Last week, a nationally watched Congressional race in the state of Montana culminated with a win by Republican Greg Gianforte. The results were not exactly surprising as Gianforte had been considered the frontrunner for the seat ever since incumbent GOP Congressman Ryan Zinke was tapped for the position of Interior by President Trump. Gianforte had just missed upsetting Democratic Governor Steve Bullock last November and was easily awarded his party’s nomination at the State Convention in March. But the race did turn climactic in the final day (and I emphasize day for singular as opposed to plural) by Gianforte’s impromptu “body-slamming” a reporter at his campaign office. That reporter, Ben Jacobs, consequently had his glasses broken. Most of the episode was caught on videotape.
While these incidents are rare, that fact that it was the candidate who perpetrated it as opposed to some random, overzealous supporter instantly put the race on the map. Democrats seized on it and expected dividends, or at least a nip’n’tuck race as a result. They didn’t get it. Gianforte defeated Democrat Rob Quist by six points,50-44% and promptly apologized to supporters in his victory speech.
The shoving aside, what national trend can we extrapolate from this race and more to the point, what does that mean for Trumpland? The answer: not much of anything.
First of all, if the vote in Montana was genuinely meant to be backlash on Trump, Quist likely would have won, particularly since the president had tweeted his backing of the Republican Party as a means of “denying liberals a win.” That said, Democrats did whittle down the margin most federal candidates in Big Sky Country typically lose by (current Senator Jon Tester is the exception). Because Republicans have typically performed so well in Montana, the fact that Gianforte only won by a small margin should give national Democrats reason to take heart for other races in areas that are close on paper.
Republican Greg Gianforte
Photo via newstalkkgvo.com
That brings us to the matter of expectations and if that’s the case, Democrats met them. Therefore, that should give national Democrats reason to take heart for other races that close PVIs or only opted for Trump by microscopic margins, rather than 21 points.
Before shoving-gate,Democrats were sanguine about their ability to win this one. Though they had nominated a candidate who on paper had appeal to constituencies not necessarily associated with the party (Quist, a banjo-strumming folk singer, was pro-NRA and campaigned outdoors wearing a cowboy hat) he was not without vulnerabilities. In particular, Republicans hammered him for an unpaid tax lien. While strategists on both sides saw the race as creeping closer as the day of voting drew near, very few expected Quiet would pull it out. The six point race surprised those who thought it would be closer but in truth, it probably ended where it was likely.
Which brings us to the question of what the seat would have been worth long term if shoving-gate had produced a win. Keep in mind that,by the time the video broke, it was estimated that close to 40%, of Montanans (some thought it was as high as 2/3) had already voted. On the day of voting, it was reported that many voters inquired with the Secretary of State about the legality of changing their votes (they could not). Had they been able to trade in their ballots or had the news come out say, just as voting was starting, it likely would have meant at least a couple of additional points for Quist.
Could he have won? Perhaps, though some Republicans were said to have been opting for the Libertarian on the ballot as a protest, not Quist. But say the incident had pushed Quist over the top. It would have been a protest victory as opposed to a genuine symbol of the comeback of the Democrats. Similarly, if one takes into consideration the fact that Gianforte lost votes from those who hadn’t yet returned a ballot the day of voting, Gianforte obviously would have won by an even bigger margin.
Democrat Rob Quist
Photo via the Daily Kos
A question for Democrats extrapolating a trend in the national mood is what the result in Montana means for races whose voting trends are similar to Montana’s. The re-election of Senator Jon Tester is immediate. While Mr. Tester is still prepared for a tough race, Republicans have been hard pressed to find an intimidating opponent and Tester’s vulnerability was below that of some of his colleagues. The result of this election may cause both sides to re-evaluate. Indiana’s Joe Donnelly and Missouri’s Claire McCaskill (the latter is already trailing slightly against perspective opponents). While these individuals are incumbents and the Montana race was an open seat, it certainly doesn’t hurt the GOP that they were able to win a contest in similar terrain.
A bigger place for clues might be two little-noticed special legislative elections that also took place last week. In a new York State Assembly district that voted for Donald Trump 60-37%, as well as a New Hampshire House seat that had chosen Trump 51-44%, Democrats scored twin pick-ups. The New York seat in particular has to be concerning for Republicans because aside from its high Republican PVI, Furthermore, it overlaps with the Congressional district of one of Trump’s most vocal supporters, Representative Peter King.
In short, Republicans have the right to be pleased about pulling out their Montana win. But the size of the margin given the state we’re analyzing means that if the GOP thinks it gives them carte-blanche to go on snooze control toward 2018, they’ll likely be in for a rude awakening.