The Democrats lost another special congressional election on Thursday. Gianforte beat Quist in Montana. This has been portrayed in partisan ways. It is, according to the NYT, a near-win for a Democrat in 'heavily Republican' Montana. For some Republicans, it is proof of Trump's success that a Republican won. Both sides cite Trump's 2016 win as 'proof' of their case. What is the data?
First, Montana is not 'heavily' anything. In presidential elections it is, voting for a Democrat only twice in the last 68 years, in 1948 and 1964. Its senate and house seats, however, are much more mixed. In the 70 years since 1947 there have been 140 senator-years (two senators over 70 years). Of those only 26 years have been Republican. In the 152 years since 1865, Montana's single congressional representative has been a Republican 102 years. Of Montana's governors since 1949, in 32 of 69 years it has been a Republican. Calling Montana 'heavily Republican' in describing anything but a presidential election is a marked distortion.
Trump got 56.5% of the vote, Clinton 36%. Mathematically it is fair to say Trump won by 20 points, a fact played upon when claiming Montana is Republican. Gianforte got 50.2% of the vote, Quist 44.1%, for a 6 point win. It is, again, mathematically accurate to say Gianforte won by a much smaller margin than Trump, but that is quite different from ascribing meaning to the data.
Gianforte just lost the governor's race in November 2016, by 4 points. He won his congressional seat by 6 points. He lost his temper and assaulted a reporter. He is not a particularly strong candidate. The 10 point local swing is as important as the 14 point difference between Gianforte's performance and Trump's, and likely a more accurate representation of Montana. It is unreasonable to make sweeping, national generalizations from this single election in a politically mixed state with a bad candidate. It cannot serve as a bellwether of a Democratic 'wave' or an endorsement of Trump. Nonetheless, there are a couple of items worth noting.
The Democrats are trying very hard to spin every special election as a national repudiation of Trump. To date they have no agenda except to oppose Trump, no legislation to propose, no strategy for intelligent opposition or principled cooperation. In this they are no different from the Republicans, who appear to have no agenda either except to repeal the ACA. Both parties are wrestling in the mud, look bad, and are trying very hard to get people to call their version of dirty clothing clean.
There is less trust in the media than there is in Trump. I have mentioned this previously, but this election again demonstrates it. The outright assault on a reporter got newspaper endorsements rescinded, but otherwise no one cared. Most people don't read newspapers any more, and for many hearing the tape of a candidate losing his temper at a reporter's insistent, gotcha question is the response they long to see, the honest response they too would have. It is similar to Trump's shutting down of a CNN reporter.
Gianforte hitched his campaign to supporting Trump's agenda with the exception of the AHCA (future blog on this). This turned out to be a smart move. Trump is not a weight around Republican candidates.
The lesson I get from the Montana election is that all politics is local, the media are much disliked and distrusted, and that, for many, Trump is not the demon idiot monster portrayed in the press. If Democrats want to govern instead of posture, they will have to promote some kind of real agenda, something analogous to Gingrich's Contract With America. Trump hating is not enough. If Republicans are going to do anything with their majorities, they had best be about doing it, or they risk being kicked out of office for incompetence.
Ted
First, Montana is not 'heavily' anything. In presidential elections it is, voting for a Democrat only twice in the last 68 years, in 1948 and 1964. Its senate and house seats, however, are much more mixed. In the 70 years since 1947 there have been 140 senator-years (two senators over 70 years). Of those only 26 years have been Republican. In the 152 years since 1865, Montana's single congressional representative has been a Republican 102 years. Of Montana's governors since 1949, in 32 of 69 years it has been a Republican. Calling Montana 'heavily Republican' in describing anything but a presidential election is a marked distortion.
Trump got 56.5% of the vote, Clinton 36%. Mathematically it is fair to say Trump won by 20 points, a fact played upon when claiming Montana is Republican. Gianforte got 50.2% of the vote, Quist 44.1%, for a 6 point win. It is, again, mathematically accurate to say Gianforte won by a much smaller margin than Trump, but that is quite different from ascribing meaning to the data.
Gianforte just lost the governor's race in November 2016, by 4 points. He won his congressional seat by 6 points. He lost his temper and assaulted a reporter. He is not a particularly strong candidate. The 10 point local swing is as important as the 14 point difference between Gianforte's performance and Trump's, and likely a more accurate representation of Montana. It is unreasonable to make sweeping, national generalizations from this single election in a politically mixed state with a bad candidate. It cannot serve as a bellwether of a Democratic 'wave' or an endorsement of Trump. Nonetheless, there are a couple of items worth noting.
The Democrats are trying very hard to spin every special election as a national repudiation of Trump. To date they have no agenda except to oppose Trump, no legislation to propose, no strategy for intelligent opposition or principled cooperation. In this they are no different from the Republicans, who appear to have no agenda either except to repeal the ACA. Both parties are wrestling in the mud, look bad, and are trying very hard to get people to call their version of dirty clothing clean.
There is less trust in the media than there is in Trump. I have mentioned this previously, but this election again demonstrates it. The outright assault on a reporter got newspaper endorsements rescinded, but otherwise no one cared. Most people don't read newspapers any more, and for many hearing the tape of a candidate losing his temper at a reporter's insistent, gotcha question is the response they long to see, the honest response they too would have. It is similar to Trump's shutting down of a CNN reporter.
Gianforte hitched his campaign to supporting Trump's agenda with the exception of the AHCA (future blog on this). This turned out to be a smart move. Trump is not a weight around Republican candidates.
The lesson I get from the Montana election is that all politics is local, the media are much disliked and distrusted, and that, for many, Trump is not the demon idiot monster portrayed in the press. If Democrats want to govern instead of posture, they will have to promote some kind of real agenda, something analogous to Gingrich's Contract With America. Trump hating is not enough. If Republicans are going to do anything with their majorities, they had best be about doing it, or they risk being kicked out of office for incompetence.
Ted
Your fifth paragraph is well-metaphored and -stated.
ReplyDelete