Dem
47
GOP
53
On Monday we had an item about the four Senate elections where there is a serious independent candidate—basically, a Democrat in sheep's clothing (organic wool, of course). In three of the states—Idaho, Nebraska, and now South Dakota, the official Democratic candidate has dropped out. This paves the way for independent candidates who are likely to caucus with the Democrats, but don't have the toxic (D) label.
The most recent Democrat to see the writing on the wall is Julian Beaulion in South Dakota, who had no chance whatsoever against Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD). Independent Brian Bengs has a steep uphill climb, but probably will do better than Beaulion would have. The problem is that many, many voters think the Democrats want to open the border to all comers, abolish the police, and allow schools to turn boys into girls without even informing their parents. The vast majority of Democrats do not support the first two and no Democrat supports the third one, but that simply doesn't matter. Voters heard it on Fox "News" and that is all that does matter. Some Republican voters agree with the Democrats on specific issues, especially corruption, health care, inflation, protecting Social Security, universal pre-K education, the economy, caring for veterans, and more. If 20% of Republicans in a state will vote for an independent they agree with on the issues and half the independents do, too, along with all the Democrats, it could be possible for a clever independent who simply refuses to talk about all the hot-button issues to win in a red state. The real problem for Democrats is not all the issues (although some are deadly) but that the Democratic label has become so poisonous in red states.
This said, in the one state where the independent has by far the best chance—Montana—the Democrat has not dropped out, even though her chances in a three-way race are essentially zero. Alani Bankhead (D) has until Aug. 10 to drop out, but it appears she will hang on (unless God sends her a message this weekend), thus guaranteeing that Kurt Alme (R) be elected to the Senate. She is against the Iran war, against Israel, against data centers, against ICE, against AI companies, and for foreign aid, for rural hospitals, for LGBTQ+ rights, for tribal nations, and for Congress taking back the power to declare war. The whole nine yards. There is nothing in her platform Bernie would disagree with. Only by running, she is guaranteeing that the next senator from Montana will be for the first list and against the second list. The independent in the race, Seth Bodnar, whose positions closely mirror those of a generic Democrat, stands a much better chance of beating Alme. Is Bankhead stupid? No, she has a B.A. from Penn State and a Masters from Troy University. But she is as stubborn as a donkey. That's why she is a Democrat, of course. In a three-way race, ranked choice voting is really needed, but in Montana, it is first-past-the-fence-post. Many candidates like her see the Democratic Party as the real enemy, not the Republicans. She may believe that candidates like her may not be able to make the Democrats win but they can make the Democrats lose, thus making it possible to hold them hostage.
Will the DSCC do oppo research on her and try to run a scorched earth campaign against her if they can find some dirt? It is not their style, even if this is a winnable race if they can make her toxic with Democrats as well as Republicans. In retrospect, the DSCC probably knew about Bodnar's plans well in advance because it was former senator Jon Tester who advised him to run as an independent, not a Democrat. The DSCC could have put up and financed a straw man or straw woman in the Democratic primary, someone they knew would drop out at the end. But they think politics is beanbag. (V)