Tag: Montana

I doesn’t seem like it was that long ago when Swing State Project celebrated the Democratic Sweep in Montana that elected Brian Schweitzer Governor. But next spring will be Governor Schweitzer’s last legislative session and due to term limits the seat will be open in 2012.

The great news is that former Congressman Pat Williams is considering a run for governor!

Pat Williams, like his cousin Evel Knievel, came up on the rough and tumble streets of Butte, America. But he was such a fierce advocate as a public servant that the Williams family is now widely considered to be the first family of Montana politics. After choosing not to run for re-election in 1996, he became one of the most popular professors at the University of Montana. In honoring Williams just last week, UM President George Dennison said Pat Williams, “embodies the ideals of civic engagement.”

If Williams runs, it would be a very exciting race. He was famous for running bigger door-to-door campaigns than Montana had ever seen before (or has seen since). In 1992, when Montana’s two congressional districts were combined into a single at-large seat, Williams beat another sitting congressman in the most legendary statewide campaign in decades. While respect for Williams runs wide across Montana, his bold progressive stances have earned him a depth of support that runs deeper than can easily be explained.

Keep an eye on this one.

UPDATE: The Montana blog 4&20 Blackbirds says:

Like Pogie, all I need to know is “Where can I donate? Where do I sign up to volunteer?”

Indeed.

UPDATE II: Chuck Johnson got him on record:

“My phone’s been ringing again, really for a year, but especially since the story on the Internet,” he said in a telephone interview. “I’m honored that this is the third time that Montanans have generously asked me to run for governor. If I ran, I’m convinced that I’d win the primary by a good margin and then the general by a smaller but safe margin.

“I’m 72 years old, and I am more knowledgeable and wiser than I was at my so-called prime at 35. The other thing I know is that there will be a lot of good candidate on both sides, Republican and Democratic, but I will not be one of them.”

From December 2007 to March 2008, I wrote various drafts of a proposal on how our political parties — starting in 2012 — might adopt primary election procedures that would better serve our country in selecting presidential candidates. I originally drafted a hypothetical calendar for 2008, based on general election results from 2004. Now that we have the results for 2008, I can now propose a calendar specific to 2012.

The system by which our parties choose their presidential candidates has proven itself to be, at best, highly questionable — at worst, severely flawed.

The primary calendar we need most is one that is built on an orderly and rational plan — one that is based on mathematics and on recent historical outcomes — and not on an arbitrary, publicity-driven, system of one-upsmanship. The change I propose would provide for a more effective, equitable process than the one we have now.

The following factors are the key ones to consider:

Margin of Victory

– The state primaries would be placed in order according to the leading candidates’ margins of victory in the preceding general election — with the states registering the closest margins of victory going first.

For example, John McCain won Missouri by 0.1% and Barack Obama won North Carolina by 0.4%; conversely, McCain won Wyoming by 33%, and Obama won Hawaii by 45%. Therefore, the primary calendar I propose would commence with primaries being held in states such as Missouri and North Carolina — and would close with such states as Wyoming and Hawaii.

– The purpose of ordering the states according to the margin of victory is to help the parties determine which candidates can appeal to those states that have found themselves most recently on the Electoral Divide. A narrow margin in the general election is reflective of an evenly divided electorate. In this scenario, a candidate who appeals to, say, Florida and Montana is more likely to appeal to a greater number of Americans on the whole.

Iowa, New Hampshire, and Fairness

– Iowa and New Hampshire might object to this new system, given their longstanding tradition of being the first states to cast their ballots. However, so long as Iowa and New Hampshire retain their record of being fairly bipartisan states, they’ll maintain their position towards the front of the primary schedule.

– Just because a state should have its primary later in the season does not mean that that state will prove invaluable to the process. Indiana and North Carolina weren’t held until May 6th, but those two states might have very well decided the fate of the 2008 Democratic nomination.

– This new system allows other states to play a greater role in how the parties select their candidates. For example, Missouri and North Carolina would be two of the states to get the limelight in 2012. Likewise, based on the results to come in November of 2012, a still-different slate of states could have a more significant role come 2016. A rotating system will be healthier and fairer.

Groupings of Five, and Timing & Spacing

– By placing states into groupings of five, no one state will be overly emphasized on any given date.

– Candidates will still need to address the concerns of individual states, whilst having to maintain an overall national platform. For example, a candidate will be less able to campaign against NAFTA in Ohio whilst campaigning for it in Florida.

– Given that each state has its own system for electing its delegates, these groupings of five states will act as an overall balancer. Ideally, caucuses will be done away with altogether by 2012. However — should that not happen — states with caucuses, states with open primaries, and states with closed primaries can all coexist within a grouping, therefore no one system will hold too much influence on any given date.

– Racial and geographic diversity in this process has been a great concern for many. The narrowest margins of victory in 2008 were in a wide variety of regions — the Midwest, the Great Lakes, the Mid-Atlantic, the South, and the West.

– All parties would have an interest in addressing these narrow-margined states early on. The incumbent will want to win over those states that were most in doubt of him in the previous election, and opposing parties will want to put forth candidates who have the best chance of winning over those very same states.

– Primaries will be held biweekly, giving candidates and the media enough time to process and respond to the outcomes of each wave of primaries.

– Washington DC will be placed in the same grouping as whichever state — Virginia or Maryland — is closer to its own margin of victory.

– American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Americans Abroad — not having Electoral votes of their own — will determine their own primary dates, so long as they occur between the first grouping and the last grouping.

Under these guidelines, the proposed calendar for the 2012 primary season is:

January 2012

Tue, 1/10

Missouri

North Carolina

Indiana

Florida

Montana

Tue, 1/24

Ohio

Georgia

Virginia

Colorado

South Dakota

Tue, 2/7

North Dakota

Arizona

South Carolina

Iowa

New Hampshire

Tue, 2/21

Minnesota

Pennsylvania

Texas

Nevada

West Virginia

Tue, 2/26

Mississippi

Wisconsin

New Jersey

New Mexico

Tennessee

Tue, 3/6

Kansas

Nebraska

Oregon

Kentucky

Michigan

Tue, 3/20

Washington

Maine

Louisiana

Arkansas

Alabama

Tue, 4/3

Connecticut

California

Illinois

Delaware

Maryland

Washington DC

Tue, 4/17

Alaska

Idaho

New York

Massachusetts

Rhode Island

Tue, 5/1

Utah

Oklahoma

Wyoming

Vermont

Hawaii

(Proudly cross-posted at C4O Democrats)

About 2 weeks ago, we talked about the rising Democratic tide in The Southwest. Now, I want to discuss what’s happening in The Northwest. Believe it or not, we have plenty of opportunities up north as well.

Want to come along with me as we look at where we can win in 2010 and beyond?

Let’s start in Wyoming. While John McCain beat Barack Obama by 32%, it was an improvement over Bush’s 40% margin of victory in 2004. And believe it or not, Wyoming voters twice elected Democrat Dave Freudenthal as Governor while Democrat Gary Trauner twice lost the At-Large House seat by surprisingly narrow margins. We have an opportunity in 2010 to win both races, as Freudenthal is termed out and newly elected GOP Rep. Cynthia Lummis doesn’t seem much more popular than outgoing GOP Rep. Barbara Cubin. I see both races as “Leans Republican” now, but that can change if we find good candidates.

Unlike Wyoming, Montana is rapidly trending Democratic. Bush won the state by 20% in 2004, but McCain could only muster a 3% win and Obama may be the first Democrat since Bill Clinton in 1992 to win here in 2012. And better yet, Montana now has 2 Democratic Senators, a Democratic Governor, and a split legislature. But for some reason, incumbent GOP Rep. Dennis Rehberg is still in office. If we find a strong Democrat to challenge Rehberg in 2010, I think we can make this “Likely Republican” seat more competitive.

Now Idaho may not be trending Democratic as quickly as Montana, but the state is moving our way. Bush’s 39% win in 2004 was reduced to a 25% McCain win this year. And better yet, Democrat Walt Minnick scored a stunning upset win over incumbent GOP Rep. Bill Sali in ID-01. But even though Minnick won this year, we must remember that this House seat will be the top GOP seat in 2010. This race looks like a “Toss-up” now, and we’ll need to work hard to hold ID-01 while continuing to make electoral gains in Idaho.

While all the other Northwest states previously mentioned still tilt toward the GOP, Washington state is quite the different game. Barack Obama won here by 17%, a great improvement over Kerry’s narrower 7% win in 2004. Meanwhile, Democratic Governor Chris Gregoire won reelection this year while Democratic majorities in both houses of the legislature, both Democratic Senators, and all 6 Democratic House Reps. look quite safe. However, we have a chance to pick up another House seat in the eastern suburban Seattle WA-08 district. Incumbent GOP Rep. Dave Reichert only narrowly won reelection in 2006 & 2008 in a district that both Kerry & Obama won. If we perhaps find a candidate with legislative experience to challenge Reichert in 2010, we can finally win this “Toss-up” race.

As you can see, The Northwest is undergoing many of the same changes being seen Southwest. Wyoming and Idaho may still look strongly Republican, but Montana has rapidly become a swing state as Oregon and Washington have gone from simply leaning Democratic to strongly Democratic. As the population grows, diversifies, and changes from rural to suburban & urban, Democrats are rising to victory.

As long as demographics change and voters continue to care less about “the culture wars” and more about issues like energy, environmental preservation, and economic development, Democrats will win. That’s why our party must continue to invest in winning The West. So are you ready to win?

I just had to do a diary on this story.  It’s simply too incredible to believe.  We all knew that republicans had no serious challenger for Montana’s Democratic Senator Max Baucus, but they did have a state Representative Michael Lange was was supposed to win their primary with little trouble.  Well, that didn’t happen.  In fact the guy who won the republican primary this week by a 13% margin could more accurately be called a socialist or Green party member than a republican.  

Meet 85 year old Bob Kelleher.  Until this week when he won the primary Kelleher didn’t even have his own domain website.  He had what amounted to an AOL personal webpage and essentially didn’t even campaign for the nomination.  Basically everything on his new website is “under construction” with dead-end links.

Here is Kelleher’s prior electoral history:

http://www.ourcampaigns.com/Ca…

1968 – Ran for MT-02 congressional district as a Democrat.  Lost the general by a 68-32% margin

1980, 1984, 1988, 1992 and 1996: – Ran for Montana Governor as a Democrat.  Lost every primary with less than 26% of the vote.

2002 – Ran for U.S. Senate as a Green and received 2% of the vote.

2004 – Ran for MT Governor as a Green and received 1.9% of the vote.

2006 – Ran for MT Senate as a Republican and received 4% of the vote.

That’s right- he’s run for office as a Democrat, Republican AND Green.

http://www.bobkelleher2008.com/

Some of his stances I pulled off of his old website before it was taken down:

http://www.votesmart.org/speec…

– In one of the republican debates Kelleher blasted his rivals for not pushing for serious gun control legislation.  Uhh… ya.  I’m sure pro-gun control candidates are wildly popular in Montana.

– Supports legalization of marijuana and other drugs.

– Anti Social Security Privatization

– Pro healthcare reform, apparently supports universal healthcare.

– In favor or eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts.

– Staunchly protectionist and anti free-trade.

– Wants the U.S. to change it’s government to European style Parlimentary form.  Yes… I’m dead serious.

– Wants immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Needless to say this should be one of the most entertaining races of the cycle.  We have a republican candidate who is running on a more liberal platform than his democratic opponent Max Baucus, in a republican leaning state.

And one last thing, Kelleher has some kickass eyebrows.  I’d probably vote for him over Max Baucus, that’s for sure.

Matt Singer over at Left in the West has a good summary of the latest Montana-At-Large House race rumors:

So what’s going on with the Congressional race here in Montana? Recently, I’ve been hearing three names over and over again:

• Bill Kennedy — Bill is the lone Democratic County Commission in Yellowstone County. I’m hearing that he’s definitely throwing his hat into this ring, but there’s been no announcement, so take it with the same grain of salt that you take anything in the political rumor mill. That said, Bill brings some strengths to this race. He represents a swing county that is Dennis Rehberg’s base. He lost the race for Secretary of State in 2004, but I hear he appreciates the reasons for that defeat and has vowed to not repeat the mistakes. If there are “factions” in the Democratic Party, Bill and I are from different ones. I worked for and supported Jon Ellingson for S.O.S. in 2004. Bill was John Morrison’s primary treasurer in 2006, while I supported Jon Tester. All that said, Bill has always struck me as a genuinely nice guy and good human being. With the right kind of campaign, he could be a formidable opponent to a huckster like Rehberg.
• Jim Foley — A former top aide to both Pat Williams and Max Baucus, Jim Foley has flirted with running for office for years. A recent Roll Call article said rumors were spreading that he was eyeing a race for Congress. Both the DCCC, which works on recruiting for these campaigns, and Jim himself refused to comment. That said, the story wouldn’t have mentioned him if someone hadn’t placed it and it wouldn’t have been placed for no reason. He’s probably feeling out the waters. His strength? A huge percentage of members of Congress are former staff people who understand the grueling work it takes to get there. His weakness? He’s been based for years in Missoula, so he’ll have to deal with the (often exaggerated) implications of being tied to the progressive hotbed of Montana, but he’ll do it with few of the benefits. Jim himself is not beloved by the Missoula ‘roots. Final Note: I don’t have this on any authority, so don’t quote me, but I’d guess Jim Foley would not jump into this race until after Rehberg explicitly says he’s running for re-election. Jim knows the tougher race Rehberg expects, the more likely he is to jump into the Senate race. Jim is loyal and he wouldn’t look to set up a tougher race for his former boss. Again, this is just my gut, so take it with a half a grain of salt.
• Dennis McDonald — The current chair of the Democratic Party in Montana, Dennis may find his background as a rancher and relative political outsider comes in more useful as a candidate than as a behind-the-scenes manager. Dennis is a founder of R-CALF, has deep connections across rural Montana, and could undermine part of Dennis’s base. He’d continue the successful formula that has worked for Montana Democrats — run a rancher or farmer who is good on gun issues and can be forceful on trade, keep the base unified, and win. What’s his biggest weakness? He’s never been a candidate, much less a statewide one in a high-profile race. And he doesn’t receive the natural political benefit of that, since as chair of a political party, he’s relatively easy to paint as a typical insider.

Here’s my dream scenario: an aggressive, credible Montana Democrat tosses his hat in the ring, giving Republican Denny Rehberg an extra incentive to vacate his House seat and take on Democratic Senator Max Baucus that same year.  Baucus beats back Rehberg, like he did in 1996, and Democrats have a serious shot to reclaim the House seat that Democrat Pat Williams held until 1996.  Two stones to kill one bird–that sort of thing.

Of course: A) this is extremely wishful thinking, and B) I’m sure that neither Max Baucus nor the DSCC would look upon such a strategy with good humor.  Baucus has what it takes to beat Rehberg, but I’m sure he’d prefer to take on someone a bit lower down the totem pole.

Race Tracker: MT-AL | MT-Sen