u/nthlmkmnrg

Now that the August 10 withdrawal deadline has passed, we know what the Montana Senate ballot is going to look like: Kurt Alme, Alani Bankhead, Seth Bodnar, and Kyle Austin.

Before the deadline, there was obviously a lot of pressure for either Bankhead or Bodnar to get out. Most of the pressure I’ve seen was directed at Bankhead, including from national figures like Rachel Maddow. The basic argument was that having both Bankhead and Bodnar in the race splits the anti-Alme vote, and that Bodnar was better positioned to consolidate it.

I disagreed with the push to get Bankhead out, but I don’t think that argument was crazy.

Bodnar has raised millions of dollars. He has built a serious statewide campaign. Some polling has shown him doing considerably better against Alme than Bankhead does. If you looked at those polls and concluded that our best chance of beating Alme was for Bankhead to withdraw and Democrats to consolidate around Bodnar, there was evidence for that position.

But I’ve also seen a more categorical claim repeated a lot where people have been saying that Bankhead has no path to victory.

I don’t think the evidence supports that at all.

For starters, the polls don’t even agree about which of them is more competitive against Alme.

An NRSC poll in July had Alme beating Bodnar head-to-head 50-43. Against Bankhead, Alme’s lead was only 49-46.

Yes, that’s Republican polling. I’m not suggesting we accept it uncritically. But that’s part of the problem with declaring this race settled. We have relatively little polling, and different polls tell very different stories. If one poll says Bodnar is clearly stronger and another says Bankhead is clearly stronger, I’m not sure how we get from that to certainty that Bankhead cannot win.

Tavern Research also found a four-way race at Alme 49, Bankhead 26, Bodnar 24, Austin 2. Bankhead was getting 78% of Democrats, while Bodnar was getting 20%.

That’s certainly not a poll I’d want to get if I were running Bankhead’s campaign. But she’s also not sitting at 5% waiting for Democrats to discover she exists. She’s already consolidating a large majority of Democratic voters in that poll.

And there’s another part of this comparison that I think gets overlooked: the enormous difference in money. Bodnar and Alme have raised millions. Bankhead’s campaign has raised around $60,000. Some have cited this as an additional reason she can't win, but I have a different take.

When we compare Bankhead’s polling to Bodnar’s polling right now, we aren’t comparing two candidates who have had anything close to the same opportunity to make their case to Montana voters.

Of course, Bankhead benefited from substantial outside spending in the primary. But that’s not the same as having millions of dollars under her own control to build an organization, introduce herself to voters, advertise statewide, and define herself before her opponents do. She didn't have any control of that money.

Maybe Bankhead is already close to her ceiling. That’s possible.

But maybe the candidate who has spent a tiny fraction of what Bodnar has spent has more room to grow than the candidate who has already spent millions. That’s possible too.

More importantly, on August 10 the rhetorical and strategic landscape changed completely.

“Bankhead should drop out” is no longer a strategy. She didn’t. Nor did Bodnar. Both names will be on the ballot in November.

So voters who don’t want Alme now have to figure out what to do with the race we actually have, rather than the race some of us wanted to have.

And this is a plurality election. Nobody needs 50%.
Just to illustrate the math, imagine this:

- Bankhead 37%
- Alme 35%
- Bodnar 23%
- Austin 5%

Bankhead wins.

I’m obviously not predicting those numbers. I’m pointing out that there is nothing mathematically exotic about a Bankhead victory.

Her path is pretty easy to describe: consolidate Democratic voters, pick up enough independents, and have Bodnar and Austin take enough votes elsewhere that Alme doesn’t get a larger plurality.

Bodnar has a path too: persuade enough Democrats to leave their own nominee, do very well with independents and anti-Alme Republicans, and become the candidate around whom the anti-Alme vote eventually consolidates.

I don’t know which one is more likely to happen between now and November. I don’t think anyone else knows either.

That’s why I think we should be more careful with the language we’re using.

If someone says “Bankhead is an underdog,” sure. If someone says “I think Bodnar is more electable,” there’s polling they can point to.

But “Bankhead has no path to victory” -- eh, I don't think that's true, and I honestly don't think it's even reasonable to have that opinion.

We’re three months out. The polling is sparse and contradictory. Bankhead has spent a tiny fraction of what the other major candidates have spent. We don’t yet know what Democratic voters who preferred Bodnar will do, what independents will do, how much money Bankhead will raise now that everyone knows she’s staying in, or how the dynamics of a four-way race will change once voters start thinking seriously about November.

Bankhead could lose. She could lose badly. Bodnar could emerge as the obvious alternative to Alme. Alme could win comfortably.

Bankhead could also consolidate Democrats, become better known and better funded, pick up enough independents, and win a plurality.

We can argue all day about how likely that is. But a path exists.

Personally, I think it is pretty attainable.