Daines Senate Seat 2026

[Wes Mantooth]

Here is another battle to fight, and of course, lead by the kneepad salesman of the year, Daines:

Daines gains federal support to strip wilderness potential from Montana sites

Forest Service, BLM officials concur: WSA status not warranted for Middle Fork Judith, Wales Creek and Hoodoo landscapes.

www.bozemandailychronicle.com

 

[Nameless Range]

I am aware voting for Libertarians is essentially universally hopeless, but I've written folks in or refused to vote on races in the past where I viewed both candidates as wells too poisoned to drink from so that doesn't bother me. I find it interesting in my own psyche, that I am considering the libertarian candidates no less than the others. Because I have met Tom and believe he is at the very least earnest, I will be considering him. My fear with Libertarians is always their de facto position on public lands and waters and wildlife viewed as a public trust, but I think he is more of a "pragmatic libertarian" as opposed to one who reads Friedrich Hayek.

Home

Tom Jandron

www.jandron4ussenate.com

 

[Gulf of America]

I am aware voting for Libertarians is essentially universally hopeless, but I've written folks in or refused to vote on races in the past where I viewed both candidates as wells too poisoned to drink from so that doesn't bother me. I find it interesting in my own psyche, that I am considering the libertarian candidates no less than the others. Because I have met Tom and believe he is at the very least earnest, I will be considering him. My fear with Libertarians is always their de facto position on public lands and waters and wildlife viewed as a public trust, but I think he is more of a "pragmatic libertarian" as opposed to one who reads Friedrich Hayek.

Home

Tom Jandron

www.jandron4ussenate.com

I know it's not remotely possible, but organizing a write-in campaign to get Tester to win the Republican primary would be hilarious.

 

[SAJ-99]

I am aware voting for Libertarians is essentially universally hopeless, but I've written folks in or refused to vote on races in the past where I viewed both candidates as wells too poisoned to drink from so that doesn't bother me. I find it interesting in my own psyche, that I am considering the libertarian candidates no less than the others. Because I have met Tom and believe he is at the very least earnest, I will be considering him. My fear with Libertarians is always their de facto position on public lands and waters and wildlife viewed as a public trust, but I think he is more of a "pragmatic libertarian" as opposed to one who reads Friedrich Hayek.

Home

Tom Jandron

www.jandron4ussenate.com

Lots of solid sound bites on the webpage. Good luck to him. I have met a lot of Libertarians who were earnest. They also had no idea how an economy worked. It's like he wants to encourage you to bury money in coffee cans in the back yard.

 

[Nameless Range]

Lots of solid sound bites on the webpage. Good luck to him. I have met a lot of Libertarians who were earnest. They also had no idea how an economy worked. It's like he wants to encourage you to bury money in coffee cans in the back yard.

View attachment 404693

When my wife's grandmother died, one of the great gifts she left us was the hidden money all over her home. Coffee cans, pillow cases, random envelopes, $7 in the matchbox by the wood stove.... The gift wasn't the 63 bucks, but the hunt.

 

[Gulf of America]

Libertarians and socialists are just two sides of the same coin. Both live in a fantasy world with great ideas that fall flat on their face when confronted with reality. I say this as someone who formerly identified as libertarian.

 

[Nameless Range]

Both live in a fantasy world

I'm starting to believe that all politicians do, and given the fact that none would likely get their way, perhaps their chief utility is to serve as a gravitational force to pull our heading a few degrees in some direction, as opposed to their destination of choice.

In this context of Hunt Talk, my fear with any of them on the "right", is whether or not they will stand up to irreversible decisions related to that which my life really revolves around in the short, medium, and long term - public lands.

 

[Gulf of America]

I am aware voting for Libertarians is essentially universally hopeless, but I've written folks in or refused to vote on races in the past where I viewed both candidates as wells too poisoned to drink from so that doesn't bother me. I find it interesting in my own psyche, that I am considering the libertarian candidates no less than the others. Because I have met Tom and believe he is at the very least earnest, I will be considering him. My fear with Libertarians is always their de facto position on public lands and waters and wildlife viewed as a public trust, but I think he is more of a "pragmatic libertarian" as opposed to one who reads Friedrich Hayek.

Home

Tom Jandron

www.jandron4ussenate.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/2036922743397245420

Aight I’m in.

 

[SAJ-99]

Good article on Bodnar and the general political forces he faces in the race for Daines seat. He sounds very much like the ideal candidate for Montana, at least on paper. This will be an interesting race to watch.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/23/us/politics/seth-bodnar-montana-senate.html?unlocked_article_code=1.dFA.QDLI.p1gQp93302jU&smid=url-share

 

[elkduds]

Good article on Bodnar and the general political forces he faces in the race for Daines seat. He sounds very much like the ideal candidate for Montana, at least on paper. This will be an interesting race to watch.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/23/us/politics/seth-bodnar-montana-senate.html?unlocked_article_code=1.dFA.QDLI.p1gQp93302jU&smid=url-share

If, as is often written in these pages, a D after the name is currently unelectable, then Bodnar could be a brick in the wall against the GOP dreams of PLT. No candidate is as shiny as their public image. Does he have the courage to vote his convictions over the influences of deep pocket donors? Does any candidate?

 

[SAJ-99]

Does he have the courage to vote his convictions over the influences of deep pocket donors?

My question is does the electorate have the courage to vote against their tribe?

 

[Southern Elk]

Good article on Bodnar and the general political forces he faces in the race for Daines seat. He sounds very much like the ideal candidate for Montana, at least on paper. This will be an interesting race to watch.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/23/us/politics/seth-bodnar-montana-senate.html?unlocked_article_code=1.dFA.QDLI.p1gQp93302jU&smid=url-share

I’m so tired of only having two choices. Bodnar is strong on public lands and says he will not caucus with either party. If the election was today, he would have my vote.

 

[Big Fin]

Refreshing this thread.

I've met with Bodnar three times. It reflects my interest in seeing a challenge to the two-party status quo. Like some who commented here, I would vote for Big Bird or Daffy Duck as an Independent US Senate Candidate before I'd vote for either of the other two parties. And I don't see the Libertarians having any chance.

I did analysis of Sheehy's votes since he's been in as a freshman Senator. Pretty much in lockstep with Cruz (R-TX) and Lee (R-UT). He was going to oppose Lee's public land sale Amendment if it came to the floor, but it never did. Point being, as much as Rs in Montana have told us they are great on public lands and conservation, they haven't been when the time has come.

We already have one first-term Republican US Senator from MT hand picked by Daines. If we have another hand-picked first term Republican who is told to stand in line (back of the line) by the party bosses, in effect Texas and Utah have four Senators.

As someone who is social conservative and abides by the "you do you, I'll do me" motto, as someone who is fiscally very conservative, and someone who thinks the Constitution is a great document worth defending, I never thought I'd find such a huge gap between me and the Republican Party. Yet, for the last ten years that gap has grown and grown, to the point where I can never see myself voting for a Republican Senator.

The way Senator Daines avoided a primary for his hand-picked successor was the last straw for me. Yeah, I'll always make sure to vote, but I'll vote for a write-in before I'll vote for the hand-picked anointed successor who has not had to endure a primary and is a product of the same BS thing the Dems did by not having a primary for President in 2024. I don't subscribe to "Yeah, but what about (insert opponent here)" crap.

And none of that says I would vote for the MT Democratic US Senate candidate who is going to be told how to vote/behave by Schumer, AOC, and the shiny new objects that are the form of the DSA candidates from New York. They represent virtually nothing I subscribe to.

So, I find myself to be the anti-party. I intend to spend the rest of my life doing what I can to resist the two-party system. Which is why I've attended the meetings when invited by Bodnar.

My first meeting was the normal, intro/get-to-know each other. The next was a fundraiser where I got to see how he interacted with people he hoped would write a check. Coffee yesterday was just me and him, each being more comfortable asking questions that might not be the easiest to answer. Over the course of a couple hours it became apparent that he is smart and personable. I've spent a lot of time thinking about it, even calling some of my friends who I'd call political insiders.

If ever my notion of upsetting this two-party BS was to have a chance he might just be that person, and the turmoil of today just might be that time. Maybe not. But, I'm kind of at the point Kris Kristofferson sang in Me and Bobby McGee....."Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose." I don't feel I have anything to lose, so it makes it pretty easy to reject the two-party notion and be independent in how I approach this.

I'm going to have him on my podcast this week. Even if there are things I know we will disagree on, I am convinced he sees that problems of our currently broken government being in large part a function of the two-party system and the lack of leadership at all levels in DC.

I'm not even going to invite the other two candidates on the podcast - it's a waste of the audience's time to hear the same shrill attacks they find on cards stuffed in their mailboxes from now until November. Fugg that.

Maybe I'm kidding myself to think Montanans have had enough of this shit. I've had enough. I've been in this political world for the better part of thirty years. It's broken so bad. I know that the issues important to me and the folks who follow our platform are not represented in DC.

I don't see that Montanans have anything to lose; at least not the Montanans who stay here at lower wages and higher costs for the residency benefits of hunting/fishing and access to public lands. Continuing to play the existing two-party game isn't going to solve any of the issues I work on. I already know where that path leads, so I'm not going to kid myself that something will change by voting for the R or D who tells me what they think I want to hear.

I'm going to investigate the Bodnar option and see what the audience response it. Hell, I even made a small political donation to his cause; only the second time I've made a political donation (last was Tim Fox as the primary candidate against GG). So far, he's said the right things about hunting, fishing, conservation and public lands. I guess we'll learn more when we do the podcast.

Feel free to post up any questions you'd like me to ask. I've got a pretty long list, but there is likely something I'm overlooking.

I suspect the podcast will roll out in the last half of July.

 

[Gulf of America]

Refreshing this thread.

I've met with Bodner three times. It reflects my interest in seeing a challenge to the two-party status quo. Like some who commented here, I would vote for Big Bird or Daffy Duck as an Independent US Senate Candidate before I'd vote for either of the other two parties. And I don't see the Libertarians having any chance.

I did analysis of Sheehy's votes since he's been in as a freshman Senator. Pretty much in lockstep with Cruz (R-TX) and Lee (R-UT). He was going to oppose Lee's public land sale Amendment if it came to the floor, but it never did. Point being, as much as Rs in Montana have told us they are great on public lands and conservation, they haven't been when the time has come.

We already have one first-term Republican US Senator from MT hand picked by Daines. If we have another hand-picked first term Republican who is told to stand in line (back of the line) by the party bosses, in effect Texas and Utah have four Senators.

As someone who is social conservative and abides by the "you do you, I'll do me" motto, as someone who is fiscally very conservative, and someone who thinks the Constitution is a great document worth defending, I never thought I'd find such a huge gap between me and the Republican Party. Yet, for the last ten years that gap has grown and grown, to the point where I can never see myself voting for a Republican Senator.

The way Senator Daines avoided a primary for his hand-picked successor was the last straw for me. Yeah, I'll always make sure to vote, but I'll vote for a write-in before I'll vote for the hand-picked anointed successor who has not had to endure a primary and is a product of the same BS thing the Dems did by not having a primary for President in 2024. I don't subscribe to "Yeah, but what about (insert opponent here)" crap.

And none of that says I would vote for the MT Democratic US Senate candidate who is going to be told how to vote/behave by Schumer, AOC, and the shiny new objects that are the form of the DSA candidates from New York. They represent virtually nothing I subscribe to.

So, I find myself to be the anti-party. I intend to spend the rest of my life doing what I can to resist the two-party system. Which is why I've attended the meetings when invited by Bodner.

My first meeting was the normal, intro/get-to-know each other. The next was a fundraiser where I got to see how he interacted with people he hoped would write a check. Coffee yesterday was just me and him, each being more comfortable asking questions that might not be the easiest to answer. Over the course of a couple hours it became apparent that he is smart and personable. I've spent a lot of time thinking about it, even calling some of my friends who I'd call political insiders.

If ever my notion of upsetting this two-party BS was to have a chance he might just be that person, and the turmoil of today just might be that time. Maybe not. But, I'm kind of at the point Kris Kristofferson sang in Me and Bobby McGee....."Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose." I don't feel I have anything to lose, so it makes it pretty easy to reject the two-party notion and be independent in how I approach this.

I'm going to have him on my podcast this week. Even if there are things I know we will disagree on, I am convinced he sees that problems of our currently broken government being in large part a function of the two-party system and the lack of leadership at all levels in DC.

I'm not even going to invite the other two candidates on the podcast - it's a waste of the audience's time to hear the same shrill attacks they find on cards stuffed in their mailboxes from now until November. Fugg that.

Maybe I'm kidding myself to think Montanans have had enough of this shit. I've had enough. I've been in this political world for the better part of thirty years. It's broken so bad. I know that the issues important to me and the folks who follow our platform are not represented in DC.

I don't see that Montanans have anything to lose; at least not the Montanans who stay here at lower wages and higher costs for the residency benefits of hunting/fishing and access to public lands. Continuing to play the existing two-party game isn't going to solve any of the issues I work on. I already know where that path leads, so I'm not going to kid myself that something will change by voting for the R or D who tells me what they think I want to hear.

I'm going to investigate the Bodner option and see what the audience response it. Hell, I even made a small political donation to his cause; only the second time I've made a political donation (last was Tim Fox as the primary candidate against GG). So far, he's said the right things about hunting, fishing, conservation and public lands. I guess we'll learn more when we do the podcast.

Feel free to post up any questions you'd like me to ask. I've got a pretty long list, but there is likely something I'm overlooking.

I suspect the podcast will roll out in the last half of July.

He had my vote the moment he announced as an independent, but I think one of the attacks that will come (despite it being a pot calling the kettle black situation) is dark money support - I would be interested in hearing him answer how he won’t be beholden to the same special interests that pull the strings on party-associated politicians since Citizens United ruined American politics.

 

[Southern Elk]

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.

 

[BuzzH]

He had my vote the moment he announced as an independent, but I think one of the attacks that will come (despite it being a pot calling the kettle black situation) is dark money support - I would be interested in hearing him answer how he won’t be beholden to the same special interests that pull the strings on party-associated politicians since Citizens United ruined American politics.

It's all dark money and there will be no reforming the situation we find ourselves in until there is systematic change in campaign funding.

Unfortunately, the sheeple are easily manipulated by shiny mailers, attack ads, bumper stickers...all paid for by the billionaire class. Just today, I had about a dozen of those fancy mailers in the mailbox, embarrassing to even read that horse shit.

Was talking to one of my best friends yesterday, and even people with a couple/three million and donate say, 2% of their wealth to a political campaign, that's chump change. You MIGHT get a phone call thanking you or a letter thanking you for your donation. You're competing with billionaire donors that contribute more to their campaigns than your entire net worth as someone with a few million. Those guys have the personal cell numbers of their senators and congressmen...and their donations allow them to control those they spent money to elect.

In other words, at this point, even the millionaires are f-ed in regard to getting your voice heard, there's no competing with that kind of money. To ice the cake, the average voter simply doesn't put the time into researching the issues or holding their candidates accountable.

 

[Forkyfinder]

It's all dark money

What does that mean to you? In practical terms? And how do you change it?

Im inclined to think it also means shit like legislators running lobbyist orgs myself.

 

[Big Fin]

He had my vote the moment he announced as an independent, but I think one of the attacks that will come (despite it being a pot calling the kettle black situation) is dark money support - I would be interested in hearing him answer how he won’t be beholden to the same special interests that pull the strings on party-associated politicians since Citizens United ruined American politics.

I watched him answer that question at the fund raiser he held. I don't think he knew the person who asked the question and she was very serious in her inquiry. I was interested to hear the answer.

I'm paraphrasing.

He had to get 13,000 signatures to be on the ballot. He got over 30,000. That shows how many people are interested in an independent campaign. He has received more individual donations from Montanans than either of the other candidates. He has had to sell himself to Montanans, not to a party boss.

He did explain that he is looking to raise money from people who want to see the system changed, people who want some sort of function in Congress to pass budgets, to stand up to the executive branch. There are people who make political contributions who support his vision of changing the two-party death grip in the Senate.

My personal thoughts are that money will pour in from everywhere, for all three candidates, with none of the candidates actually calling the shots on the tone or topic of the ads. It's just how it works. I don't think he can get elected without outside money, not can any other group. If he gets traction, the RNC and its funders will launch a full frontal assault on him, as they thought MT was a slam dunk. Until, a war in Iran and other crazy shit that is killing farmers and ranchers. Until a viable candidate came from somewhere other than the DNC.

Edit - This is a question I will ask on the podcast.

 

[Big Fin]

What does that mean to you? In practical terms? And how do you change it?

Im inclined to think it also means shit like legislators running lobbyist orgs myself.

To me, it's like the Koch Brothers funding ALEC and AFP with the desire to change the make up of state legislatures to be the craziest people they can find. Unlike most, the Koch brothers (one still alive) never hid that they were the money behind a lot of stuff. Most others want to stay hidden.

The same happens when we get all of these mailers and other stupid TV ads that say "Paid for by (insert some BS name you've never heard of)" and whose mailing address is a PO Box in DC or Tallahassee, FL or Blanding, UT.

 

[BuzzH]

What does that mean to you? In practical terms? And how do you change it?

Im inclined to think it also means shit like legislators running lobbyist orgs myself.

Shit like this:

MSN

A Republican group has been meddling in Democratic primaries, spending nearly $2 million in one Pennsylvania race in a losing effort.

Politico reported that Conservative Americans PAC, a super PAC, has funded Real Change PAC and the misleadingly named Lead Left, which have spent over $4 million on Democratic primaries for the U.S. House in Pennsylvania, Texas, New Jersey, Nebraska and Maine.

The strategy was that the Republican PACs would help the Democratic candidate considered “weaker” win a primary, so that the GOP candidate would supposedly have a better chance of winning in the fall.

Conservative Americans PAC, Politico reported, has received all of its funding this year from a conservative Virginia-based nonprofit called the American Prosperity Alliance.

There is nothing sacred in politics anymore, and I mean nothing.

How to change it? Great question, but one way would be to get rid of PAC's, limit campaign contributions, transparency in donations, etc.

That would take congressional action, and frankly, neither party has the spine to do it.