PPP just published a Montana poll which shows Steve Bullock and Rick Hill tied in a November matchup at 39-39. Despite the tie, Bullock is both better liked and known that Representative Hill:
Bullock is more popular than Hill. 34% of voters have a positive opinion of him to 21% with a negative one. Hill’s under water with 20% of voters rating him favorably to 28% with an unfavorable view. Usually that kind of disparity in favorability numbers would have Bullock ahead overall but of course Montana’s a Republican state and Hill’s taking the GOP vote 77-8, allowing him to achieve the tie.
The other Republican candidates simply haven’t gained any traction in the race, no matter how well they do in TEA Party straw polls. Hill leads the field with 33%. Ken Miller checks in at 12%, with Corey Stapleton coming in at 7%.
The race is really in the same position it has been for months. While 35% of likely Republican primary voters are undecided, it’s almost unimaginable that all will throw their support behind one of Hill’s challengers.
With six minor candidates to divide up the nullification wing of the Republican Party, Hill should coast to victory in June.
Today was a busy today in Montana politics, with both filing deadlines and the latest deadline for reporting campaign finance. As always, while there are certainly more important issues than how candidates raise and spend money, the numbers do provide a sense of where each campaign is—and how effective it will be going forward.
Governor
Candidate
Raised
Cash on Hand
Steve Bullock
$100,853
$439,721
Rick Hill
$70,385
$294,750
Ken Miller
$64,108
$71, 360
Corey Stapleton
$44,439
$149,019
Neil Livingstone
$41,560
$17,585
Jim O’Hara
$6,150
$1,767
Jim Lynch
$4,835
$17,541
It’s got to be of some concern to Republicans that Rick Hill—whose only real advantage as a candidate is a presumed ability to raise money—is lagging so far behind Bullock.
Corey Stapleton’s reports continue to be mysteries—he’s no longer logging any real campaign expenses and continues to lend himself money in what is increasingly a quixotic bid to take 3rd place.
Jim Lynch’s campaign continues to be on life support, and Neil Livingstone continues to lend his campaign massive amounts to money (up to $60,000 now) for no discernible purpose other than enriching D.C.-based political consultants.
It seems that only Ken Miller is able to raise money from actual contributors. He poses the only real threat to Hill in this race, but with a fractured anti-Hill field, Miller seems unlikely to get enough support to win the race.
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Candidate
Raised
Cash on Hand
Jesse Laslovich
$23,238
$82,890
Pam Bucy
$22,994
$87,413
Tim Fox
$42,513
$38,533
Jim Shockley
$50,0366
$52,306
The Democratic race for Attorney General continues to be the most closely contested battle, both in terms of passion and fundraising. Once again, Jesse Laslovich slightly outraised his opponent—and has not had to loan his campaign any money, unlike Bucy, who has donated $10,000 to her campaign. Look for this race to stay tight right up until the primary.
On the Republican side, it only looks close because Senator Shockley has donated a massive amount of money to his campaign. It seems the Republican establishment has chosen to back Fox, presumably for his willingness to embrace odious strategies to seek election.
Democratic candidate for Governor Steve Bullock will be announcing his pick for Lieutenant Governor tomorrow in Great Falls at 11:30, and there has been a great deal of speculation about who will get the nod.
While I don’t have any particular insight or knowledge (and my track record hasn’t been stellar), my guess is that he will name John Walsh as his running mate.
If so, Walsh is an excellent pick—and one that should shore up Bullock’s already excellent chances of winning the race.
If not, I hope I’m as enthusiastic about the person he ultimately does choose.
There are a lot of reasons that I’m supporting Steve Bullock to become the next governor of Montana, but none are more important than his decision to defend Montana’s century-old restrictions on corporate donations in elections. The latest ad from the Bullock campaign makes the case for the importance of this decision, in which Bullock was the single Attorney General across the nation to defend his state’s law.
While Attorney General Bullock is reminding Montanans about real achievements in his office, his Republican rivals are running around the state trying to prove just how out of touch with the mainstream they are. Instead of grandstanding about nullifying federal laws, Bullock took action to defend Montana’s law and crafted an argument the Court could accept.
While the corporate-controlled Supreme Court may end up ruling against the people of Montana, it’s worth remembering John Paul Stevens’s stinging dissent:
At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.
Stevens—and Bullock—are right, of course, and Montanans would be well-served choosing a governor who knows the importance of limiting corporate influence on elections.
Lee Newspapers featured an interesting story today focusing on the fact that both candidates for the Democratic nomination for Governor support the XL pipeline. This shouldn’t be of any real surprise – virtually every major Democratic player in the state supports the pipeline: Tester, Baucus, Schweitzer, and Bullock.
What made the piece interesting was the bit about Otter Creek. Apparently, Larry Jent has decided it’s worthwhile to take a jab or two at Bullock. I’m not really sure what Larry’s strategy is here, but it sure is interesting.
In a news release, Jent also called on Bullock to outline some specific positions on energy-related issues.
“Steve Bullock and I differ on the important issue of the role of coal in Montana’s economic future,” Jent said. “I support the development of the Otter Creek (coal) tracts; Steve voted against that while on the Land Board.
“I spoke for and voted for (the) Montana Alberta Tie Line (MATL) this past year in the Senate. Does anyone know where Steve stands on energy?”
Most of us who pay attention to Montana politics know Steve supports the development of Otter Creek.
In response, O’Brien [spokesperson for Bullock] said, Bullock “believes that Montana can create jobs and grow our rural economies through responsible development of our vast energy resources, including coal, wind, oil and gas, hydropower, biofuels and geothermal. That’s why he’s a supporter of Otter Creek.”
“But Steve also believes that Montana shouldn’t give away our resources,” O’Brien said.
Montana leased the Otter Creek coal for less than half of what experts said it could be worth and one-ninth of what Wyoming is getting, he said.
“Had we waited, we could have received nearly $200 million for Montana taxpayers,” Bullock’s spokesman said.
I happen to agree with Bullock. We shouldn’t have leased for so little. But make no mistake, in the race for governor, Bullock’s vote on Otter Creek will not be about the environment, it will be about revenue.
Rick Hill will attack Bullock’s vote on Otter Creek in every way he can (just like Larry Jent is), but Bullock’s answer is solid: ‘yes to leasing Otter Creek, but we should have gotten more.’
Some weeks make the difference between politicians and public servants incredibly clear. The former play cynical political games that rely on divisiveness and distraction while the latter analyze policy for its implications on the lives of those they serve. This week, Representative Dennis Rehberg and Attorney General Steve Bullock made the distinction between these two [...]
