Daines Senate Seat 2026

[Big Fin]

Please ask him if he plans to caucus with either party. I read that he will not. Ask him if he will represent the majority of his constituents, not tow some party line. I’m tired of not having a say in how my elected officials vote.

Obviously his thoughts on public land are important, as well.

He was also asked that question. Again, I will paraphrase.

He doesn't want to caucus with anyone. He wants to work with whatever party he thinks can provide the best deal for Montana. He explains that in a Senate that is split no great than 53-46-2, it only takes a couple votes to kill a bad idea, change something to a good idea, or stop a terrible Senate confirmation appointment, especially on topics that require 60 votes. He makes it clear that his time as and Army officer and as an executive at GE, he needed to understand leverage and ability to negotiate. He makes a pretty compelling case how he could use that leverage as the needed vote.

His answers on public land are well stated and if not for that, I doubt I'd be intrigued by the possibility that he might be able to upset the corrupt duopoly, at least in Montana.

 

[BuzzH]

He was also asked that question. Again, I will paraphrase.

He doesn't want to caucus with anyone. He wants to work with whatever party he thinks can provide the best deal for Montana. He explains that in a Senate that is split no great than 53-46-2, it only takes a couple votes to kill a bad idea, change something to a good idea, or stop a terrible Senate confirmation appointment, especially on topics that require 60 votes. He makes it clear that his time as and Army officer and as an executive at GE, he needed to understand leverage and ability to negotiate. He makes a pretty compelling case how he could use that leverage as the needed vote.

His answers on public land are well stated and if not for that, I doubt I'd be intrigued by the possibility that he might be able to upset the corrupt duopoly, at least in Montana.

Having spent the last week in D.C. and never coming home in a better mood than I left with, I'd drink turpentine and piss on a brush fire if it would change things.

Will be interested in hearing the podcast.

 

[Forkyfinder]

He was also asked that question. Again, I will paraphrase.

He doesn't want to caucus with anyone. He wants to work with whatever party he thinks can provide the best deal for Montana. He explains that in a Senate that is split no great than 53-46-2, it only takes a couple votes to kill a bad idea, change something to a good idea, or stop a terrible Senate confirmation appointment, especially on topics that require 60 votes. He makes it clear that his time as and Army officer and as an executive at GE, he needed to understand leverage and ability to negotiate. He makes a pretty compelling case how he could use that leverage as the needed vote.

His answers on public land are well stated and if not for that, I doubt I'd be intrigued by the possibility that he might be able to upset the corrupt duopoly, at least in Montana.

Id vote for someone independent - even if i vehmently disagreed with them.

Both parties have been captured by special interest and radicals. Someone that didnt answer to any master in DC - and most importantly - paved the road for more independents (and independent thought) is someone i want.

True at the state level in Montana, too. Obviously. More bill$ on wildlife than taxes.

 

[Big Fin]

Id vote for someone independent - even if i vehmently disagreed with them.

Both parties have been captured by special interest and radicals. Someone that didnt answer to any master in DC - and most importantly - paved the road for more independents (and independent thought) is someone i want.

True at the state level in Montana, too. Obviously. More bill$ on wildlife than taxes.

That's information I'm interested in learning. Depending upon what study is cited, 40%+/- of Montanans say they are Independent, around 20%+/- say they are Dems, and 40%+/- say they are Repubs.

Yet, if you look at the voting results, those independents vote way higher towards R than D. If given a viable Independent candidate, would they vote that way and not feel the need to vote R. When 70%+/- say they do not feel the system provides them with a good option, and they say they voted for the lesser of two evils, does that provide a prime opening for an Independent?

I don't know that answer. Maybe people say that, but they are so influenced by other factors, peer pressure, or whatever it might be, that they end up voting for their same old party.

Some retired guys I occasionally meet with say they are Independent, but if you even crack a joke about their MAGA man, they get pissed. That causes me to wonder if the MT polls where people say they are Independent have any validity. If you asked two of those guys, they'd claim to be Independent, but they vote for anyone who is running against a D. I suspect they'd vote for Epstein if he was alive and ran as an R in their district. Would they vote for an I? I'm not sure, but I'm gonna ask them.

I'll be interested to see what traction Bodnar can gain. It takes so much money to match the media blitz the other sides can afford, that an Independent better have a solid game plan.

In Nebraska a few years ago, an Independent got 45% in a US Senate race. I think he's running again this cycle - https://www.osbornforsenate.com/

At least in smaller population states, where 225K votes will win a three-way Senate race, I think it is possible (maybe I'm hoping against sanity). Still a huge uphill challenge, but if it is the right person came along at the right time of the political swing, I think it could be done.

Appreciate any additional questions folks would want me to ask.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Appreciate any additional questions folks would want me to ask.

How do you partner with someone to move the needle for good practical legislation as independent?

Is he more of an active managment or minimal public lands management?

Would he wear a mike lee kicks puppys hat?

Where does he stand on the esa?

What about the EAJA act and how its been applied to fund frivelous lawsuits?

 

[406dn]

While I will, in all likelihood, vote for Bodnar, I see it as a very uphill fight. The only way I have been able to avoid the Alme ads is by going to Minnesota to celebrate my sister's 70th birthday. These ads aren't even being paid for by donations made directly to him.

Maybe Bodnar has connections with both parties. I have been getting text messages from his campaign, for donations. He must have gotten that number from some mailing list, suggesting me as a potential donor. I can't remember a solicitation from the GOP, as I have not and would not give them a dime. They must know this, and leave me alone, other than all of the mailings, everyone gets.

For better or worse, for coming 250 years, we have been governed by the two party system. It is very well entrenched. What has been lost is any ability to seek or accept any compromise. Each party is now in the we win, you lose mindset. The character of those in the opposing party is routinely slandered.

I think it is a little naive of Bodnar to think that he won't have to caucus with one party or the other. It is party leaders who give committee assignments. A senator can't just place themselves on committees, important to their state. It is far easier to influence bills in committee, than once they hit the floor for an up or down vote. If he remains truly unaffiliated, he will not sit on any committee of importance.

IMO, the worst thing recently, to happen to our politics, is the Citizen's United decision. That ruling and the long term drift to such concentrated wealth, has given the very wealthiest the ability to flood the zone with their voice, thru endless ads. Their issues are rarely the issues for the rest of society. It is made worse by the ability to hide the true identity of the individuals funding the ads.

 

[Gulf of America]

IMO, the worst thing recently, to happen to our politics, is the Citizen's United decision. That ruling and the long term drift to such concentrated wealth, has given the very wealthiest the ability to flood the zone with their voice, thru endless ads. Their issues are rarely the issues for the rest of society. It is made worse by the ability to hide the true identity of the individuals funding the ads.

And it's only going to get worse with the NRSC vs FEC ruling.

 

[Irrelevant]

Some retired guys I occasionally meet with say they are Independent, but if you even crack a joke about their MAGA man, they get pissed.

This is consistent with my observations in life, almost every "Independent" is actually just another party member, but one who doesn't want to be held accountable for the actions of the party they voted for.

 

[Big Sky Guy]

This is consistent with my observations in life, almost every "Independent" is actually just another party member, but one who doesn't want to be held accountable for the actions of the party they voted for.

Is this true with politicians as well? Meaning do we see Independents towing R or D lines once they get in? Bernie Sanders comes to mind.

I’m about done with the tribalism 2 party system. A candidate that can think critically (independently) of a party seems like a dream at this point.

 

[Irrelevant]

Is this true with politicians as well? Meaning do we see Independents towing R or D lines once they get in? Bernie Sanders comes to mind.

Certainly can be, and that's a good example. I know in our local races every D actually runs as an Independent because the word "Democrat" is too toxic.

I’m about done with the tribalism 2 party system. A candidate that can think critically (independently) of a party seems like a dream at this point.

So what about issues where there is no clear "correct" answer? What is a critically derived solution to you, might be BS crazy to someone else. And I think we are electing people capable of critical thought, I just don't see it when they're trying to stay in office. As soon as they either lose an election or announce retirement all of a sudden they're capable of intelligent discussion and critically evaluating their own tribe.

 

[Nameless Range]

One of the real problems with the two party system, aside from the fact that the parties are chiefly just financial machines in disguise, is that it reduces the suite of problems politics might help with, and their solutions, into a false dichotomy.

I am an independent. Probably vote Republican more than Democrat if you include my local county races. I don't feel responsible for the R Party, nor the D when I vote that way, and if I didn't live in Montana but lived in a place where Ds or Rs were more free to be wacky I might vote more proportionate one way or the other.

Imagine I agree with 60% of the R party platform. There is a false assumption built into that statement that the parties want you to believe that I therefore agree with the Ds on their side of the 40% of those issues. But that would be a fallacious assumption. To anyone who's ever solved a problem - you know the world ain't split into two potential ways forward on any given challenge or issue. There's a universe of possibility, and it doesn't fit cleanly on some bullshit and made up continuum between the left and the right as if they actually start from first principles opposite one another. They don't. Additionally, one's own internal supreme court might be a 5-4 decision on any given issue. A vote is binary, but solution possibilities aren't.

It's a clean way of looking at things though. And in its simplicity divisiveness is easier to foment. Not A, therefore B. Friend:Enemy.

My current model as an independent, and one that has had explanatory power for me personally, is that more often than not, the parties point to the very real insanity of the other to justify their own. I see it everywhere. But that doesn't tell one how to vote. That's a whole other pile of considerations.

I'd like more options. I'd like parties less uniform in thought. I'm all for Independents, Bull Moose Revivalists, and people who value pragmatism over all else. But those folks want nothing to do with politics typically. Many of the great independent thinkers and leaders I have come across in life have souls still intact, and politics, and in particular the parties nowadays, call for a domestication of the soul beyond what is reasonable.

 

[DFS]

Alme who ever is sending out his campaign ads isn’t doing a great job. He is going to have to come out with a strong public land stance for me to vote for him and it’s still unlikely the way things went down in the primary.



I have had a first hand seat at unleashing Montana energy and I dont like it.

 

[Big Fin]

Many of the great independent thinkers and leaders I have come across in life have souls still intact, and politics, and in particular the parties nowadays, call for a domestication of the soul beyond what is reasonable.

I will put you in that category of great independent thinkers. I'm gonna borrow that bolded portion. A domesticated soul is a sad soul.