Put up or shut up: Montana Senate Seat

Who will win Montana Senate Race

  • Total voters
    4
Teflon Don

Teflon Don

I'm back baby
Who do you think will win this race and why?

I believe that Rosedale is going to win going away for the following reasons

1) Recent polls have Tester ahead, but for some reason there have been no polls since last week of September so we can't tell what the Kavanaugh effect will be.
2) If this is in line with other Senate races, I suspect a recent poll would show a trend against Tester as he voted against Kavanaugh
3) Montana is a very red state. I don't think Tester has a chance at keeping his seat


What say you?
 
I'd say you are really reaching for things here, Don.

But...

...a good point in your favor can be made in this thread, so allow me to do that.

Montana has a population of just over 1 million people. (Approximately 1,050,000) It is, as you say, a reliable RED state.

California has a population of almost 40 million people. (Approximately 39,540,000) it is a reliable BLUE state.

The 1,000,000 people of Montana are represented in the Senate by 2 senators...selected by a predominantly conservative electorate.

The 40,000,000 people of California are represented in the Senate by 2 senators selected by a predominantly liberal electorate.

That is great for the conservatives...and sucks for the liberals.

The only real loser is fairness...and the notion of one person, one vote.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I'd say you are really reaching for things here, Don.

But...

...a good point in your favor can be made in this thread, so allow me to do that.

Montana has a population of just over 1 million people. (Approximately 1,050,000) It is, as you say, a reliable RED state.

California has a population of almost 40 million people. (Approximately 39,540,000) it is a reliable BLUE state.

The 1,000,000 people of Montana are represented in the Senate by 2 senators...selected by a predominantly conservative electorate.

The 40,000,000 people of California are represented in the Senate by 2 senators selected by a predominantly liberal electorate.

That is great for the conservatives...and sucks for the liberals.

The only real loser is fairness...and the notion of one person, one vote.
Click to expand...

Metropolitan Buffalo has more people than the State of Montana, as well as several other red states, the Senate as a representative entity is as antiquated as the House of Lords in the UK

US needs a Parlimentary form of Gov't, but that ain't happening

As far as the Senate race in Montana, the Republican will win because it is a royal red State
 
archives said:
Metropolitan Buffalo has more people than the State of Montana, as well as several other red states, the Senate as a representative entity is as antiquated as the House of Lords in the UK

US needs a Parlimentary form of Gov't, but that ain't happening

As far as the Senate race in Montana, the Republican will win because it is a royal red State
Click to expand...

I like the idea of a parliamentarian government...but I suspect you are CORRECT.

Never happen here.

The set-up right now so markedly favors the conservatives...no change will ever take place...unless big states are allowed to break up and form smaller states. Maybe that is what we need...a North Jersey and a South Jersey...or more likely, a North Jersey, a South Jersey and a Central Jersey.

Lots of other states...some Red, some blue...same thing.

One thing I've always championed...is that no state send two people of the same sex to the senate. Would suck in California because they have two women senators, but most other states have two men...and that should stop.
 
think I am going to have to go with tester. but as you said no recent polls in the last 2 weeks. I would rather wait a couple of days to see those polls come in. is that cheating? :)
 
Frank Apisa said:
I'd say you are really reaching for things here, Don.

But...

...a good point in your favor can be made in this thread, so allow me to do that.

Montana has a population of just over 1 million people. (Approximately 1,050,000) It is, as you say, a reliable RED state.

California has a population of almost 40 million people. (Approximately 39,540,000) it is a reliable BLUE state.

The 1,000,000 people of Montana are represented in the Senate by 2 senators...selected by a predominantly conservative electorate.

The 40,000,000 people of California are represented in the Senate by 2 senators selected by a predominantly liberal electorate.

That is great for the conservatives...and sucks for the liberals.

The only real loser is fairness...and the notion of one person, one vote.
Click to expand...

this literally is an argument we had 200 years ago and the senate was created for the express purpose to give small states a great say. sooooooooooooooooo yeah.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I like the idea of a parliamentarian government...but I suspect you are CORRECT.

Never happen here.

The set-up right now so markedly favors the conservatives...no change will ever take place...unless big states are allowed to break up and form smaller states. Maybe that is what we need...a North Jersey and a South Jersey...or more likely, a North Jersey, a South Jersey and a Central Jersey.

Lots of other states...some Red, some blue...same thing.

One thing I've always championed...is that no state send two people of the same sex to the senate. Would suck in California because they have two women senators, but most other states have two men...and that should stop.
Click to expand...

how about we just let states handle most of their own shit, and have a very limited federal government. that way no one said can boss the entire nation around, and if you end up living in a shit state you have 49 other options to choose from, each with their own styles of government, politics, morality, and way of life.
 
You can't fret the brett said:
how about we just let states handle most of their own shit, and have a very limited federal government. that way no one said can boss the entire nation around, and if you end up living in a shit state you have 49 other options to choose from, each with their own styles of government, politics, morality, and way of life.
Click to expand...

I'll even sweet the pot. We make it the federal governments job to help subsidize moves from one state to the other, so poor people don't get fucked for being born in mississippi.
 
You can't fret the brett said:
this literally is an argument we had 200 years ago and the senate was created for the express purpose to give small states a great say. sooooooooooooooooo yeah.
Click to expand...

This was an argument we had 250 years ago and was created so that the states that owned slaves would agree to enter into a union with the non-slave states.

It should go the way of slavery...and of the idea that women should not be allowed to vote.
 
You can't fret the brett said:
how about we just let states handle most of their own shit, and have a very limited federal government. that way no one said can boss the entire nation around, and if you end up living in a shit state you have 49 other options to choose from, each with their own styles of government, politics, morality, and way of life.
Click to expand...

Essentially Balkanization.

I'm sure the rest of the world would vote for that.
 
Frank Apisa said:
This was an argument we had 250 years ago and was created so that the states that owned slaves would agree to enter into a union with the non-slave states.

It should go the way of slavery...and of the idea that women should not be allowed to vote.
Click to expand...

um again, no bro. it had nothing to do with slavery. you need to learn your history it had to do with small states having representation. that's why it was called the Connecticut compromise. Big states like virginia (slave states) wanted proportional representation. small states like delware and connecticut wanted a senate. connecticut literally banned slavery like a handful of years after one of the biggest compromises our nation ever had, they weren't motivated by slavery, but by small state representation. you are dumb.
 
You can't fret the brett said:
um again, no bro. it had nothing to do with slavery. you need to learn your history it had to do with small states having representation. that's why it was called the Connecticut compromise. Big states like virginia (slave states) wanted proportional representation. small states like delware and connecticut wanted a senate. connecticut literally banned slavery like a handful of years after one of the biggest compromises our nation ever had, they weren't motivated by slavery, but by small state representation. you are dumb.
Click to expand...

Fuck you.
 
You can't fret the brett said:
this literally is an argument we had 200 years ago and the senate was created for the express purpose to give small states a great say. sooooooooooooooooo yeah.
Click to expand...

Of course you know that 200 years ago Senators were also selected by the individual State Legislatures and not via the ballot box. And keep in mind who the small States were at that time and what was their unifying issue
 
You can't fret the brett said:
how about we just let states handle most of their own shit, and have a very limited federal government. that way no one said can boss the entire nation around, and if you end up living in a shit state you have 49 other options to choose from, each with their own styles of government, politics, morality, and way of life.
Click to expand...

Sounds good, but unpractical, this isn't the 18th Century, States have too many interconnecting relationships to revert back to a semi Confederation
 
You can't fret the brett said:
um again, no bro. it had nothing to do with slavery. you need to learn your history it had to do with small states having representation. that's why it was called the Connecticut compromise. Big states like virginia (slave states) wanted proportional representation. small states like delware and connecticut wanted a senate. connecticut literally banned slavery like a handful of years after one of the biggest compromises our nation ever had, they weren't motivated by slavery, but by small state representation. you are dumb.
Click to expand...

Not true, slavery was a key motivator, Virginia was the only large slave state, and as early as that time there existed vast differences in cultural life styles
 
archives said:
Of course you know that 200 years ago Senators were also selected by the individual State Legislatures and not via the ballot box. And keep in mind who the small States were at that time and what was their unifying issue
Click to expand...

yeah, that system was far superior to what we have now.
 
archives said:
Not true, slavery was a key motivator, Virginia was the only large slave state, and as early as that time there existed vast differences in cultural life styles
Click to expand...

no, it wasn't. that's why states that fought tooth and nail for this abolished slavery even a couple of years after. they were motivated by not being run over by 1 or two states. the biggest states were mostly southern and it was mostly these slave states that wanted proportional representation.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I'd say you are really reaching for things here, Don.

But...

...a good point in your favor can be made in this thread, so allow me to do that.

Montana has a population of just over 1 million people. (Approximately 1,050,000) It is, as you say, a reliable RED state.

California has a population of almost 40 million people. (Approximately 39,540,000) it is a reliable BLUE state.

The 1,000,000 people of Montana are represented in the Senate by 2 senators...selected by a predominantly conservative electorate.

The 40,000,000 people of California are represented in the Senate by 2 senators selected by a predominantly liberal electorate.

That is great for the conservatives...and sucks for the liberals.

The only real loser is fairness...and the notion of one person, one vote.
Click to expand...

The slave states were opposed to equal representation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top