastructure when we had more than enough cash.
We still have enough cash – the bankers are lending it to each other at interest rates three times what you get. Yeah, bankers get special rules.
This is called the Federal Funds Rate or the Prime Rate and currently it’s set at 3.25%.
You know how I feel about this because I’ve written about our problem with foreign bankers and I’ve written about what banks did to Montana and how this eventually affected America.
But no one cares about that – that stuff was another time, happened to another set of people.
So that’s the mentality we’re dealing with – the deaf, dumb and blind. That’s what you become when you listen to the TV news and follow the talking points, fall into line behind our favorite party.
Sadly, none of our lives ever seem to improve. Why is that?
Hey, this is America – don’t ask!
The Juneau/Zinke Race
Zinke & Juneau.
Wow, two names that the national media will have a helluva time with, huh?
How about voters?
We know that Zinke is a winner – he’s serving in Washington now. How about Juneau?
While there may be a lot of applause, fanfare and support for Juneau on social media, is there in the state?
I’m not so sure.
Here, take a look at the numbers:
The good news is that each year we’ve had a third-party candidate, typically Mike Fellows for the Libertarians.
In fact, we’ve had a third-party candidate every year since 1992. At the same time, they’ve never gotten more than 9% (Steve Kelly in '94) of the vote, and it’s typically closer to 3%.
In other words, the third-party take is never substantial enough for the Democrats to win enough votes away from the Republican to win – it just doesn’t happen.
Mainly, there are two ways of looking at the current situation:
For the first point, Democrats can’t do much besides shrug and fight the good fight.
For the second point, Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.
Is Denise Juneau simply being thrown out there to “fight the good fight?”
After all, we know that Democrats have not come within about 50,000 votes since 2000.
The year 2000 was the best year for Democrats. They came within 21,000 votes of winning it that year.
I bet a lot of that was the higher turnout (410,000) caused by Nader. Still, there were similar numbers in 1996 (404,000) and 1992 (403,000).
Maybe Nancy Keenan did a damn good job...although she still lost. And hey - she was a woman!
Despite this, I guess what I’m trying to say is that I’m not confident.
I’m positive that many people in this country are just like me – eager to vote for Bernie, unwilling to vote for Hillary.
That’ll hurt Denise Juneau, it’ll hurt her bad.
Unfortunately, National Democrats do not care about anyone but themselves, as we’ve seen time and time again in this state. There will be no sympathy for Juneau, none at all.
It’s the Hillary train in Montana, 110%.
That ride makes me sick and I never got on it. And that’s why I’ll put these 6 reasons for Denise Juneau’s loss next year:
Those are all reasons I feel that Denise Juneau will lose her race in 2016. Hey, I’d like to see her win…it’s just that I’m being realistic here.
Democrats can capture our minds today, but they can’t capture our hearts.
Wow, two names that the national media will have a helluva time with, huh?
How about voters?
We know that Zinke is a winner – he’s serving in Washington now. How about Juneau?
While there may be a lot of applause, fanfare and support for Juneau on social media, is there in the state?
I’m not so sure.
- First, she’s a woman. While we like to pride ourselves on choose women in the Democratic Party, many in the state will never vote for a woman.
- Next, what has she done? I don’t know about a whole lot and it’s going to be hard to run on accomplishments. Clearly, she has her work cut out for her.
- Finally, Democrats have not won our U.S. House seat since 1994, which will be 22 years ago next year. On top of this, they haven’t polled even 50% of the vote since 1990. I don’t know if they’ve ever polled higher than that.
Here, take a look at the numbers:
- 2014: GOP (55%) Dems (40%)
- 2012: GOP (53%) Dems (43%)
- 2010: GOP (60%) Dems (34%)
- 2008: GOP (64%) Dems (32%)
- 2006: GOP (59%) Dems (39%)
- 2004: GOP (64%) Dems (33%)
- 2002: GOP (65%) Dems (33%)
- 2000: GOP (51%) Dems (46%)
- 1998: GOP (53%) Dems (44%)
- 1996: GOP (52%) Dems (43%)
- 1994: GOP (42%) Dems (48%)
- 1992: GOP (47%) Dems (50%)
- 1990: GOP (38% West, 63% East) Dems (61% West, 37% East)
The good news is that each year we’ve had a third-party candidate, typically Mike Fellows for the Libertarians.
In fact, we’ve had a third-party candidate every year since 1992. At the same time, they’ve never gotten more than 9% (Steve Kelly in '94) of the vote, and it’s typically closer to 3%.
In other words, the third-party take is never substantial enough for the Democrats to win enough votes away from the Republican to win – it just doesn’t happen.
Mainly, there are two ways of looking at the current situation:
- There are more Republicans than Democrats in Montana;
- Republicans do better at getting out the vote than Democrats.
For the first point, Democrats can’t do much besides shrug and fight the good fight.
For the second point, Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.
Is Denise Juneau simply being thrown out there to “fight the good fight?”
After all, we know that Democrats have not come within about 50,000 votes since 2000.
- In 2002 they lost by more than 100,000 votes.
- In 2004 they lost by 140,000 votes.
- In 2008 they lost by 152,000 votes.
The year 2000 was the best year for Democrats. They came within 21,000 votes of winning it that year.
I bet a lot of that was the higher turnout (410,000) caused by Nader. Still, there were similar numbers in 1996 (404,000) and 1992 (403,000).
Maybe Nancy Keenan did a damn good job...although she still lost. And hey - she was a woman!
Despite this, I guess what I’m trying to say is that I’m not confident.
I’m positive that many people in this country are just like me – eager to vote for Bernie, unwilling to vote for Hillary.
That’ll hurt Denise Juneau, it’ll hurt her bad.
Unfortunately, National Democrats do not care about anyone but themselves, as we’ve seen time and time again in this state. There will be no sympathy for Juneau, none at all.
It’s the Hillary train in Montana, 110%.
That ride makes me sick and I never got on it. And that’s why I’ll put these 6 reasons for Denise Juneau’s loss next year:
- Higher GOP turnout;
- Low turnout for Dems due to Hillary;
- No down-ticket voting amongst Dems;
- Juneau won’t excite swing voters;
- No support from National;
- Anti-incumbency wave won’t affect Zinke.
Those are all reasons I feel that Denise Juneau will lose her race in 2016. Hey, I’d like to see her win…it’s just that I’m being realistic here.
Democrats can capture our minds today, but they can’t capture our hearts.
