I think the previous poll results were 49% to 42%. If the MOE was 4% than Burns is just moving up to that upper limit of his margin of error. A 7% lead with a 4% MOE is either close to a tie or a 14% advantage. I haven't liked Rasmussen's model all 2006, however the change in this poll may reflect a model adjustment on Rasmussen's part. We shall confirm my theory if his other statewide polls show movement for the Republicans up their margin of error. The 2% lead is a statistical dead heat with 6% undecided. Anybody's race.

Burns should run an ad talking about the 2004 Dem senate candidate from Colorado (Allend?). The Dem candidate swore up and down he was a centrist Dem and would reflect Colorado's mild red status. But then he got to DC and began toeing the Dem line on everything, even voting against things he said he would vote for. Burns should convince the Montana voters that Tester would do the same if elected.

The data does show that Tester's support is soft, and his favorable ratings are still over 50%. The indicated course is to raise his negatives by bringing out his known radical left views, because they obviously aren't well enough known in conservative Montana. Then the voters could drawn the conclusion AWW suggests on their own.

LorenU is quite correct that we need some confirmation of these results from another poll, but they are consistent with typical trends: races tend to get closer as the election approaches, particularly with an incumbent running behind.

If we win this, we not only hold the Senate, we might not even lose more then a seat or two.

Up till recently, Burns has ran one of the worst campaigns i've ever heard of, at least in terms of PR, but if his ads are indeed working, who knows?

I'm a little worried, after Ney, that Burns actually is guilty of the Abramoff stuff, and that could REALLY screw us later, but as for now, I'll take him at his word till I have some proof otherwise.

Hope he pulls it out. We really don't need another Max Baucus. (actually, Tester is worse then Baucus.)

Burns had received, over the years, some $150,000 from Abramoff and his clients, which he returned after all hell broke loose on it earlier this year.

If there were more to it than that, I expect it would have come out by now.

Tester is far to the left of Baucus - who is liberal enough on his own - and was the first Nutroots candidate to win any election, albeit a primary. Lamont was the second. The Nutroots have yet to win a general election for an endorsed candidate.

The problem is that Montana is such a cheap media market, all the ad space on TV may already be reserved through November.

I am somewhat curious if I am the only one from Montana or if others here are as well. If you are not, there are some things to consider:

1) The Patriot Act (which Burns has been trumpeting) is very UNPOPULAR in Montana. The Montana legislature overwhelmingly passed a resolution against it. Many republicans in the legislature voted for the resolution. Burns is running ads touting the fact that he supports it. In my opinion, this is a BAD move.

2) Burns originally ran as man of the people years ago when he defected Doc Melcher. His campaign centered around him only running for two terms. He is now seeking his fourth. This is still a big issue with many Montana voters.

3) He also campaigned that Melcher was completely out of touch with Montana and had become corrupted by money in DC. Many Montanana's feel that Burns has simply become what he pledged to fight against.

4) Tester like it or not is fairly popular in Montana and is being helped by Montana's democratic governor who is one of the most popular governors in the US (see surveryusa.com for data).

Montana is not a "red state" on the congressional level that many here have been posting over the past few months. In fact, Burns is the only Republican Senator from Montana in the past 50 years.

I would be happy to offer more thoughts if people have questions.

charles_bell74@yahoo.com

P.S. I am an independent voter.

Charles, speaking strictly for myself, if I've given you the impression I find Sen. Burns a meritorious candidate, I apologize. He isn't. Personally, I've always thought of him as something of a buffoon.

I recall, though, the story of Harold Ickes, Sr. being enraged when he found out the US was supporting the Nicaraguan dictator Somoza (also Sr.). Supposedly he confronted FDR, demanding "How can we back him? He's an SOB!"

FDR calmly replied, "You're quite right, Harold. But he is OUR SOB."

Burns is "our SOB." As pitiful as he is, though, his votes are far preferable to what the moonbat Tester would cast in the Senate. That's real damage to the country.

I've heard there is still a lot of opposition to the Patriot Act in the West. I've been asking opponents ever since it passed: Give me an example of someone who "lost their constitutional rights" as a result of the PA. I still haven't received a valid answer.