Because Texas has 38 electoral votes and Montana has 3. Texas becoming a battle ground state changes the political landscape of this country.
A senate seat is a senate seat. They all count the same. And Montana has a 2 term INCUMBENT Senator in trouble. Cruz is only running for his 2nd term. It's just weird the amount of coverage given the above is all i'm saying.
No slight intended to the republican candidate, but why would his race be as newsworthy. Montana is a conservative state. republicans have won every presidential election since 1996. And Montana went for every republican candidate since 1972 except Clinton. The other senator in Montana is a republican. Montanan's tend to go back and forth voting for governor... the last two Democrats, the three prior republican. How does that compare with deep red Texas and Beto, trying to be the first Democrat senator since 1993.
If a senate seat turned blue that would be huge for campaigning in the next election. We’d be seeing even more of Betos silly close up campaign videos championing the D nominee.
So how close does this have to be for Beto to be given a "moral victory"? Or has he already been awarded that? Based on some of the responses here that would seem to be the case.
Beto ran a good clean campaign based on policy and not on "orange man bad". The guy visited more Texas towns in a year than Cruz has in his lifetime. If you think politics are a zero sum game then you don't give a **** about the people government are here to represent. Keep score though, this state is only getting more progressive. The fact that the GOP has had to pour money into a DEEP RED state is a sign of success by the Democratic party.
Hmm... it didn't seem that long ago that cruz/trump supporters were doing victory dances and predicting a slaughter. Now, "moral victory" talk.
This is Politics 101. A conservative doing well in a race in Montana isn't news. A progressive in Texas performing well against an incumbent senator in a state that hasn't had a Democrat win a state wide election in decades is absolutely news. Secondly, a decided underdog doing well in such a high profile race, especially one at the top of the ballot tends to have an effect down the ticket. The demographics in Texas are changing dramatically and that has an effect. Texas is becoming less and less red.
Montana in its entire history has never had 2 Republican Senators at the same time. In fact, since 1953 only 2 Senators from Montana have been Republican...one of them elected in 2014...Steve Daines. Most of its history, its had 2 Demorcrat Senators. In fact, some of the most important and well known Senators from Montana (Max Baucus, Mike Mansfield, Lee Metcalf) were re-elected time after time as Democrats. When it comes to the United States Senate, it is FAR more likely to be a Democrat than a Republican. For a Republican to be within 2-3 points here is a miracle. And as far as newsworthy, a Senate seat is a Senate seat.
See my above post about who's held the Senate seats in Montana. RARELY Republicans, NEVER both Republican. Define "doing well". I wasn't aware a 6-10% deficit is considered "doing well".
I LOLd. But, there could a difference, or an important disinction -- Ok his colleagues hate him. But do his constituents hate him? That's probably the more important question.
Very liberal/leftist framing, I must say. Didn't Trump do better than expected with women, Blacks and Hispanics in 2016? The "right" or "wrong" groups, in my view, don't depend on gender or race, but rather political philosophy. Trump upsets the Leftists, feminists and PC groups? It's a beautiful thing, in my view. Of course, if we were to be totally honest and candid about this, we would then have to ask the question as to whether certain genders, races or groups are automatically or inevitably beholden/attracted to certain political parties, and then--why that is. And we might get into some very ugly and dark territory in doing so.
I still predict a slaughter. Some in this thread talk like Beto has already won just because a few polls say it is close so they are already giving him a "moral victory". I was asking what percentage he needs to lose by for that to stand after the only poll that really counts, the election, is done. I still think Cruz wins it by double digits or very close to it.
I just call it like I see it my man. Trump isn't even trying to be subtle about the fear-mongering and racism he relies on. Actually, subtlety was never a strong suit of his. Any person who calls some places "**** hole", says that Mexico is sending us their drug dealers and rapists (kind of a funny mental picture of the government there patting each rapist on the back as they send them off to school- I mean the US), says that there is wrong on both sides...both sides, when one group marches and chants "Jews will not replace us," has clearly proven time and time again the person he is. It's on us to agree or disagree with him. I'll go ahead and disagree, feel free to do as you please brother.
Well I appreciate the friendly reply at least. Trump has said some things I don't like, to be sure. I thought the characterization of illegal immigrants as rapists and murders was unfortunate, although clearly this describes some of them. But not most of them, and he was wrong to imply that. I thought his statements about Mexico paying for the wall were just stupid. (Although, I'm not sure this one was racist, just stupid.) As for the Charlottesville deal, I agree with him there: there were bad actors all around, from what I can tell. Yes, there were some white nationalists there, but do they not have the right to say what they want to say peacefully? Even if it's distasteful? Free speech requires our tolerance of this. That doesn't mean it's easy. (Actually, "Jews will not replace us" is pretty innocuous, in the grand scheme of things.) As far as the ******hole comment goes, it is impolite, but I'm not sure it's inaccurate. In these comments, some see racism and fear-mongering. I see a President unafraid to be constrained by the politically correct speech guide. Moreover, it seems to me that any president who is going to come in and really change things -- which a lot of people want -- is going to have to be something of an @$$. I think it's actually required, unfortunately. So, his statements don't upset me by and large. A few I don't like. Many more I endorse. And peace be unto you as well, brother. I do appreciate the friendly reply.
He didn't just say there were bad actors on both sides. He said there were "good people on both sides". Some context needs to be applied here. First, you have to understand the the initial permit filed in Charlottesville for the rally was from the self labeled white supremacist group that was chanting "Jews will not replace us". They were the ones who actually filed for the permit and were the head organizers of the rally. Now, Trump apologists who are subtle in their racism and and want to hide it will state when he is reffering to "good people on both sides", he was referring to the protestors who later joined in with the self labeled white supremcists who just had an appreciation for Robert E Lee and didn't want his statue removed. So now imagine this hypothetical. A self labeled pro-ISIS group are the head organizers of a rally. They start the rally. Some people who don't fully agree with ISIS but agree on some other things decide to join in and rally along side them. Some people of Charlottesville see this and are rightfully upset and decide to counter protest. Hot tensions result in sporadic physical confrontation and a pro ISIS driver runs over a counter protestor and murders her. Would Trump in this context say "good people on both sides"? At the end of the day, it was the self-labeled white supremacists that organized the rally. You honestly believe that people who decided to rally along side rhise people were "good people"? If you do, ya I'm sorry, you are a racist. But maybe you didn't know some of the details and I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
