God I love it when the polls prove my point.

This is why we preferred Barack, folks.

i know it's early, but there are a few things i need to say.  WFT?  holy crap!  giggity goo!  aw right.  boo-yah!  voon-de-bah!  bam!  woo-hooo!  

i mean WTF not WFT.

I'm pretty sure I got sampled for this poll.

Obama is fortunate in that Baucus is basically running unopposed, so Republicans won't have the incentive to show up to try to defeat Max like they normally do. If enough of them stay home, Obama could win it.

Obama has been doing tons of GE advertising here already and will be here on the 4th, it's clear he is making a very significant effort to compete in this state. In the primary he visited every "city" in Montana, and in Montana that means everywhere with a population above 30,000 - Billings, Great Falls, Butte, Missoula, and Bozeman, basically.

7,000 people showed up for the Bozeman rally which is about 20% of the local population.

Once again, 2-1 lead among voters under 30.  Remarkable.  Most amazing recent statistic I've seen so far, btw?  In Mississippi Obama seems to be winning this demo by 3-1.  Wrote a longer post on this yesterday, but could summarize the conclusion in one sentence: if the era of the young Republican is over the GOP is in big trouble.

There are a lot of states -- or portions of states -- that not only get overlooked by presidential candidates, but may also feel put down by the national press or the residents of adjoining states/more urban parts of their states.

When presidential candidates show up or at least pay attention to them, it makes a huge difference.

You gotta believe it matters to folks both in North Dakota and western Minnesota that Obama is in Fargo today.  

There's on old saying that the world is run by the people who show up and it's certainly resonates in these situations.

Montana is not THAT conservative.  I think there is a certain East Coast mentality that thinks Montana is indistinguishable from Idaho.

i've worked up a graph (a reworking of Nate Silver's graph actually) that dates back to 1948 presidential elections. You can view how Montana and other states have trended over the years. Truman, LBJ and Clinton (1st term) were the only times the Democratic candidate won Montana in the past 50some years.

http://priggish.com/images/tracker2.png

I still need to make some cosmetic changes but it's readable at the moment.

I would love to see the mountain west become more competetive again.  It seems that back in the 60s and 70s there were some great liberal senators out there.   I don't expect those states to elect Ted Kennedy, but I think those western states can get Mike Mansfields and Frank Church.

I just don't understand what happened to those states.  Can you imagine how much better the country would be if we had someone like Frank Church in the Senate today?

Overflowing with the Mojo spirit so I'm uprating everyone upthread. :D

If Obama can win the presidency while keeping Montana close, he will have a much stronger case to call on the support of Max Baucus and Jon Tester, the state's two Democratic Senators.  Now we are starting to 'get' Obama.  Notice, incidentally, how he built a massive on-line presence without the help, or blessing, of the self-proclaimed 'gate-keepers' of Left Blogistan.  It works on both sides of the Democratic spectrum.  The keyword is 'mandate.'  And it applies to Republican legislators in districts which he might win or lose narrowly, too.  Say what you will about his policies or positions, this guy understands electoral politics in a fundamental way.  And he has plans.

Hillary is already busy mending fences in districts in NY she lost to Obama, within weeks of losing the nomination.  That's the way it is actually meant to work in representative democracy.  He has reacquainted, and energised, significant numbers of voters with their inherent rights in our own Constitutional process.