Let me have a little LOL moment. On May 1, I wrote that "2020 will be another big anti-red wave. The media isn't talking about it yet-- they're a lagging indicator-- but they will." Sabato's Crystal Ball had just explained why they were still betting on the Montana Senate seat to stay red. "Gov. Steve Bullock’s (D-MT) late entry into the race last month prevented first-term Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) from coasting to reelection: We were prepared to move the race to Safe Republican prior to Bullock’s entry; we now list it as Leans Republican. Based on what we can piece together, the race seems like it’s neck and neck at the moment. But does that actually make it a Toss-up? We are not quite there yet."Of course not. They'll be truly ready when AP calls the race for Bullock on election night. Even then, polling showed that Montana voters like Bullock (49%) better than Daines (45%)-- and that Daines (42%) have slightly higher unfavorables than Bullock (40%) and that in a head-to-head matchup it was an exact 47-47% tie. Doesn't that define the toss-up that Sabato was unwilling to call the race?Instead, Sabato used "history" to suggest Bullock will lose: "[I]t is very rare for an incumbent senator to lose reelection while that senator’s party is winning the state for president. There are only four examples of that happening in the last seven presidential election cycles, and there were confounding circumstances in three of those four races. Donald Trump would really have to crater in order to lose Montana, which he carried by 20 points in 2016." I was at that low point that I predicted Sabato would be rating Montana a toss up by summer. I think tomorrow is the first day of summer, right? Cook moved Montana to toss up yesterday.Why not? A more recent poll shows Bullock leading 46-39%. So "toss up" seems nice and safe. Cook's Jessica Taylor wrote that the past few months have "highlighted the unique nature of this race, as the only contest with a sitting governor seeking a Senate seat. And like other governors who have ably handled the pandemic-- especially in comparison to the Trump administration's bungling-- Bullock has seen his approval ratings rise exponentially too, up to 75 percent in one poll. Montana has had one of the lowest per capita infection rates (49th out of 50), with only 20 deaths as of June 17, and Bullock has gotten plaudits for closing the state early as it began to reopen last month. So it's not surprising that Bullock seems to have benefited from his gubernatorial leadership during this crisis and being in the news daily. Recent private Democratic polling in the contest gives Bullock a small lead and finds that Bullock's approval ratings are more than 20 points higher than Daines, though the incumbent senator remains slightly above water. GOP polling also shows that it's a close race, but one where every internal poll for them has still shown Daines leading. Yet, even some Republicans privately admit this is likely to be a margin of error race to the finish line. Each party just believes it's their candidate who will eke out the victory."Morning Consult hasn't updated their state by state Trump tracker since the pandemic struck. But by late February, Trump's approval rating in Montana had decreased by 18 points since inauguration day and his net approval was just 6 points (52-46%). The most recent polling I could find is two months old and shows Trump leading Biden 45.3% to 39.7%, a 5.6% lead for Trump-- nothing like the 56.2% to 35.7% Trump win over Hillary in 2016. Keep in mind, operations like Cook and Sabato are structurally incapable of taking into account how horrible a candidate Hillary was for Montana in 2016-- or how horrible a candidate Trump is in 2020. Taylor demonstrates what I mean:
Trump is on pace to win the state by double digits, but somewhere perhaps in the mid or low teens instead.Overcoming that margin is still tough in a presidential year-- when Jon Tester won a second term in 2012 with President Obama atop the ballot, he outpaced him by almost 7 points. Obama lost Montana that year by nearly 14 points. But in 2008, Democratic Senate candidates in competitive races did outpace the top of the ticket by about 12.5 points. Also, Democrats argue that Biden isn't as toxic in the state as Hillary Clinton was four years ago, and note that Obama even came within 2 points of winning the state in 2008. But Republicans say their polling from last month still had Biden far underwater in the state. Plus, if Trump's numbers continue to sour nationally, there's a chance that Republicans can make the argument that there needs to be a GOP Senate still to serve as a check on a Biden administration.But there's some evidence that maybe Bullock's performance with handling COVID-19 and generally good favorability in the state makes this a unique situation where traditional rules may not apply. Unlike other states with candidates newer to the statewide ballot, Bullock is already well-defined in voters' minds, and it may be harder to change voters' opinions of him. Bullock's fundraising has been impressive since he got in, too-- he outraised Daines by about $2.1 million in the first fundraising quarter, despite being in the race for less than a month before the deadline. In the six week pre-primary filing period too ahead of the June 2 primary, Bullock again outpaced the incumbent by a nearly two-to-one margin and pulled within $1.6 million of Daines's cash of hand advantage.Both parties have also begun to commit outside resources to the race too. According to data from Advertising Analytics, the Democratic super PAC Senate Majority PAC has reserved about $8.1 million for ads (broadcast/cable/satellite/digital), while their 501(c)(4) offshoot Majority Forward has reserved about $3.3 million. The DSCC has reserved about $5.2 million, set to begin in August. The NRSC has reserved $2.7 million, set to begin in September. The GOP super PAC Senate Leadership Fund has reserved $8.5 million, while their non-profit arm One Nation has reserved about $3.7 million, set to begin next week.Republicans push back on the notion that Bullock can prevail at a federal level in such a red state, and believe they have plenty of oppo to use against him from his brief, quixotic run for president last year that will ultimately bring down his numbers. They plan especially to hit him on guns after he backed an assault weapons ban, which even Tester does not support. But Democrats counter that Montanans' impression of Bullock is already formed, and that their polling indicates the gun issue won't move the numbers. And they scoff at Bullock's first ad that came out this week, where he says he "won't answer to party bosses," after he was wooed into the race by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and former President Obama. Nationalizing this race and making it more about control of the Senate instead of about whether or not voters like Bullock is key to GOP success....Montana is the toughest state on paper for Democrats when we look solely at the presidential numbers. Still, it's been clear for a while that this race is shaping up to be a unique battle between two well-liked Montanans (who both just happen to be named Steve), making it the most glaringly competitive race we've had in the Lean Republican column for the past few months. Several indicators now merit a more competitive rating, and therefore we are moving this race to Toss Up.
Schumer wants to fill the Senate with face Democrats like Kyrsten Sinema, who votes more frequently against progressive proposals than any other Senate Democrat. All of his picks this cycle have been Sinema-types. Hopefully Andrew Romanoff in Colorado and Charles Booker in Kentucky will defeat the Schumer candidates. Bullock is an exception in some ways. He's an actual moderate, NOT a conservative who calls himself a moderate and he's as good a Democrat as anyone could reasonably expect in Montana. And speaking of Kentucky, this Civiqs poll was released yesterday:
