when was the last time they voted for a Democrat in a presidential election?

Wait, looked it up: Lyndon Johnson. Clinton won by a plurality, but there was a third party candidate in the mix who split the Right wing vote.

We're not winning Montana. Not in my lifetime anyway.

but we can be an indicator of how the election is playing nationally. Obama 2008 came within a point or 2 of mccain and won a landslide nationally. 2012 he did considerably worse here and won a much closer election. 2016, Hillary lost by 21 points here. So i agree, no resources here, but it can be instructive nonetheless.

but not a huge push.

This is a state where there were more "did not vote" than people who did, so there is room for improvement.

However, I wouldn't call it a true landslide in 2008. If we call it a landslide, than what is 1964, 1972, 1984, and 1988?

Probably 400 EV's would meet the criteria of landslide.

due to the polarized nature of our political system. A true electoral landslide, where 400+ evs are in play, may not occur again in my lifetime. Given the history he was running against, and the country's polarity, I'm comfortable with the term, but only in the context of the era.

But I do agree, the days of massive landslides are over. The country is way to divided now. Likewise, we'll probably never see one Party with over 60 Senators again.

2008-2010 was such a unique opportunity, but even then the challenges of the Senate and the purple states required for such a majority were evident (Baucus, Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu all opposing various components of ACA). It may come around again but it will take folks awakening to a financial and governmental system that has stolen their wealth and their political power.

If the nominee were Warren or Klobucar, then Bullock would be a good choice. I think he still would be
Though I'm not sure he'd agree to run with Sen Warren
Biden and Bullock might have a catchy nickname -- Killer B's or something, but I think he should look elsewhere.
Where and Who? I am not sure right now

and we should be giving him a better vetting.
He is a man who speaks to the masses as is so commonly said about the lsos.

O'Rourke and Booker -- if we didn't have three candidates who've been superstars in the party for years.

...only 3 electoral votes. More cows than people. Suck it Donnie Dollhands.

I have no doubt he'd win easily.

even in red states Democrats can be successful with. . . the right candidate. Bullock is a moderate Dem and was/is a popular Governor. Jon Tester outsmarted Trump in the 2018 midterms and won reelection. Again, he is the right kind of candidate for his particular red state.

Same with the national election. We need the candidate with the widest, largest appeal, the candidate who can rack up the largest numbers in the states we need to win back. Because the final battlefield will be the electoral college, a repeat of 2016. The largest numbers will also offset the GOP's (and their friends') highjinks, another attempt to screw with our election results.

As for Bullock the candidate? I've actually liked what I've heard from the man thus far. I just haven't heard enough.

He should go run for Senate and flip us a seat.

The most important thing in this poll is that the worst candidate position in the poll is Harris at -10. Clinton lost Montana by 21.

The US Senate (and Ballard has dropped out, so it is even worse) and MT Governor (Gianforte and Fox) numbers are truly depressing. In the lone House seat, Democrat Williams has a slight lead over the horrid thug Rosendale, although she is far behind when Rethug Stapleton's numbers are added in.

Bullock needs to run for Senate!!!!

http://www.umt.edu/bigskypoll/Methodology/FINALFINALBSP%204.0%20Aggregate%20Report%20with%20Xtabs.pdf

and shows that he is declining even in so-called red states.

Lose all the other states and get Montana.

What do we win?



So run for the senate instead.