Decision Desk HQ shows different results so far than the NYT. I’m not sure why. Quist has a small lead.
Also, 538 is live blogging as results come in.
PredictIt betting market takes a big swing toward Gianforte based on early returns.
Does anyone know whether the mail-in ballots in Montana are counted first, last, or along with the regular results?
According to Nate Silver’s most recent post on the live blog, everything we see so far is early vote. No election day results have been reported yet.
You can now buy Quist shares for a nickel at PredictIt if you think the post choke slam election day vote is going to turn things around for Quist.
I bought 200 Gianforte-YES shares at 60 cents each yesterday.
I expect to make 40 cents on each.
You can make about $0.35 on each right this second. I’d be mighty tempted but I’m somewhat risk averse.
In other news, there is a Petroleum County Montana. They aren’t reporting any votes yet, but Trump won it by 77 points last November.
Nah. I’ll hang on and scoop up the whole profit.
Gallatin County a.k.a. Choke Slam Ground Zero went to Clinton by less than a point in November. So far it’s Quist +12. That’s nice but not enough. Trump won the state by over 20. For Quist to win he needs to outperform Clinton by around 20.
Statewide 50-44 right now. 50% precincts reporting.
AP has called it for Gianforte with 93% of the vote in. 50.7% to 43.4%.
This “close loss in red territory” business is getting tedious.
Anyway, iamthewalrus(:3=, looks like I owe you $20. PM me your address, and it’ll be on its way.
So far I’m right. I predict by June 20 (the date of the SC - 5 election) I’ll be 100% right.
When will Liberals realize that sound and fury isn’t enough? And when will they realize that, for all of their shock and outrage about what the President is doing (or not doing), there is a substantial part of the country that isn’t the least bit upset at what is going on, and that part of the country is the part that caused the President to win the last election? If the seats being contested were in places where the Republican/Democratic split was close to even, you might see enough movement to “flip” a seat. But so far, it’s just moral victories at best. :dubious:
In every single special election, the Democrat has outperformed both Hillary and the previous Democratic candidate for that seat. As that orange baboon continues to shit the bed, prospects for Democratic takeover increase. So in the special elections in red districts, Republicans won, but by smaller margins than they’re used to. Republican dancing in the end zone seems quite premature.
May I ask what you’re referring to? Quist was running on health care and land use, not against the evil that is Donald Trump.
The Dems have won the last 3 governors’ races in Montana, and 4 out of the past 5 U.S. Senator races. The notion that there was no point in the Dems’ even contesting this race is absurd on its face.
According to David Axelrod, outside GOP groups outspent outside Dem groups 6-1 on this race. That might’ve been a factor too.
For that matter, there just aren’t that many House special elections this year. Why shouldn’t the DCCC make a real effort in all of them? ActBlue has been freakin’ flooded with contributions this year. If the grassroots see that the Dem committees are spoiling for a fight as much as they are, the Dems will get back every dime they spend this year, probably three or four times over. But if they only put up token efforts and then (as they are now saying of Montana) say, “we knew all along this one wasn’t winnable,” then of course they’re gonna lose.
I honestly don’t think the democrats know what they’re about, which is part of the problem here. What defines democrats?
I also don’t really see them with any good salesmen who can stretch their base, either. What the party needs is a more macho version of someone between Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders or someone of that order. I don’t see that guy (or gal) around.
Done, thanks.
A win by single-digit percent points is what I expected, and given that Trump won Montana by 21 points, a 7 point GOP lead in this election is not exactly a result that should make them super hopeful.
I disagree that the Democrats should pour money into “long-shot” elections. Much better to put the money into elections that are closer, where it will result in more wins. There are momentum and psychological issues to consider, as their base is riled up and looking for a win, but they gotta play the long game too.
And Quist was not exactly part of the Democratic machine. He’s a minor celebrity and entertainer turned politician. Obviously, that’s a career turn that some can make work, but it’s not clear that the party should necessarily think that he’s going to be everything they want him to be. Someone who’s been a Democratic politician for 20 years is more likely to get the party to work overtime.
I agree with this. I think the democrats should try to run some likable hollywood celebs because right now it seems like they are hoping enough people are against republicans to vote for Generic Democrat without offering anyone that people actually like.
Edit to add: Noone seems to really care about policy, it’s all large personality, so Dems need to find those type of candidates.