On The Montana Senate Race

There is a sickness spreading through our politics... one that is not confined to either party, nor to any one ideology. It is the growing belief that democracy is only sacred when it produces the outcome we wanted.

Lately, I have watched a number of very loud, very confident people weigh in on Montana's Senate race. They speak with the certainty that social media so often rewards... quick conclusions, tidy narratives, and strategic calculations distilled into sixty-second videos. To hear them tell it, the answer is obvious. The Democratic nominee should simply step aside. It is, they insist, the practical thing to do.

Practical for whom?

That question seems to have escaped the conversation entirely.

Alani Bankhead entered the Democratic primary under the same rules as every other candidate. She raised money. She traveled the state. She made her case to voters. And Democratic voters chose her.

That should matter.

It is remarkable to me how many people who claim to be defenders of democracy seem perfectly comfortable treating a democratic primary as though it were merely a recommendation... a draft copy that can be revised if enough influential people decide someone else has a better chance.

If that is our standard, then what exactly is the purpose of asking people to vote in the first place?

None of this is a specific argument against Seth Bodnar.

Subscribe

But a résumé is not a governing philosophy.

And that distinction matters.

One of the questions I keep hearing answered with remarkable confidence is whether Seth Bodnar is the obvious choice. Yet I rarely hear anyone wrestle with the questions that should come before such certainty.

If he believed he was the strongest candidate to represent Democratic and center-left voters... why didn't he make that case in the Democratic primary?

The primary existed.

The filing deadline was known.

The voters were waiting.

Instead, Democratic voters were asked to choose from the candidates who entered the race... only to be told afterward that perhaps their choice should no longer count because someone else entered under a different set of circumstances.

That a question of democratic legitimacy not strategy.

There is another statement that has been repeated approvingly by many commentators... that Bodnar has said he would support President Donald Trump when it benefits Montana.

At first glance, it sounds refreshingly moderate. It sounds pragmatic. It sounds like exactly the kind of sentence consultants love to poll.

But what does it actually mean?

Who decides what "benefits Montana"?

That is the entire question.

Every elected official says the votes they cast are in the best interest of the people they represent. Nearly every controversial policy is defended on those grounds. Without a clearly articulated governing philosophy or policy framework, a statement like that becomes almost impossible to evaluate. It tells us very little about how difficult decisions would actually be made.

Would that support extend to policies that weaken democratic institutions if they promised short-term economic gains?

Would it include support for federal actions that undermine voting rights, labor protections, environmental safeguards, or civil liberties?

Would there be lines that cannot be crossed?

Those are not rhetorical questions.

They are the questions voters deserve answered before Election Day.

Moderation is not measured by sounding reasonable.

It is measured by the principles that guide difficult decisions when political convenience points in another direction.

There are also legitimate questions surrounding Bodnar's tenure as president of the University of Montana. During his leadership, the university faced scrutiny over its handling of sexual misconduct complaints and campus culture. Bodnar has defended the university's actions and disputed claims that leadership ignored misconduct, while critics have argued the institution failed students and did not respond adequately to serious concerns.

Reasonable people may disagree about his responsibility for those events.

But that is precisely why they deserve to be discussed.

Leadership is not only about the successes listed on a biography. It is also about how institutions respond during moments of crisis, how accountability is exercised, and whether leaders confronted problems effectively enough. Those questions should not disappear simply because a candidate has become politically attractive.

Yet somehow, many of the loudest voices urging Democrats to abandon their own nominee have spent remarkably little time examining those questions. Instead, they have reduced this race to electoral math.

Electoral strategy matters.

Winning matters.

But democracy cannot be reduced to arithmetic.

The legitimacy of an election is not determined by whether political consultants, donors, influencers, or pundits believe the winner gives them the best statistical chance in November. Legitimacy comes from the voters who showed up, cast their ballots, and accepted the rules before they knew the outcome.

That principle cannot change every time our preferred candidate loses.

And then there is something even more troubling.

Politics has drifted beyond persuasion and into pressure. According to public reporting, efforts to convince Bankhead to withdraw extended beyond ordinary public advocacy and included outreach aimed at people in her personal orbit. Whether every person involved understood the full scope of those efforts or not, that should give us pause.

Candidates choose public life.

Their families do not.

Too many people have confused influence with wisdom. Conflated being mean on the internet with political theory. They have mistaken having an audience for having expertise. They speak with tremendous confidence about institutions they have not seriously grappled with, reducing complicated questions of democratic legitimacy to little more than campaign tactics and horse-race analysis.

Politics is not fantasy football.

Candidates are not chess pieces.

Voters are not inconveniences to be worked around after they have already spoken.

The deeper question here has almost entirely disappeared beneath the noise.

What is a primary for?

If we ask citizens to spend months organizing, volunteering, donating, debating, and voting... only to tell them afterward that the outcome should be discarded because someone more electable arrived after the fact... then we are teaching people that participation is conditional. Your vote matters... until someone with a larger platform, a wealthier donor, or a louder microphone decides otherwise.

That is a dangerous goddamn lesson.

It is one thing to argue that an independent might build a broader coalition. It is another entirely to suggest that the winner of a democratic primary has some obligation to surrender the nomination she earned because others failed to enter the contest when the voters were actually making their decision.

Those are not the same argument.

I have no objection to difficult conversations about strategy. Politics requires realism. Coalitions matter. Electoral math matters. We should be honest about all of it.

But strategy without principle eventually consumes the very thing it claims to defend.

If we truly believe democracy is worth protecting, then we must protect it even when it produces inconvenient results.

Otherwise, we are not defending democracy at all.

We are merely defending outcomes.

And there is a world of difference between the two.