Last night, the Republican candidate for the sole House seat from Montana (which is one more voting House seat than the citizens of the mainland colony, aka ‘D.C.’, get. Just saying) won a special election. That he is an entitled rich dude goes without saying, but this was a longshot for the Democrats in any event.
During these special elections, I’ve been looking at how Democratic vote totals compared to the 2016 general elections. The Democrat, Quist, did well in this special election: he received 81 percent of the Democratic total in 2016 (better than Ossoff who has received millions). The problem is that the Republican received 66 percent of the Republican total from 2016. Add that to Montana being a heavily Republican state, and it was virtually impossible for Quist to win–Quist needed 92 percent of the 2016 vote to beat the Republican’s 2017 vote total.
This was also going to be a hard election as voter turnout drives in a sparsely populated state are relatively expensive (i.e., dollars per area covered, etc.). That said, Democrats do need to increase turnout–not by much, but they need more. Some of this is policy, but Democrats–and this is something Washington-based consultants hate*–need to emphasize voter turnout drives.
If they do that, Democrats can take back the House, and, perhaps, even shift a few state legislatures.
*No idea how this will work in the supposedly new Democratic National Committee, but, traditionally, consultants have been paid by receiving a percentage of ad buys (tv and radio advertisements). As you can imagine, this does not provide incentives for voter registration and door-to-door canvassing.