I am a college student in Montana and frequent reader and enthusiast of “The Hill,” but needed to pause while reading a piece, “GOP loses top senate contenders,” written by Lisa Hagen on Feb. 20. When referencing GOP Rep. Ryan Zinke’s expected Cabinet confirmation removing him as contender in Montana’s 2018 Senate race, Hagen described Montana as a “deep red state.” This is a common misconception.

While Montana has voted for the Republican in every presidential race since 1992, it is very “purple.” For example, in 2008 Sen. John McCain John Sidney McCainThe electoral reality that the media ignores Kelly's lead widens to 10 points in Arizona Senate race: poll COVID response shows a way forward on private gun sale checks MORE (R-Ariz.) won the state by just two points, while in 2016, Trump won by 20 points, demonstrating how sporadically the political climate can change depending on the specifics of the race. There have only been three Republican U.S. senators in Montana’s 100-year history of electing senators. We currently have a Democratic governor, and one of our two U.S. senators is a Democrat. Prior to the 2016 elections, four out of five statewide elected offices were held by Democrats.

ADVERTISEMENT

The point is that unlike other states, Montana changes frequently because of local interests. While Democrats are more moderate here than in more clearly liberal states, the Democratic Party in Montana has a rich history. Democratic Sen. Jon Tester Jonathan (Jon) TesterPence seeks to boost Daines in critical Montana Senate race This World Suicide Prevention Day, let's recommit to protecting the lives of our veterans Filibuster fight looms if Democrats retake Senate MORE’s seat in 2018, to which was referred in the article, is considered a toss-up, regardless of who runs. While at first glance Montana seems “deep red,” it is not red in the way Texas is, for example, but instead confusingly “purple.”

Conor A. Coutts, Helena, Mont.

NAFTA redesign tricky business

In regards to the op-ed by Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), “NAFTA 2.0 done right could enhance deal” Feb. 7, 2017, I would add that there are many other states that also have a large percentage of their total exports that go to Mexico. Texas is not the only state exporting to Mexico; just about every State exports to Mexico. In 2012, for example, border states such as California and Arizona exported 16.2 percent and 34 percent respectively, as percentage of their total exports; however, Midwestern states such as Michigan, Nebraska and Iowa exported as percentage of their exports 18.4 percent, 24.3 percent and 17.2 percent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

As stated by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, in 2015, Mexico was the second-largest good export market and third- largest agricultural export market.

Millions of U.S. jobs depend on trade with Canada and Mexico, according the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Eliminate NAFTA, and millions of workers will be impacted as well as thousands of companies. For some it will be disastrously bad. Negotiating changes to NAFTA is an opportunity, however, and it must be done responsibly since millions of people on both sides of the border depend on it.

From Felix E. Telleria, Weston, Fla.

Lawmakers – show some respect

President Trump will address a joint session of Congress Feb. 28. Hopefully, these recalcitrant House Democrats who refused to participate in the president’s inauguration will show some class this time by attending the joint session.

To this intractable ilk, if you do indeed elect to attend these proceedings, no yelling out potty-mouthed Madonna vulgarities, booing or turning your backs on the president. Although you dislike the man personally, at least show some semblance of respect for the office of the presidency.

From Earl Beal, Terre Haute, Ind.