WanderWoman
Well-known member
This is interesting to see; hoping I have a chance to give it a listen.
Nov 3 - Independents’ Day?
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
Sytes
Well-known member
I feel we all have skin in this game. The position is for US Senate, representing Montana primarily with the key pivotal opportunity many *should catch onto regarding reshaping US politics. It holds the potential to change the dynamics of our boss party garbage, as Theodore Roosevelt stumped for his Bull Moose Party.
The same as people here who complain(ed) about Mike Lee (Public land) or Dianne Feinstein (2A). They hold/held the power within their red / blue caucus. We gain just a few true Independents, the Red and Blue have to adapt to gain passage of US shaping laws.
That is skin in the US game.
Last edited:
elkduds
Well-known member
Devil's advocacy: We've seen the disproportionate power in the Senate before. Independents have recognized their tiebreaking power and abused the process to benefit themselves and/or their donors, constituents.
If there were 2 or more of them, they could do so together to magnify their leverage. 47 is not the first or last Master of the Deal inside the Beltway. Regular Capitol chess becomes 3-D chess. If this sounds like cynicism,
![giphy[1].gif](https://www.hunttalk.com/data/attachments/390/390153-542bf96626ededfc13c4cd4d301794d9.jpg?hash=qRWwioOt8G "giphy[1].gif")
If there were 2 or more of them, they could do so together to magnify their leverage. 47 is not the first or last Master of the Deal inside the Beltway. Regular Capitol chess becomes 3-D chess. If this sounds like cynicism,
Last edited:
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 3,041
This, it really...depends. We all view politicians with a jaundiced eye. We all would like to have a politician motivated by a real duty to public service.
I think there are some, not confined to only one party. Unfortunately, a declaration of not belonging to a party, it is not a guarantee of, well, anything.
Any power they might have depends on how evenly split the Congress is. If there is a sizable majority for either party, their power disappears. In the Senate, they retain small level. In the House, they would be irrelevant.
Sytes
Well-known member
The challenge faced with a third party is getting feet in the door. The more we hold back from the red and blue, the more red and blue listen, IMO. The more Independents, the more strength the collective becomes. The fear red and blue fight side by side to oppose... though IF we broke into the scene... little by little...
A buddy shared this today, hence my perked interest to add to this thread.
Very fitting, considering the entirety of our discussion for Independents and the value. "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind"
A buddy shared this today, hence my perked interest to add to this thread.
Very fitting, considering the entirety of our discussion for Independents and the value. "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind"
Elky Welky
Well-known member
At this juncture I'm getting a stronger and stronger feeling that Allme is going to win. The mudslinging from Bankhead supporters has reached a fever pitch. Gotta hand it to them, they are going down with the ship.
The question I am interested in seeing on Tuesday is just how close Bodnar and Bankhead are. I predict Allme will get over 50% of the vote, and I give Austin 5%. If Bodnar gets 30% and Bankhead only 15%, then I see a strong future for Independents in Montana. If they are split closer to 22.5% each, then I foresee the Democrats continuing to dig their heels in on "principle" and cede leadership to the Republican party in MT for a long time to come.
If Bodnar runs again (probably for Governor), I think he'll run as a Democrat. 45% is way better than 30%.
Southern Elk
Well-known member
SAJ-99
Well-known member
That would be pretty close to the estimate of party breakdown in primary. Although Alme getting 50% of the vote would mean that Independents went to the Republican (so "ceding" leadership is odd way to phrase it). It will be easy to blame Democrats, but the reality is that the state party is not a single group and very fractured, as seen by the state party leader resigning a couple of weeks ago. There are plenty of people involved in politics that see the side they choose as the primary thing to defend. Loyalty above principles. It happens everywhere.
I hope Bodnar shocks us all. But my view is that most voters are sheep and are comfortable being sheep, even if they never admit to being sheep at all.
MT Voter Data: Registration by Party, Turnout & Primary Rules
Montana voter registration data: registered Democrats vs Republicans, independent voter count, primary election type, and voter turnout statistics. Updated 2026.
independentvoterproject.org
Sheep are still sheep even if they join a new flock to pretend they aren’t.
Elky Welky
Well-known member
That is actually the exact point I was making, if Bodnar and Bankhead are close it goes to show just how fractured the democratic party is, and shows that there is no hope for them unifying under a bigger tent: hence ceding leadership because of their very evident failure to come together and many future years of infighting.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Bodnar choosing to run as an Independent might have sealed his fate. He could have run as a D, won the primary and unified the vote (but probably still lost- we will know in a week). That was his decision, not the party's. This is the risk you take running as an Independent. It only takes one candidate to run under D or R to siphon off your votes, because sheep are sheep.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Sheep talk not going away...we ratify the shepherds that are chosen for us.
Last edited:
Big Sky Guy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2018
- Messages
- 1,210
Is this real?! 
It could be a "real" inaccurate one. That is, for the past few years Rs have dramatically over performed the poll numbers.Is this real?!
In any case, the only poll that matters is the election.
I have seen many saying that same thing. Seems that running as a D would have made him part of the billionaire donor-machine he's campaigning against. In my time with him, I get the sense that winning, yet being beholden to the "swampers" is not very appealing.
One could also ask, assuming he did this as an Independent who understands that choice might have sealed his fate:
1. Is he playing a longer game and knows how difficult 2026 will be, yet views 2030 as the real opportunity?
2. Would running as a D be contrary to why he is actually running as an I?
3. If one feels that an Ind. will have more national momentum in the next 20 years, as I do, would a younger (relative to Senators' ages) candidate want to become beholden to one of the parties just to occupy a Senate seat? Some surely would. Not sure he's wired that way.
The outcome will be what it is. The Rs are running another ghost campaign as they did with Sheehy in 2024 - don't put Alme in a public setting where he has to answer anything, especially where his answers (needed to appease Trump) might be compared to Bodnar's position. The ghost campaign strategy worked for the Rs (Sheehy) in 2024. If the ghost campaign works in 2026, Montana will give Utah (Lee) and Cruz (TX) two more back-bench Senators to carry their water.
If the Rs do lose the Senate next week, which many are saying is possible, there will be no more miserable job in the country than that of a freshman Republican Senator who is required to sell all of his principles and dignity to defend this administration and its corruption when the Ds start holding hearings. Maybe that would be a fitting reward for a candidate hand-picked by Daines and who has been kept behind curtains for the duration of his campaign.
A week from now, we'll know.
This is the most interesting point to me. I am looking forward to how MT reacts in the booth and what the future is for MT politics.
Bodnar and Alme are both getting millions in campaign funds. I don't see the difference if it came from Rs, Ds, or Is.
Maybe those donating don't want anything in return ... I doubt it. Maybe Bodnar and Alme supporters want what those donating want, so it will be ok with them.
Maybe those donating don't want anything in return ... I doubt it. Maybe Bodnar and Alme supporters want what those donating want, so it will be ok with them.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Well, it would have given him a better chance of winning at which time he could have told Bloomberg or Soros to go pound sand (hell, republicans have zero problem telling their voters to pound sand). I think he did it because the D is toxic in MT as it swings further and further right. We will see if it was the right decision. Like I said, I'm rooting for the guy.
In the post-election podcast, if he loses, ask if he is looking at the Governor position in 2028.
Guys this is the most important election of our lifetimes. I promise.
I know I’ve said it the last 8 times but this time I mean it for real.
Seriously, it’ll be different this time!!! All those changes the other guy didn’t make I swear I’m gonna make right away!!!
-Every politician ever
I know I’ve said it the last 8 times but this time I mean it for real.
Seriously, it’ll be different this time!!! All those changes the other guy didn’t make I swear I’m gonna make right away!!!
-Every politician ever
Similar threads
