The weirdest election in recent memory has drawn to a close. The finger-pointing and recriminations have begun. The contention is likely to reverberate in Democratic circles for some time to come. In this election, “Independent” activists, including many former Democratic leaders, attacked the Democratic nominee. They also attacked the Democratic Party and used their power and connections to persuade donors not to support the party’s electoral programs.
I agree with those who said the Democratic primary candidates were not strong contenders to take on Steve Daines or Kurt Alme, for that matter (apologies to Bankhead and Neill). I voted for Reilly Neill in the primary. I voted for Bankhead in the general election. This wasn’t the first time I had doubts about a Democratic nominee’s ability to win or outright disagreed with their positions on policy issues.
Setting aside the effect of piles of dirty money, particularly in the Democratic primary, lots of people are asking why Democrats couldn’t field stronger candidates. In a typical election cycle, a lot of effort goes into candidate recruitment. The major player is typically the Democratic Party along with its allies. It develops lists of potential candidates, urges them to run, and helps them navigate the process of organizing campaigns. Obviously, there are plenty of people who decide to run without being urged by the Party, but even these candidates often turn to the Party for advice and support. Even candidates at the top of the ticket, who often don’t need much persuasion to run, still turn to party structures for support, often through local central committees.
Candidate Profiles and Electability
In this process, people talk a lot about “candidate profiles,” looking for people to run who are considered “electable.” This imaginary electable candidate in Montana has been dominated by a centrist profile: a businessman, a veteran, a farmer or rancher, someone who goes huntin’ and fishin’ and supports the Second Amendment. You get the idea. The farther up the ballot you go, the more people seem to be committed to this profile. Potential candidates who fit the profile are encouraged; people who don’t are discouraged. Not surprisingly, the more progressive candidates, who tend to break the mold, have been women.
We have ended up with a pretty narrow slice of the population viewed as electable in Montana by many party activists, political consultants, and statewide elected officials. Obviously, this is at the root of the decision by many of them to support an Independent. That, and the tons of money available to try the “independent experiment” here in Montana.
There Are Plenty of Viable Democrats in Montana
But despite what people say, Democrats did not lack people who could have been stronger contenders in the Senate election. Here are just a few names. (Disclaimer: This list is neither comprehensive nor an endorsement.)
Russell Cleveland, John Morrison, Ryan Busse, Monica Tranel, Raph Graybill, Cora Neumann, Whitney Williams, Melissa Romano, Shane Morigeau, and John Heenan.
Ironically, some of the most visible endorsers of Seth Bodnar in this election were eligible to run themselves. These include Jon Tester (he was eligible but maybe not popular since disclosure that he is now working for Peter Thiel and Palantir), Steve Bullock, Nancy Keenan, Mike Cooney, and Denise Juneau.
In addition, Montana has strong leaders in advocacy groups like labor, conservation, trial lawyers, and Native communities. Add to that county commissions, city councils, and various governmental boards and advisory committees. With hindsight, it is pretty obvious that quite a few of these folks would have won in the blue wave that just washed over us without an independent on the ballot..
Group Think Is a Powerful Thing
After a string of lost elections, lots of people concluded that a Democrat cannot win a statewide election in Montana. In the rarified environment of organizing and executing big campaigns, Montana consultants, current and former Democratic elected officials, representatives of major funders, and some pollsters sat around tables, stroking their chins and nodding, reinforcing that idea.
And they decided to do something about it: run a centrist Independent. Never mind the obvious building blue wave in this election cycle.
Now, entering this picture is poor Seth Bodnar. He is a political centrist with no electoral experience, and he was their candidate of choice. He had all of the profile points these folks were looking for. Rumor has it that Bodnar was preparing to announce as a Democrat when a small group of people with lots of political experience and connections to big money met with him. On their advice, he decided to run as an Independent. In time, that story is bound to be told.
I’m not a fan of sports analogies, but one seems appropriate here. Imagine a team in the locker room with the coach giving his inspirational speech: “Let’s get out there. We can’t win this thing!”
As they run out onto the field, the cheerleaders jump up, waving their pom-poms, and lead the crowd in a cheer: “We can’t win! We can’t win!”
There is no mystery about why Democrats have trouble recruiting good candidates. It’s time to send the Eeyores back to their house at Pooh Corner.