.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
Democrats in Montana are caught in a tough spot: Their nominee for the US Senate, Alani Bankhead, is polling poorly, lacks funds, and has little chance of defeating GOP incumbent Kurt Alme in November. However, independent Seth Bodnar has a good shot of unseating Alme in the general election – but only if Bankhead drops out. “If she doesn’t get out, it’s done,” a top Democratic Party operative told The Washington Post. It may be a lose-lose situation, but there could be light at the end of the tunnel for Democrats if they look past their noses.
Wishcasting in Montana
In early March, just minutes before Montana’s filing deadline, Republican Senator Steve Daines withdrew from the US Senate race, nearly four weeks after filing for re-election. The timing of his decision, some say, was intended to dissuade anybody else from joining the race – except Montana US Attorney Kurt Alme, who had filed moments earlier. Daines immediately endorsed Alme, and it all happened so quickly that Democrats were left without time to recruit a stronger candidate to face Alme.
Free with the Daily Briefing
85EssaysUnravel the Constitution
Hamilton, Madison & Jay’s complete case for America, free and searchable in the Publius Reader.
Free with the Daily Briefing. Unsubscribe anytime.
Now Democrats’ best chances of denying Alme a win rest on Bodnar, who many strategists see as more competitive. Polling backs this up, too: A new survey shared with Strength In Numbers shows 50% of likely voters in Montana would vote for Bodnar and only 44% for Alme. But the only way Bodnar wins is without Bankhead on the ballot. In a four-way race (a libertarian candidate is also on the ballot), Alme wins with 41%. But in all configurations with Bankhead not on the ballot, Bodnar beats Alme, and in all configurations with Bankhead on the ticket, she loses each time. Other polling suggests similar scenarios, yet Bankhead refuses to drop out – despite many Democrats calling for her to withdraw.
“I’m a person of faith,” Bankhead told Politico when asked if anything would change her mind. “If a lightning bolt from God struck me and was like, ‘Alani, get out of the race,’ sure.” Other than that, she said “absolutely nothing” could get her to end her campaign.
“If she doesn’t clear the way by August 10, then we are forfeiting this seat to Donald Trump before the race even starts,” Jesse Ferguson, a longtime Democratic Party operative, told The Washington Post. “Staying in isn’t neutral. It is a decision to take Montana off the board.”
Seventeen state lawmakers recently signed a letter to Bankhead and Bodnar asking for one of them to drop out so they could unite against Alme. But even if Bankhead withdrew from the race, the field for Bodnar wouldn’t necessarily widen. The state Democratic Party would have to name a replacement nominee, according to state law. The chair of the Montana Democratic Party, Shannon O’Brien, told The Post that the party is “having internal discussions about the best way to achieve the goal of defeating Alme and defeating the Republicans.” They’ve also been “coordinating with legal counsel” on how to approach the issue and what to do if she drops out.
Maybe Bankhead should look around the country for a clue on how to proceed. Montana isn’t the only ruby-red state where Democrats are stuck with a candidate who is doing more harm than good, but some have pulled the plug.
A Midwest Mess
National and state Democrats are calling on Julian Beaudion to withdraw from the US Senate race in South Dakota to clear the way for Brian Bengs, an independent with statewide name recognition and a decent campaign war chest. Polling shows Bengs has the best shot to defeat incumbent Republican Sen. Mike Rounds, but with Bengs and Beaudion splitting voter support, Rounds will likely come out on top. Yet Beaudion has no interest in withdrawing, and the deadline to do so is August 4.
Democrats have already helped organize some one-on-one matchups with independents vs Republicans in other states that Trump won. In Nebraska, the Democratic Party’s candidate withdrew to clear a path for independent Dan Osborn. And Idaho’s leading Democrat recently bowed out to give independent Todd Achilles a chance to take down Republican Sen. Jim Risch.
But Idaho and Nebraska Democrats saw the writing on the wall: The party’s brand is ostensibly too tarnished in their states for a viable path to victory. Perhaps Beaudion and Bankhead need to look at these situations through a different lens.
Republicans currently hold 53 Senate seats to Democrats’ 47, including independents who caucus with them. Republicans can keep the Senate with 50 seats because JD Vance breaks ties, but Democrats need 51. To get there, though, Democrats must net four GOP-held seats and protect their own vulnerable seats in states such as Michigan and Georgia. If Montana and South Dakota went to independents, Democrats wouldn’t gain seats, but Republicans would lose two. And if Democrats did the math, they might notice this situation wouldn’t be a total loss for them, depending on the circumstances.
For instance, Bodnar wouldn’t count as a Democrat or a Republican. “In theory,” writes pollster G. Elliot Morris in Strength and Numbers, “if he walks onto the floor in January and votes for neither party’s organizing resolution, the Senate is left with 99 partisan senators — and since 99 is an odd number, there would be no tie for the Vice President to break.” In other words, if Bodnar didn’t caucus with Republicans, Democrats could organize the Senate with 50 seats instead of 51. “Paradoxically,” said Morris, “by standing down their candidate in Montana, Democrats actually increase their chance of victory nationally.” It’s a long shot, of course, and several things would have to work in Democrats’ favor, but their chances of outright winning a majority in the upper chamber seem even slimmer.
“If we fumble away a majority because these no hope candidates are too vain to get out of the race, that’ll be a political calamity,” said Matt Bennett, co-founder of the left-wing think tank Third Way, speaking to Politico. “These people need to understand that they will become pariahs.”
The Democratic Party might be in more trouble than it realizes, especially if the only way for Democrats to potentially hand losses to Republicans in red states is by removing their candidates. Between the insurgent wave, the rise of socialists, and third-party candidates outshining Democratic nominees, their once-dedicated voters appear to be sending a clear message. The party, however, might not get it in time.
