Democrats Can Play Offense And Protect Jon Tester
Despite the negativity, Jon Tester can still win in Montana.
Yesterday, Senate Democrats announced plans to spend “millions” on paid media in Florida and Texas in an attempt to expand the Senate battleground map. That was welcome news to many Democrats who are nervous about prospects in other states like Montana and Ohio. After a poll earlier this week showed Tester down in Montana, social media was abuzz with people pleading with Senate Democratic leaders to shift funds from Montana to other battlegrounds like Florida and Texas. While I think there are several good reasons why Democrats should be playing offense in Florida and Texas, as we’ll discuss, it should be done in addition to, but not instead of, Montana.
The Case for Sticking it Out in Montana
Nothing has fundamentally changed in the Montana Senate race over the last few months. This was always going to be a very close race, as has every single Senate race Tester has ever run: he has won his three senate races by less than 40,000 votes COMBINED. Regardless of who wins, history says this year's election will be very tight, so those who are disappointed that Tester isn’t polling up by a couple points don’t understand his electoral history. He’s no stranger to nailbiter races.
Too much emphasis has been placed on the very small number of public polls out of Montana that have, by and large, shown Tester down. This is very shortsighted. First, Montana is a notoriously difficult state to poll. It’s a massive state geographically with a large rural population that is very difficult to contact. In Tester’s previous elections, public polling has been wrong more times than it’s been right. In 2012, reputable public polls never showed Tester with a lead until mid-October. It’s a good thing national Democrats didn’t abandon him back in September of 2012! In 2006, several late October polls showed him up by anywhere from 10-20 points. He would go on to win by less than one percent– about 3,500 votes. The point is, I wouldn’t put a lot of stock into polling in Montana and I wouldn’t shift resources out of the state because of a couple of bad public polls by out-of-state pollsters.
Second, Montana is a relatively cheap state to invest in compared to other battleground states like Florida, Texas or Pennsylvania. A few million dollars will stretch much farther in Montana than places like Miami or Houston. The lack of presidential spending in Montana should keep rates reasonable and it’s a state where cheaper paid media mediums like cable (rather than broadcast) and radio are still king. Pulling the relatively modest amount the DSCC currently has allocated for Montana and moving it to Texas or Florida— exponentially more expensive states—wouldn’t get Democrats nearly as much as people think.
Finally, but possibly the most important and most overlooked factor is the role third parties have played in Tester’s last three races. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that Jon Tester wouldn’t currently be a member of the Senate if it were not for the Libertarian candidates on the ballots of his previous three races. In 2006 and 2012 the Libertarian candidate took more votes than the margin that Tester won by. In 2012, the Libertarian candidate received just under 32,000 votes or 6.5% of the total vote (Tester won by 18,000 votes).
Luckily for Tester, he’s got a Libertarian on the ballot this cycle and it looks like Republicans are worried. According to an NPR story last month, Trump and national Republicans have tried to convince the Libertarian candidate to drop out of the race because they fear his presence on the ballot could siphon votes from the Republican candidate and help Tester. I’m not familiar with the candidate, Sid Daoud, but he doesn’t seem to be some random, tin hat activist. He’s a former local elected official and previously served as a member of the Montana state House. Keep an eye on how many votes Daoud receives on election day. He doesn’t need much to tilt the race in Tester’s direction.
Playing Offense in a Tough Year
When Democrats looked at the 2024 Senate map two years ago they knew this would be a tough cycle. Democrats would need to defend incumbents in at least 4 states that were expected to be tough environments. More importantly, the Senate battleground map didn’t appear to give Democrats any clear offensive opportunities outside of Arizona. But in the last two months Texas and Florida have emerged as potential targets largely because the Republican incumbents are highly unpopular and Democrats successfully recruited young, energetic candidates to run against them.
I have long felt that Democrats should have been playing offense in Florida and Texas. My only criticism of the current decision to spend money in the states would be that I wish they had come to that decision earlier. In both Texas and Florida the Republican candidates are highly unpopular, even among many Republicans, while the Democratic candidates are well liked but still unknown to many voters. A poll from mid-August showed Rick Scott with a favorable/unfavorable of -14. The same poll showed Governor Ron Desantis with a +9 favorability. There’s probably not a lot national Democrats can do to further drive up Scott’s unfavorables given how bad they already are. But using paid media resources to help introduce Mucarsel-Powell and Allred in Florida and Texas, respectively, could help swing votes in key counties.
These late, but smart, investments in Florida and Texas don’t need to be made at the expense of a still very winnable race in Montana. Jon Tester has a long track record of winning very tight races which is great because this year’s election is setting up to be very close. Abandoning Tester at this point would certainly result in a loss. The dearth of quality of polling out of Montana is causing people to put too great an emphasis on what little data we do have. Don’t draw any hard conclusions about this race based on any one poll coming from a state that is notoriously hard to poll other than that this remains a very close race.