After the election was called, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
circulated a memo declaring that it had “refused to waste money on hype.”
On Friday, Democratic leaders emphasized that Mr. Quist had performed better than the party’s past congressional candidates
in Montana, apparently benefiting from the enthusiasm of rank-and-file Democrats even as he fell well short of victory.
“What it says is we can be competitive in rural districts in states like Montana,” Mr. Crowley
said of the special election, adding: “With the right candidate, with the right resources.”
The first element of that formula was on the minds of many Democrats on Friday, looking back at the avalanche of opposition research Republicans used against Mr. Quist as a sign
that party leaders need to intervene more in primaries to ensure better candidates.
By JONATHAN MARTIN and ALEXANDER BURNSMAY 26, 2017
— The Democratic defeat in a hard-fought special House election in Montana on Thursday highlighted the practical limitations on liberal opposition to President Trump
and exposed a deepening rift between cautious party leaders, who want to pick their shots in battling for control of Congress in 2018, and more militant grass-roots activists who want to fight the Republicans everywhere.
Rob Quist, the Democratic nominee in Montana, staked his campaign on the Republican health care bill,
but he still lost by six percentage points, even after his Republican opponent for the state’s lone House seat, Greg Gianforte, was charged with assaulting a reporter on the eve of the election.
Yet while it may be possible for Democrats to win control of the House without staking their fortunes on states
and districts like Montana’s at-large congressional seat, the implications of being less competitive in rural precincts could have graver consequences in the Senate, where Democrats are defending a cluster of seats in conservative, sparsely populated states — including Montana