That is the huge majority of the electorate in Montana that would not even consider voting for Sen. Clinton as president. The Democrat has similar negative numbers in Colorado, Nevada, and Arizona.
Bill Clinton won Montana and Colorado in 1992, Arizona in 1996, and Nevada in both of his elections. That Hillary has such high negatives in both states really should give her pause.
I'm sick of the close elections, with each party playing to the most common denominator in the hopes of cobbling together a thin Electoral College majority. For once, can the Democrats nominate a candidate who has the potential to take their ticket up near Bill Clinton territory? (That would be between 370 and 380 electoral votes...100+ over what is needed.)
