|
 |
Hi, y’all. Welcome back to The Opposition. After the 2024 election, Democratic operatives quietly began discussing backing independent candidates in traditionally Republican states. As they saw it, the Senate map was difficult. And boosting independents would give the party the best chance at blunting Republican efforts to secure another Senate majority. While that strategy has gone off with relatively little issue in states like Nebraska, Democrats in other purple and red states are not quite as willing to get on board. Let’s get into it.
–Lauren
P.S. – If you value independent journalism like this, please consider becoming a Bulwark+ member today. You’ll not only be supporting our work, and gaining access to all our locked content, but you’ll be joining our growing pro-democracy community. If you do sign up today, say hi in the comments!
Dems’ Stealth Plan to Reclaim the Senate Hits a Rough Patch
If the “D” label is a liability, sidestepping it might work—but only if everybody plays along.
|
| ||||||||||||
 |
FOR A BRIEF MOMENT over the weekend, some Democratic officials in Montana had high hopes that their party’s candidate for the United States Senate would drop out.
It’s not that the candidate, Alani Bankhead, an Air Force veteran and political newbie, was beset by scandal. It was that they wanted the field to be cleared for someone without a D next to their name. Seth Bodnar is an independent running for the seat being vacated by Republican Sen. Steve Daines, and he’s backed by several prominent Democratic leaders, including former Sens. Jon Tester and Max Baucus, who over the past few years have come to believe that the Democratic party’s brand has grown far too toxic to win statewide.
But after teasing a “very important announcement” that was interpreted in some quarters as a coming campaign suspension, Bankhead instead doubled down. Standing at a lectern in front of the University of Montana’s iconic bronze grizzly bear statue, she didn’t just say she was “never dropping out,” of the race, “ever, ever.” She made clear that Bodnar was one of the reasons why.
“Seth Bodnar is absolutely the last person on the face of the Earth I would ever drop out of this race for,” Bankhead said.
The press conference was the latest hiccup in a bank-shot play Democrats have been making to wrest control of the Senate from Republicans. Hoping to grab GOP-held seats in traditionally conservative states, the party has tried to elevate independent candidates without putting too much of the Democratic party’s odor on them.
It has proven to be a tricky balancing act, nowhere more so than in Montana, where Bankhead’s commitment to stay in the race has ignited a fresh round of debates about whether the Democratic brand is damaged beyond repair, or if giving up on it is premature and shortsighted.
Some Montana party officials I spoke with argued that in the face of Trumpism and democratic backsliding, Democrats had to shed their partisan preferences and do whatever was required to deny the GOP another Senate majority. And that meant being clear-eyed about the fact that the era of Democrats realistically being able to win statewide in Montana was over—at least for now. But others in the party believe that Tester and his allies have over-learned lessons from his 2024 campaign, which he lost to Republican Tim Sheehy after serving three terms. They argued that the party needed to run different types of candidates, not shed party labels entirely.
“[Tester’s] conclusion was, as he looked in the mirror, that if Jon Tester can’t win, nobody can win. I disagree with that,” said former Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who told me that he unsuccessfully tried to convince Bodnar to run as a Democrat instead of an independent.
Honest news.
Smart analysis.
No-BS commentary.
Support our independent journalism and join our growing pro‑democracy community.
MONTANA ISN’T THE ONLY STATE WHERE this intraparty debate is getting spicy. It is also heating up in South Dakota and Idaho, where there are both Democrats and independents running for Senate. Democratic leaders in these states have sought advice from the Nebraska state party chair Jane Kleeb, hoping to glean some wisdom from how she handled the decision in 2024 to keep Democratic candidates out of the race and clear the field for independent Dan Osborn. Osborn lost to Republican Sen. Deb Fischer, but only by 7 points while Donald Trump carried the state by 20. Osborn is running as an independent again this year against Sen. Pete Ricketts.
“Every state chair needs to make a decision that’s best for themselves, but they also need to make a decision that’s best for the electorate, that’s best for the state, and what’s best for our country. So sometimes you do put aside your partisan loyalty,” Kleeb told me. “I’m not saying every election cycle we’re now going to endorse an independent in a congressional or senate race, but for this cycle, with this candidate, it makes sense for us.”
But not all state party leaders share Kleeb’s outlook. Some feel it’s their duty to stand by the Democratic nominee, no matter how doomed their candidacy may be. And to be clear, their prospects don’t look great. The Democratic candidates in South Dakota, Idaho, and Montana have very little cash on hand, while their independent and GOP counterparts have far bigger war chests. Just looking at the numbers, it’s almost like the Republican and the independent are the major parties, and the Democrats are the third-party spoiler.
And then there’s the matter of state history. Trump carried all three states by wide margins. The last Democrat elected to the Senate in Idaho was Frank Church in 1968; the last Democrat elected to the Senate in South Dakota was Tim Johnson in 2008. Although Tester won his 2018 re-election bid, some party officials view that as an anomaly in this hypernationalized political era.
“Democrats, at least in Montana, are struggling,” said Baucus, who was the longest-serving U.S. senator from Montana ever when he was appointed by Barack Obama in 2014 to serve as ambassador to China.
“The Democratic leaders that I talk to—the Democrats who hold leadership positions—publicly have to be for th