An exclusive poll shared first with Strength In Numbers shows Independent Seth Bodnar in Montana runs ahead of the Democrat in a hypothetical Senate horse-race
An interesting poll, and one we need to consider in our strategy for saving democracy.
I want to point out, however, that according to comments at The Down Ballot on Wednesday, July 29, if the Democratic candidate for senator drops out of the race, then the Democratic party must replace her on the ballot, as that is the law in Montana. Thus, she cannot simply drop out (which she appears to have no intention of doing). What I would hope she would do, for the good of all of us who want to preserve democracy, is to limit her campaign and support the Independent.
Also, when looking at the numbers needed to control the Senate, it is important to remember that Fetterman, while a Democrat, has been voting with the Republicans on some issues.
I think this is critically important strategic information for Democratic Party folks to parse. If we truly want to accomplish regime change - which we must do - we have to win anywhere we can with whomever we can to have those votes in place in Congress. As long as Bodnar (about whom I currently know nothing - but I'll immediately check out) can win and is committed to impeaching and removing DJT ASAP, he would get my vote in Montana under these circumstances. This ain't just a horse race!
Bodnar is a former Green Beret and former President of the largest University in Montana! He definitely deserves our support vs a very red Republican! The question is how do we successfully demand that the Flat Out Loser Bankhead withdraw ASAP? What is the DNC Chair doing about it and what is Tester doing about it? Anybody???
to my friend, Ira--Senator Tester has made his view very clear that he favors Bankhead withdrawing from the race, as does his former Chief of Staff, Stephanie Schriock. What the DNC or the DSCC are doing about it, though, I have no idea--I hope a lot, as control of the Senate may well depend on her decision!
The problem is Bodnar with a D attached to his name can't win elections in Montana whil e Bodnar with an I can.
THAT is the real issue facing Dems...why is the brand so toxic that red state voters literally will not vote for a Dem no matter if it was Jesus himself facing off against Satan.
Yes - Democrats are not a big enough tent for people like Bodnar to fit in, and the current state of the Democratic party where it would be actually detrimental for Bodnar to have a D next to his name.
I suspect that these are two sides of the same coin.
Are there any examples of an Independent in the Senate who did NOT caucus with one of the two parties?
I know that prior to an election, Independents don't like to say what they will do in terms of caucusing. But has there been an elected Independent who truly remained Independent once in the Senate?
I see a list of Senate Independents here. There have been 12 post-WWII, which is the only time period that counts.
In terms of expanding voter choice, it might be worth looking into impact of fusion voting in New York and the history of the Independent Democratic Conference, which controlled power in the NY Senate for six years.
wow, a Peter Lindstrom sighting! (Hi Peter!). Fusion voting is a great idea--South Dakota used to have it, but the SD Legislature, in its "wisdom," eliminated it. But it's absolutely worth revisiting...
Thanks Drey, I do pop up from time to time. As to fusion voting, that was the norm in nearly every state prior to 1890, my home state of Michigan used it until it was outlawed in 1954 (currently, two minor parties are suing to bring it back, I doubt they will succeed) and I gather one reason Michigan got rid of fusion was the legislature had voted to end closed primaries, though they took that back in 1990. Personally, I think we need both open primaries and give parties the right of fusion.
I couldn't agree with you more, Peter! For the last ten years I've spent a helluva lot of time and money trying to enact top two open primaries in South Dakota (via ballot initiative), but fell short both times--the two political parties both opposed it, which is why I am now an independent (and in Nebraska, my home state, helping elect Dan Osborn (also an independent) to the US Senate.
The single most important thing to accomplish is to remove Trump’s ability to get another SCOTUS appointment confirmed. If we need a couple of non-MAGA independents along with a couple of Democratic pickups to get that done, so be it. Pragmatism beats ideology every single time in a situation like this.
Your proposition here most likely also holds true in Deep Red South Dakota. Brian Bengs is running there as an Independent for Senate. His newsletter arrives in my email box where he described how in South Dakota a voter can AGREE with all your policy positions but STILL reject you SOLELY on the basis of being a bonafide Democrat. (It does not say much for the fine folks of South Dakota, but we need to accept this reality.). Bengs ought to know - he ran as a Democrat in the past and lost. These Independents might be the required "bridge" democracy loving politicians need to eventually "convert" these voters. It would be VERY intriguing to see an overlay of Fox News & Sinclair network viewership (e.g "Where is your source for news and information?") on the entire country. One last point: Elliott YOU KNOW how I feel about the "SIN" acronym! How about calling us "Numbers Subscribers"??
Great article. In red states, traditional democratic party political strategies are not working. Its time to embrace this strategy of defeating the republican, not neccesarily the demo winning.
I’m heartened by the fact that an Independent can even get on the ballot in deeply Republican Montana. It’s is extremely hard for Independents to get on a TX ballot that is partisan. (Luckily we don’t have to declare for a party at the school board or city level to run). The path for Independents getting on a regional ballot has been shut down here. I hope DNC can see the strategy of standing down. Makes perfect sense. Thanks for this, Elliott!
An interesting poll, and one we need to consider in our strategy for saving democracy.
I want to point out, however, that according to comments at The Down Ballot on Wednesday, July 29, if the Democratic candidate for senator drops out of the race, then the Democratic party must replace her on the ballot, as that is the law in Montana. Thus, she cannot simply drop out (which she appears to have no intention of doing). What I would hope she would do, for the good of all of us who want to preserve democracy, is to limit her campaign and support the Independent.
Also, when looking at the numbers needed to control the Senate, it is important to remember that Fetterman, while a Democrat, has been voting with the Republicans on some issues.
I think this is critically important strategic information for Democratic Party folks to parse. If we truly want to accomplish regime change - which we must do - we have to win anywhere we can with whomever we can to have those votes in place in Congress. As long as Bodnar (about whom I currently know nothing - but I'll immediately check out) can win and is committed to impeaching and removing DJT ASAP, he would get my vote in Montana under these circumstances. This ain't just a horse race!
Bodnar is a former Green Beret and former President of the largest University in Montana! He definitely deserves our support vs a very red Republican! The question is how do we successfully demand that the Flat Out Loser Bankhead withdraw ASAP? What is the DNC Chair doing about it and what is Tester doing about it? Anybody???
to my friend, Ira--Senator Tester has made his view very clear that he favors Bankhead withdrawing from the race, as does his former Chief of Staff, Stephanie Schriock. What the DNC or the DSCC are doing about it, though, I have no idea--I hope a lot, as control of the Senate may well depend on her decision!
The alternative is that the Democrats need to become a party that Bodnar would be okay to be inside.
The problem is Bodnar with a D attached to his name can't win elections in Montana whil e Bodnar with an I can.
THAT is the real issue facing Dems...why is the brand so toxic that red state voters literally will not vote for a Dem no matter if it was Jesus himself facing off against Satan.
Yes - Democrats are not a big enough tent for people like Bodnar to fit in, and the current state of the Democratic party where it would be actually detrimental for Bodnar to have a D next to his name.
I suspect that these are two sides of the same coin.
Are there any examples of an Independent in the Senate who did NOT caucus with one of the two parties?
I know that prior to an election, Independents don't like to say what they will do in terms of caucusing. But has there been an elected Independent who truly remained Independent once in the Senate?
I see a list of Senate Independents here. There have been 12 post-WWII, which is the only time period that counts.
https://www.senate.gov/senators/SenatorsRepresentingThirdorMinorParties.htm#:~:text=This%20list%20provides%20the%20names%2C,the%20Senate's%20many%20independent%20members.
In terms of expanding voter choice, it might be worth looking into impact of fusion voting in New York and the history of the Independent Democratic Conference, which controlled power in the NY Senate for six years.
wow, a Peter Lindstrom sighting! (Hi Peter!). Fusion voting is a great idea--South Dakota used to have it, but the SD Legislature, in its "wisdom," eliminated it. But it's absolutely worth revisiting...
Thanks Drey, I do pop up from time to time. As to fusion voting, that was the norm in nearly every state prior to 1890, my home state of Michigan used it until it was outlawed in 1954 (currently, two minor parties are suing to bring it back, I doubt they will succeed) and I gather one reason Michigan got rid of fusion was the legislature had voted to end closed primaries, though they took that back in 1990. Personally, I think we need both open primaries and give parties the right of fusion.
I couldn't agree with you more, Peter! For the last ten years I've spent a helluva lot of time and money trying to enact top two open primaries in South Dakota (via ballot initiative), but fell short both times--the two political parties both opposed it, which is why I am now an independent (and in Nebraska, my home state, helping elect Dan Osborn (also an independent) to the US Senate.
Hope all is well with you!
Fusion Voting covered here! https://www.gelliottmorris.com/p/democrats-need-a-bigger-senate-solution?utm_source=publication-search
The single most important thing to accomplish is to remove Trump’s ability to get another SCOTUS appointment confirmed. If we need a couple of non-MAGA independents along with a couple of Democratic pickups to get that done, so be it. Pragmatism beats ideology every single time in a situation like this.
Your proposition here most likely also holds true in Deep Red South Dakota. Brian Bengs is running there as an Independent for Senate. His newsletter arrives in my email box where he described how in South Dakota a voter can AGREE with all your policy positions but STILL reject you SOLELY on the basis of being a bonafide Democrat. (It does not say much for the fine folks of South Dakota, but we need to accept this reality.). Bengs ought to know - he ran as a Democrat in the past and lost. These Independents might be the required "bridge" democracy loving politicians need to eventually "convert" these voters. It would be VERY intriguing to see an overlay of Fox News & Sinclair network viewership (e.g "Where is your source for news and information?") on the entire country. One last point: Elliott YOU KNOW how I feel about the "SIN" acronym! How about calling us "Numbers Subscribers"??
Great article. In red states, traditional democratic party political strategies are not working. Its time to embrace this strategy of defeating the republican, not neccesarily the demo winning.
I’m heartened by the fact that an Independent can even get on the ballot in deeply Republican Montana. It’s is extremely hard for Independents to get on a TX ballot that is partisan. (Luckily we don’t have to declare for a party at the school board or city level to run). The path for Independents getting on a regional ballot has been shut down here. I hope DNC can see the strategy of standing down. Makes perfect sense. Thanks for this, Elliott!