Mid-Term Election Followup
The “Why” Behind the Tester Win
By Courtney Lowery, 11-08-06
After a long night of trying to figure out if Democrat Jon Tester won the Senate Race in Montana, my foggy brain is now trying to come up with a cogent explanation of why Tester won the Senate race in Montana.
Pundits across the nation are poring over the Montana results, and some have been calling me up and asking just what Jon Tester's win over three-term incumbent Sen. Conrad Burns means. Means. Really, why did he win?
I cringe at these questions, because the short answer is, it's complicated, and the long answer is not fit for a soundbite. But I'll take a shot at it anyway, and here it is:
No, it's not about Iraq. No, it's not about Bush. It's not about corruption either, and it's not really about a red state turning blue. It's about politicians learning how to cater to an independent-thinking state.
It's about Montana and Montanans, if that isn't too squishy for you. I grew up here, and I've watched this race since it's first day and have had ample opportunity to spend time with Tester and his clan, but I'm still uncomfortable with the generalizations. But, here are a few anyway.
It was the battle over who was more "Montanan" that made this race so down-to-the-wire close. If it was just about corruption, Tester would have had a landslide on his hands. If it was just about who could bring home the bacon, Burns would have won, and won big. If it was about George Bush, well, Bush is still surprinsingly popular in these parts, and the assocation certainly didn't hurt Congressman Denny Rehberg. If it was about Burns' gaffes, it likely was not about the "Hugo" immigration quip or even the "raghead" comment. It was the attack on a wildland firefighters, who are local heros.
And if it was just about who had the most cow crap on their boots … hell, we all know it wasn't about that.
Corruption was a key issue in the campaign, for sure, but not in the way people assume. Corruption didn't play out in Montana like it did in other states. Montanans were more angered by Burns being in cahoots with people who had no interest in Montana than they were about who those people were or what they did. It wasn't about Abramoff, or a feeling that Burns was dishonest. It was that he had gone native in Washington, and that was unforgiveable.
Burns had the man-of-the-people thing nailed in the beginning of his career, but after three terms, he started to smell too East Coast and the persona didn't work anymore. That's why even in many of the bread-and-butter Burns places in rural Montana, Tester was close. He didn't get close enough to take those counties, and in fact, didn't perform as well as perhaps he should have, but his numbers looked OK in some places, which means Burns wasn't passing the smell test anymore.
It's also why the Burns camp went right for Tester's persona out of the gates, tying him to the likes of Teddy Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer. It wasn't about these people being "liberals," it was about Tester's back being scratched by people -- again -- who have no interest in or knowledge about Montana. That was the message we got. "Liberal" was almost always prefaced by "out-of-state."
It's also why personally, when Harry Reid promised to hand Tester a seat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, I wilted a little.
When Tester hit the big leagues after the primary election, garnering all manners of national attention and support, I actually started to think "this is bad for this campaign." It's how the game is played, especially in high-profile race with a very powerful and well-funded incumbent, but it didn't sit right with me and I know I was not the only one.
Are we turning "blue" here? No, this isn't about turning red or blue, it's about Montanans trying to figure out how to run for Montanans.
I'm not saying they got it right on either side this time (especially with the last few weeks of ads), but they tried and that's what the nation should take cues from. Gun-toting, traditional-marriage-loving, cowboy-boot-wearing Democrats won't work everywhere. And if they did, Montana wouldn't want them anymore.
The key to this election was not about tying a race to what's happening nationally. It was about tying a race to a proud sense of local identity - an independent, pragmatic, no-nonesense local identity.
It worked for both Conrad Burns and Jon Tester this time around. It just worked a little better for Tester.
Now, after all that boxing in by someone who doesn’t like boxes, tell me why you think Tester won and maybe I'll use it in my next interview.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
I like what you've said here. I've had NewWest up on the computer since yesterday morning--that's why nobody has been able to call my house.
I can only interpret Tester's win from a small group, 'cause I don't talk politics much with people I don't know very well.
I think that the Montanans I know saw a chance to remove one of the Bush Admin.'s rubber stamps, and try to change the course of the nation before something irreparable happens. The Repubs and the Pres. all left the building saying "I know they are dissatisfied with the progress in Iraq, that's why we lost this one," and that is a clever, clever strategy-- put the blame for their loss on some extra tough insurgents, way on the other side of the world. But people here knew full well that the Iraq situation was, while terrible and challenging, only one of the terrible fruits of this administration's policies. Most people I know well are pretty conservative, and there has been nothing conservative about what has been going on at the federal level in our country for the past six years.
Burns was a bit weakened, a bit vulnerable, and he was aiding and abetting an admin. gone nuts with incompetence and bad ideas. Pull him if you can, and put in someone who can help put the brakes on.
I don't think it was personal. Burns has done alot for the state.
I'd like to hear from some others.
Here's an interesting angle that strikes me. Rather than compare Burns with Tester, I'd like to compare Burns with Rehberg. I watched their debates on TV one night. Back to back. I didn't agree much with Rehberg on substance. Truth be told, I would never vote for either of them, personally. But Rehberg was pretty well-spoken, seemed respectful of his opponents and the voters, and he had obviously thought about the issues. And he showed some humility. Burns, on the other hand, sounded like a drunken buffoon. He couldn't complete a sentence or a thought. He showed no respect for anyone. He didn't seem to care what the question or issue at hand was, he just wanted to puff up his chest and sound like a good old boy.
Think that didn't show through to many an undecided, moderate, average Montanan?
Of course, I think all the other reasons already listed probably had a lot to do with it, too.
Good stuff. From my seat down here in Ravalli County – and I had a bet going that Tester would windown here – I have a limited view. The people I spoke with who wanted Burns back were more concerned with not losing seats in the Senate. But I think you're right about Montanans – we seem to want someone who looks, thinks and acts like us. Party affiliation is a secondary consideration. That's a generalization, but for the most part I think it's true. Look at how popular Schweitzer has been.
An interesting note in all of this is how much attention Montana has got during this race. The whole Western Democrat theme that has cropped up around the country is making distinctions within the Democrat Party. A friend from the Boston Herald said that reporters back East look at the Democrats gaining momentum in the West as curious zoo animals. She seemed to imply that East Coast journalists are having a hard time understanding what these new-breed Democrats are all about. Your piece might help them out some.
That all said, I think the race tightened up in the end, not just because of Burns’ efforts, but because of the Reid endorsement, which Tester thanked him for in his acceptance speech, and because the way the ads in the last few weeks began to almost sound the same. The Tester camp seemed to endorse a lot of what the Burns camp was doing by simply following suit. Tester’s “standing for something different in Washington” was a great campaign theme, but I also think it needed a bit more of the “I’ll take the High-Road” mentality.
And, matt, thanks. I fixed it. God that is a bad one. :)
Also, once again a third party candidate plays the spoiler. Stan Jones is the Montana version of Ross Perot and Ralph Nader.
Whereas Tester, just by the tone of his voice was trying to connect with people, even over the radio. His answers were well articulated, and honest. His ideas were his own, and the thoughts were refreshing to hear, especially after Conrad's grating and bad soundbites could only be repeated so many times. Tester was making clear sense, with Montana in mind, trying to come up with real solutions.
This is my first time blogging, and I know I don't have the examples to back up my thoughts, but I can't imagine that if you listened to the debates on NPR, or maybe even saw them in person, you could argue with the fact that Tester put more effort into connecting with the people of Montana. An effort that was rewarded well.
I had to come back and drop this into the discussion-this is from today's Washington Post, quoting Rich Lowry of the National Review..Moments after the interview, as the president announced that he was replacing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Lowry wrote on his magazine's Web site that "a lot of Republicans are probably yelling right now, 'Why didn't you do it BEFORE the election?' Of course, he couldn't have done it right before the election, but a few months ago it might have been a step toward giving the public the fresh look/approach it wanted with regard to Iraq."
"giving the public the fresh look/approach it wanted..." that sums it up, in my opinion. Give us idiots a fresh look and you can continue to do whatever foul business you want, unhindered. Well, eventually the specifics of that foul business will emerge. Reality trumps BS.
Montana, with its cold weather, drought, livestock culture, --or backcountry hiking, climbing, horsepacking- is a reality-based culture. A "fresh look" won't save you if you can't do the ski descent on Mount Cleveland, or you forgot your tire chains and have to cross Rodgers Pass at midnight in a storm...a fresh look won't help you if you start swathing hay while the storm clouds are building...you fall off a cliff, you end up in the North Fork, frozen and dead, or you lose your hay crop and your ranch.
I remember the first real job I ever had in the Bitterroot, managing a little ranch for a rich guy--how did the rich guy get the ranch? The former owner, an original settler of the valley, had gotten obsessed with "Commies" and was also a founding member of the Posse Comitatus. He spent so much time in Stevensville ranting about the Red Threat and tax tyranny that he forgot to cut the hay on time, or tend to the sheep.
Remember when all the business of the nation got dropped while the Repubs held emergency sessions about Terry Schiavo?
1. Stan Jones, the Libertarian canidate who did'nt seem to know if he was running for Senate or Govenor (see http://www.mtlp.org/jones/), captured 10k votes, most of which would have gone to Burns, who lost by 2k votes.
2. Montana's recent influx of big city Democrats.
3. Hate for George Bush. And unfortunately hate is the most powerful motivator.
It was also a good opportunity to send a message about wasting hard earned tax dollars to get campaign contributions. Don't think Burns is any worse than most but he got busted and Montana had a chance to set an example. I'm proud of our state. Might not be as proud of our highways in a couple of years but I'm happy to buy new shocks if we can send a message that Montana can't be bought.
Of course, it wasn't really those three thousand republicans, it was only ONE republican, and that was Conrad Burns himself. Two fewer flaps of the piehole and he's returning to Washington.
If there is an intangible element in the explanation, I think it has to do with roots. When you think about Conrad's Missouri roots and his eighteen years in Washington, the man has probably spent more of his life outside Montana than in it. His verbal mistteps and his ties to lobbyists were an embarassment to the state. Contrast that with Tester. Born and raised working the land of Montana. Former school teacher. Musician. Orgnanic farmer. I sense that to most Montanans, Tester just seemed like the real deal. Moreso than Conrad. A real good ol' boy from Montana keeps his mouth shut more than Conrad, and gets dirty only because real work gets a real man dirty.
Anyone want to bet when the next flat-top haircut emerges on the national scene?
Before we leave the U.S. Senate Democratic primary for the person who will sit in Mike Mansfield’s seat, a word is necessary to give some insight into why the four political professors who are paid to interpret the polls were not only so far off in their predictions, but could not give a single reason why, after they were paid to reflect on why they could be so wrong.
People that live by the polls, die by the polls and if Harry Truman could prove that point you would think that lessons could be remembered. Forrest Anderson did more in his one term as governor than a predecessor in producing the most reform of any Montana governor. He knew Montanans and could gauge a campaign on how it approached Joe Sixpack, who sat at home after a hard day’s work and separated the baloney from the beefsteak. Anderson didn’t need a poll to tell him how Montanans would vote - he knew instinctively.
Polling in Montana is about as useful as polling a herd of stampeding bison on which way is the best to go, as you follow them off the cliff. The Lee Newspapers’ poll some ten days before the primary had Morrison ahead of Tester by one percentage point and the professors reading their tea leaves were solid in their prediction of a race too close to call.
I knew from the debates that Paul Richards presented the best of Democratic programs, by saying what he believed after studying the issues, not studying what polls said and what people wanted to hear.
The early Morrison lead was based on the firm belief that he had twice won statewide and he could win again. That margin, like the front of an Alaskan glacier, seemed solid, although weaknesses inside were slowing building pressures of resistance.
If you ever took a tour ship along the Columbia Glacier, you would see how they drift close to the face of the glacier towering above the water and when the Captain would give a loud blast from the ship’s horn, part of the ice would give way and crash into the ocean. Doing that now would certainly be a poor practice now to resist the effects of global warming, but like so many other things, it felt good at the time.
The weakness of the Morrison supporters would not stand the blast of Paul Richards, which hit after the last poll was taken showing the Morrison-Tester vote was too close to call.
Jon Tester had called Paul Richards before the final poll was announced and he requested a meeting. Tester was speaking until 9:00 p.m. and Richards suggested they meet in his mother’s dining room in Helena later that night. It was agreed and Richards went over his issues (peace, Indian claims settlement, protecting all remaining roadless areas, renewable energy, universal health care, and public financing of elections) and noted where Jon Tester could firm up his positions to take the stronger stance that Paul had argued so effectively the entire primary campaign.
Campbell on Richards, p. 2
Since both were experienced legislators that knew the importance of late-night negotiations, an agreement was reached that would be in the best interest of Montanans. Paul Richards would announce his support for Jon Tester. The next day, he announced that he would vote for Jon and urged his supporters to do the same to best see that Conrad Burns would not return to the United States Senate.
Paul Richards displayed statesmanship by his concern that John Morrison could not beat Conrad Burns in November and that supporting Jon Tester was the only way to achieve the needed change in the direction of this nation. (The control of the U.S. Senate may hinge on this one race).
The blast of Paul Richards’ announcement separated those who had a substantial belief that John Morrison could be the best person to unseat Conrad Burns. The unexpected issue of family values had weakened Morrison’s chances and Morrison’s lead had been cut.
Political professors who believed in the latest Lee Newspaper poll without having an insight on the rugged individualism of the Montana voter found themselves watching the Morrison Glacier losing those who could no longer ignore the issue that Tester and Richards brought out so effectively in the final six days of the campaign.
Richards and his supporters joined the Tester campaign in Missoula in watching the returns. When the first returns showed a two-to-one lead by Tester, the applause was deafening. The race was over in 30 minutes, while the political professors watched their projections evaporate without any statistical justification.
When Jon Tester invited Paul Richards to stand by him on stage, they raised their hands to an electrifying applause, recognizing that they now had the candidate and the issues to energize the uphill campaign to unseat Conrad Burns, who is recognized as the most expendable person serving in the Senate.
The statesmanship of Paul Richards was a moment rarely seen in Montana politics. The issues were elevated to be the most important part of the campaign. Now, Democrats can fight Burns’ upcoming embarrassing ten-to-twelve million dollar mud-throwing campaign. Montanans can now finally see the light at the end of the tunnel. We will finally have a competent and conscientious senator in Mike Mansfield’s seat. It is enough to give cynics a new hope for a better Democratic deal in November.
Bob Campbell
Delegate, Montana Constitutional Convention
129 1/2 W. Kent
Missoula, MT 59701
Ph: 406-543-5276
Montana voters are an independent bunch. Voter identification is roughly a third Republican, Democrat and Independent, with the Republicans holding an advantage.
Jeff pointed out Republican Denny Rehberg garnered 3,000 more votes in his US House race in Gallatin County than Conrad Burns did in his US Senate race. Statewide, Rehberg picked up 42,500 more votes than Burns.
MSNBC's exit poll of Montana's US Senate race http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14349812 showed that 1 in 10 Republicans, and 6 in 10 Independents voted for Tester. Those Independent and Republican votes showed up in rural counties including Choteau, Mineral, Rosebud, and Sheridan. The native vote gave Tester wins in Big Horn, Blaine, and Roosevelt counties.
So what was on Montana voter's minds on election day? According to MSNBC's poll, economic worries topped the list outranking ethics, or lack thereof. The war in Iraq and so-called war on terror, in short, voter's concerns about national security played third fiddle to economic security.
Rural, independent Montana voters did not see nor have they seen the blessings of Bush's tax cuts. Economic insecurity buoyed by a steady erosion in incomes for middle class Montanans was the deciding why factor.
Burns' claimed $2 billion in pork for Montana – pork that flowed first to his politically connected cronies – came with a smell more like Washington DC than the Big Sky.
Montana's US Senate seats are the great equalizers in our representative democracy. If Montanan's sense that one of our own has forgotten to serve our needs first, no amount of lobbyist-served pork will make us forget our hunger for wholesome bread and butter.
I think the race tightened up because of the outpouring of money from the GOP sources and the relentless negative campaigning of Republicans who will do anything to destroy the reputation of an opponent in order to run. In this case, being mean didn't work with the majority of Montanans! That's heartening.
I am really looking forward to the years ahead with Tester in the Senate!