I want my readers to imagine the following
scenario.
You are the citizen of one of the many
states in the Union where a significant portion of the population (many of whom
frequent sites like this one) will tell you with a straight face one of two
conflicting stories. Either that 'no one lives there' or 'these states have a
disproportionate amount of power'. Both of these arguments, often used in the
same paragraph by the same author, show both the de facto bigotry of urban
America versus rural America as well as the judgment that the electoral college
counts for the entire voting population.
You've lived your entire life in one of
these states – Montana, Idaho, either one of the Dakotas, Kansas or Nebraska.
All of these states have been Republican during that period at a national and local level. In some of those states until fairly recent
Democrats did have a base there but as the party has increasingly embraced a
platform that while inclusive in the general sense of the term doesn't fit the
populace of your particular state, the party has become so moribund that many
local elected offices Republican candidates basically run unopposed.
You might not be a Democrat. Perhaps you’re
an independent or just a dissatisfied Republican who for years if not decades
has seen your state increasingly be left behind economically as the one-party
rule gives neither party any real reason to take the concerns of its populace
seriously. Perhaps you might not agree with the social justice part of the
Democratic platform, perhaps you do. In either case you're desperate for some
kind of change in leadership.
The problem is that, for all intents and
purposes, you have no real choices at the ballot box. If there is a Democratic
party in your state, it is likely so atrophied over the course of so long that
signing on is nevertheless an exercise in futility. It has always been
difficult to recruit Democrats to run in these states during the 21st
century and the results have played out time and again. In North Dakota in
2024, for example, Kevin Cramer won reelection with 66.5 percent of the vote
while the Democratic candidate Katrina Christinasen got just 33.5 percent. And
that was actually an improvement compared to how she did two years
earlier when she ran against John Hoeven when she only got 25 percent of the
vote.
And these are not regions of the country
that the left wing of the Democrats are rushing out to run in. When the Justice
Democrats made their inaugural bid in 2018 they made an effort. They tried to
run candidates in Kansas, Nebraska, Utah and even the delegate at-large primary
in Montana. James Thompson in the Kansas 4th and Kara Eastman in the
Nebraska 9th were the only ones who won their primaries and both
lost in the general. After that election, with the sole exception of Eastman
making another failed attempt in 2020, whenever the Justice Democrats have gone
west they've usually gone straight to California or Colorado and pretend the
rest of that region isn't there. It rejected them, so they feel just as
justified in rejecting it.
So once again you are left with a bad
choice or a doomed one.
Or…you could try what some deep red states
are now trying. It's not a great option but it's an option.
When Dan Osborn announced that he was
running to defeat Pete Ricketts in Nebraska as an Independent there was a
Democratic primary. It was won, overwhelmingly, by Cindy Burbank. However on
July 21st she filed her paperwork with the Nebraska secretary of
state to officially drop out of the race so she would not take votes away from
Osborn. As I wrote in an earlier article Osborn has a decent chance of
defeating Ricketts for the nomination even though there is a Democratic
primary. She withdrew just one day after Osborn's signatures to be on the fall
ballot were verified.
Nebraska Republicans were infuriated by
this as many believed Burbank's run had been entirely for show, a manipulation
of the ballot process done in order to ensure no Democrat will be under the
ballot. Indeed the Secretary of State of Nebraska had done so in March arguing
Burbank was not a 'good faith candidate'. She sued in order to get back on the
ballot and was successful in her attempt, partly because a deadline to raise
that objection was missed.
These kinds of maneuvers, frankly, are far
more common in many Republican run legislatures and while this decision might
seem as morally suspicious those in charge acknowledge that legally there is
nothing they can do.
So Osborn has a decent, albeit still
uphill, chance to win election in November. What I was mostly unaware of is
that in the last several weeks in many other deep red states a similar movement
is taking place.
In the Montana Senate Race incumbent Steve
Daines chose to retire last earlier this year. U.S. Attorney Kurt Alme chose to
run and on Tuesday won the Republican nomination. The Democratic primary was
more crowded but Alani Bankhead won the nomination there.
However there's a third candidate on the
ballot Seth Bodnar the former President of the University of Montana who
resigned in January and officially announced he would run as an independent.
During his run Jon Tester a Democrat who was defeated in the 2024 election
revealed a text message in which he made it clear the Democratic party was
'poison' to his campaign.
Bankhead at the moment is refusing to
withdraw from her campaign to clear the field for Bodnar. The few polls that
are available show that Bodnar in a one on one race would have a better chance
than Bankhead. What's not in dispute is that Alme will easily win if both stay
in the race and the deadline is next Monday for one of them too.
In recent days other states have shown a
similar trend. In Idaho Republican Jim Risch is running for reelection for the
third time. Running against him is Todd Achilles who has an interesting
history. Achilles was registered as a Republican before February of 2024 but
changed his representation to Democrat so that he would qualify to replace one
for a seat in the Idaho House of Representatives. Six months after that he
changed his representation to unaffiliated, arguing that issues such at the
national debt and foreign policy was a reason he left both parties. He resigned
in July of 2025 to run for the Senate as an independent. In May David Roth won
the Democratic primary and earlier this week, chose to withdraw in favor of
Achilles.
In South Dakota Mike Rounds is running for
reelection for his third term. After winning the Democratic primary earlier
this year Julian Beaudion announced he was also withdraw from the race clearing
the way for Brian Bengs, also an independent to run against Rounds in the fall.
Interestingly earlier this year it seemed
another more prominent Independent run was going to take place right next to
Dan Osborn. Roger Hamilton, a prominent megachurch leader in Kansas, spent much
of the first half of this year considering a run as an independent. This might
have been an easier path in a state that hasn't elected a Democrat to the
Senate since the Great Depression. However he chose the safer route and decided
to run in the Democratic primary and having won on Tuesday faces a very uphill
run against Roger Marshall.
Many prominent Republicans, both in these
states and nationwide, have claimed that the majority of these runs are little
more than stalking horses for the Democrats rather then truly one of a third
party. I'm inclined to think two things can be true. Yes the Democrats would
love to rid the Senate of Republicans such as Deb Fischer and Mike Rounds by
any means necessary. And while they might quibble at a term one of their own
used like toxic they're not naïve as to their chances in Nebraska or South Dakota
for the foreseeable future. Fewer Republicans will make it easier for them to
have a majority in the Senate next year.
That being said having endured so much of
Biden's term where most acolytes of AOC considered Joe Manchin a DINO I can
only imagine them running screaming from the room if they ever had to be part
of the same party where candidates like these were members. A brief look at
Todd Achilles statements on politics would confirm this. He has criticized Republicans on supporting
the Iran War, has criticized cuts to Medicaid and has been a major critic of
DOGE, particularly in regard to the VA. But he also believes in reducing the
National Debt and is opposed to 'corporate socialism' and supports the
administrations approach on the consolidation of the meat-packing industry. He
has voted to cut Idaho's income tax and the grocery sales tax while a member of
the statehouse And considering his support for the military and veterans (he deployed
twice to the Persian Gulf in the 1990s) its impossible for me to imagine the
stridently anti-military wing of the Democrats allowing him even near him.
With the exception of Osborn all of these
candidates are facing immense challenges. (This will be true for Bodnar even if
Bankhead does withdraw.) In addition to be heavily Republican states all of
these candidates will start their races with a severe disadvantage when it
comes to money. With no major party to send them funds it will be difficult to
match their Republican rivals when it
comes to TV, campaign events or social media. All of these states are very big and
very rural so travel is going to be a bigger deal then it would in a state like
Ohio or even in the South. And even
though they are very much independents it will be hard for many not to see this
as a fig leaf to help the Democrats win.
So its hard to imagine any prominent politician of note campaigning for
someone like Bengs or Achilles even if they had not made it very clear that
they didn't want their endorsements as part of their campaign.
The road for these men will be hard and
lonely and it is very much uphill. Of the four independents I listed Osborn has
the best chance with the Ricketts' odds of victory currently ranked at 72
percent at political sites. Kurt Alme's chance of election are ranked at 84
percent. And at the moment both Jim Risch and Brian Bengs have a 94 percent
chance of winning reelection. Jamie Davis, running in Louisiana, has just as
much a chance winning on a far left platform as Achilles and Bengs do as
Independents. Adam Hamilton has just as good a chance winning has a better
chance winning in Kansas as those two men.
Myself I have few illusions any of the
three independents I listed have much of a chance in November. I see Bodnar, Achilles and Bengs more as test
cases than having even a longshot at winning. What I want to see is how well
they will do in comparison to Evan McMullin's run against Mike Lee in 2022.
McMullin ended up losing to Lee by 10.4 percent in 2022 but it was by far the
best performance by a non-Republican in Utah since 1976. If any of these
candidates can lose by a similar margin or overperform they will have confirmed
the precedent McMullin set four years ago and that Osborn confirmed two years
later: that one can do well in a deep red state if one rejects the traditional
label of a political party.
As someone who has longed for a third party
as the solution to much of America's problems I believe this trend could only
benefit democracy in America, not just in states such as Idaho or Utah but
nationally. It would be a long term project, I have no illusions of that, but
for the health of our American political system I share the beliefs held by men
such as Achilles and all of those who are running as independents this cycle.
And as a short term measure it might also
help offer succor and hope to a section of America that has been faced with the
options that have done much to hurt both that region and the country as a whole
for so long. Many in our political system tend to call elections "choosing
between the lesser of two evils." A third choice can only help improve
them nationally and it seems these states are offering that.
No comments:
Post a Comment