Nominees withdraw in Nebraska, Idaho and South Dakota as party tests unconventional path against Republicans; Montana Democrat Alani Bankhead refuses to step aside
WASHINGTON — Democrats are effectively abandoning their own Senate nominees in several of America's most Republican states, betting that independent candidates have a better chance of defeating GOP incumbents without a Democrat splitting the anti-Republican vote.
Democratic Senate nominees have now withdrawn in Nebraska, Idaho and South Dakota, clearing the field for independent candidates seeking to consolidate Democratic, moderate and unaffiliated voters ahead of November's midterm elections.
The strategy represents an unusual acknowledgment of how badly the Democratic brand has weakened in parts of rural America.
Rather than spend heavily on candidates unlikely to win under the party label, Democratic activists and strategists are allowing independents to challenge Republicans without a major Democratic candidate competing for many of the same voters.
But the strategy has hit a significant obstacle in Montana, where Democratic nominee Alani Bankhead rejected pressure to withdraw and remains on the ballot alongside independent Seth Bodnar, potentially splitting voters opposed to Republican nominee Kurt Alme.
The contrasting decisions across four states have turned what might otherwise have been long-shot Republican Senate races into a broader experiment over whether Democrats can compete in deeply conservative territory by removing their own party label from the equation.
Nebraska provides the blueprint
The strategy is most developed in Nebraska.
Democratic nominee Cindy Burbank withdrew from the Senate contest in July after acknowledging that she was unlikely to defeat Republican Senator Pete Ricketts.
Her departure strengthened independent candidate Dan Osborn, a former union leader who is challenging Ricketts without Democratic Party affiliation.
Osborn qualified for the November ballot after submitting more than the 4,000 valid signatures required by Nebraska law.
Democrats already tested a similar strategy with Osborn in 2024.
The party did not nominate a candidate against Republican Senator Deb Fischer, allowing Osborn to run as the principal alternative. He ultimately lost but performed significantly better than Democrats had in many recent statewide contests.
That performance helped revive interest among Democratic strategists in independent candidates capable of appealing to working-class voters who might reject the Democratic label but remain open to voting against a Republican incumbent.
Nebraska has not elected a Democrat to statewide office since former Senator Ben Nelson won re-election in 2006.
Idaho Democrat steps aside
The strategy expanded into Idaho in late July when Democratic nominee David Roth withdrew from the Senate race.
His departure left independent Todd Achilles, a former Democratic state legislator and Army veteran, as the main challenger to Republican Senator Jim Risch.
Achilles has sought to distance himself from traditional partisan politics and appeal to voters across ideological lines.
The political calculation is straightforward.
Trump carried Idaho by more than 35 percentage points in 2024, and Democrats have not won a U.S. Senate election there since Frank Church in 1974.
Running a conventional Democratic campaign against Risch would therefore face enormous structural disadvantages.
An independent candidate potentially gives voters dissatisfied with Republicans an alternative without requiring them to vote for the Democratic Party.
South Dakota becomes third test
South Dakota followed.
Democratic nominee Julian Beaudion initially resisted pressure to withdraw but eventually exited the contest earlier this month.
His departure left independent Brian Bengs as the principal challenger to Republican Senator Mike Rounds.
Bengs is a military veteran who previously ran as the Democratic nominee against Republican Senator John Thune in 2022 but is contesting this election as an independent.
Beaudion's withdrawal made South Dakota the third Senate contest this cycle where Democrats effectively cleared the field for an independent challenger.
The three races share an important characteristic.
Nebraska, Idaho and South Dakota are states where Republicans normally begin statewide federal elections with enormous advantages.
That gives Democrats relatively little to lose by experimenting with candidates who reject a formal Democratic label.
Montana refuses to follow the script
Montana is proving much more complicated.
Democratic nominee Alani Bankhead faced significant pressure from Democratic lawmakers and allied groups to withdraw before the state's deadline and allow independent Seth Bodnar to face Republican Kurt Alme with a less divided opposition.
She refused.
Twenty-two Democratic members of the Montana Legislature publicly urged Bankhead to leave the race, arguing that defeating the Republican nominee should take priority over maintaining a Democratic candidate on the ballot.
Some Democratic-aligned groups have also moved away from her campaign.
Progressive Vet PAC, which had spent heavily supporting Bankhead during the Democratic primary, announced it would stop spending on her behalf after concluding that a Democratic candidate did not have a viable path to victory in November.
VoteVets backed Bodnar, while reporting in Montana indicated the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee did not plan to support Bankhead.
Bankhead nevertheless remained defiant and rejected the argument that Democratic voters who selected her in the primary should be asked to surrender their nominee.
The deadline passed with her still in the race.
Polling shows why Democrats wanted a one-on-one contest
Montana polling illustrates the problem.
A Public Opinion Strategies survey reported by Semafor in June showed Republican Kurt Alme at 44%, Bankhead at 25% and Bodnar at 20%.
Bankhead drew more support from liberal Democrats, while Bodnar performed more strongly among independents and moderate Democrats.
Together, their support exceeded Alme's in that particular survey.
Separately, however, they left the Republican with a commanding lead.
That does not mean voters supporting Bankhead would automatically transfer to Bodnar if she withdrew, and the poll does not establish that Bodnar would defeat Alme in a two-way race.
But it explains the strategic calculation behind the pressure on Bankhead.
Democratic-aligned groups believe a divided opposition could effectively hand Republicans a Senate seat that might otherwise become more competitive.
Montana is also different from Idaho or South Dakota because it has elected Democrats statewide relatively recently.
Democratic Senator Jon Tester represented the state for three terms before losing to Republican Tim Sheehy in 2024.
The current race is for the seat being vacated by Republican Senator Steve Daines, who announced he would not seek another term.
A gamble born from Democratic weakness
The emerging strategy reflects a larger problem for Democrats.
The party has become increasingly dependent on urban centres, college-educated voters and diverse metropolitan areas while losing ground across rural and heavily white working-class regions.
In some conservative states, the Democratic label itself can become an obstacle before candidates have an opportunity to define themselves.
Independent candidates are attempting to exploit that gap.
They can campaign against Republican incumbents without carrying the national Democratic brand, while still attracting Democrats who view defeating the Republican as their primary objective.
Republicans argue the distinction is artificial.
GOP campaigns have repeatedly portrayed candidates such as Osborn as Democrats operating under another label and accused Democratic organisations of clearing ballots because their candidates cannot win openly as Democrats.
Osborn and other independents reject that characterization and insist they are not controlled by either national party.
Senate math gives Democrats reason to experiment
The stakes extend beyond these individual states.
Republicans currently hold 53 Senate seats, compared with 45 Democrats and two independents who caucus with Democrats.
Twenty-two Republican-held Class II seats are up for election this year, compared with 13 Democratic seats, according to Senate records.
Most of the Republican seats in states such as Idaho, Nebraska and South Dakota would normally attract little national attention.
Creating credible independent campaigns could force Republicans to spend money defending territory that would otherwise be considered safe.
Even if the independents ultimately lose, forcing Republican committees and donors to divert resources into unexpected states could benefit Democrats competing in much closer Senate races elsewhere.
That makes the strategy potentially valuable beyond whether Osborn, Achilles or Bengs actually reaches the Senate.
Montana will test the strategy’s limits
The emerging experiment now has two versions.
In Nebraska, Idaho and South Dakota, Democrats have concluded that the best Democratic strategy may be to have no Democrat on the ballot.
In Montana, Democratic voters will still have their nominee.
The November results could provide important evidence about which approach works better.
If an independent significantly outperforms traditional Democratic candidates in the three states where nominees withdrew, strategists could increasingly view independent candidacies as a way to reopen parts of the electoral map that Democrats have effectively abandoned.
If Bankhead and Bodnar split the anti-Republican vote while Alme wins comfortably in Montana, pressure to avoid three-way races in future elections would likely intensify.
But if Bankhead performs strongly, Democrats arguing that the party cannot rebuild in rural America by removing itself from ballots will have their own case.
What began as several individual candidate withdrawals has therefore become something larger:
a test of whether Democrats can compete in America's deepest-red states only by stepping out of the way.