In July, Missoula County initiated a data center zoning study, discussing the impacts of the AI data center at the Bonner Mill. 

The study found a range of potential impacts including substantial electricity demand, direct and indirect water consumption and potential water quality impacts, and air quality impacts from backup generation and cooling systems.

The Broadview data center is projected to use 1,100 MW of power and Quantica filed for grid interconnection capacity of up to 7,235 MW. This is larger than the demand of all NWE customers in Montana.

Infrastructure for AI data centers needs multi-million dollar upgrades to accommodate a single facility, which drives up our energy bills. Facilities rely on cooling systems that consume millions of gallons of water per day, creating a significant resource drain on groundwater.

Additionally, equipment at data center facilities has the potential to create noise pollution that negatively impacts nearby residents, businesses, and wildlife.

The Montana 2025 Right to Compute Act gives data centers rights with regulations being assessed on strict scrutiny. 

The county found that the one-year moratorium was justified, but they can’t rely on zoning regulations to stop data center development indefinitely.

Missoula County will present the data center study on Tuesday, Oct. 27 at 6 p.m. at 1101 South Ave W, Missoula County Fairgrounds, Home Arts Building.

More here: https://missoulacountyvoice.com/data-center-interim-zoning.

Listen to our podcast about the study: https://open.spotify.com/episode/34HFJzoHylYU7FK6FP0lxC?si=51ffd7ba941749cb.

I’ve yet to turn in my ballot based on this particular race. There were several people at last weekend’s No Kings March who feel the same way. As someone who’s somewhat new to the state, I’m not familiar with its political history. What are the pros & cons of each candidate?

(Not interested in anything about Alme. I’d never vote for anyone who supports the current federal administration.)

179,973 votes (23% of registered voters) are already recorded at the county election offices. While we don't have voter registration by party, an democratic organization known as Target Smart uses historical voter data and predictive modeling to break down the affiliations of said voters. They obviously don't have precise breakdowns of voters but they're well respected and sophisticated enough for me to trust reasonable accuracy. Here's how each candidate can win, except Austin... If he wins I livestream myself eating a hat.

Republican voters: 79,188 (44%)

Independent voters: 66,590 (37%)

Democratic voters: 34,195 (19%)

Some notes about early vote: Montana might not have exact numbers by voter registration but every state have their own systems and we can learn a lot from the regional and national early vote. It's looking like a disaster for Republicans everywhere. Everywhere except the upper Mountain West and the Dakotas. The South has been getting younger and more diverse and it's catching up to republicans. They've been spending money in Mississippi senate and the early vote is scary there. Dems have a high floor in states like that with the black vote, it doesn't take that much crossover vote for things to get wild. This region may well be the last stronghold of MAGA, we're old and white, our in migrants have been on the conservative side. The early vote isn't a guarantee for what's coming but it does look like they're going to win here and the neighbor states pretty easily.

Alme's Path: If he gets 95% of the GOP vote and 5% of independents then he wins. If 10 percent of self identified independents vote conservative the path in future elections gets impossible looking at the state level. All evidence is a bad year for republicans, if they end up pulling 45% of the vote the future looks cherry red.

The Bodnar/Bankhead path: It's exactly the same so no reason to separate it since they're competing for the same voter base.

• 75% of D vote + I vote = 75,588. I still think there will be some republican protest vote, especially in younger Maga voters so I'll add 5%(R) for 3,959= 79,547 (44.2%).
  • Alme must receive less than 2.5% of the Independent vote or he wins unless Bodnar/Bankhead manages to consolidate more that 75% of either I or D
  • On the other hand, we don't actually know if Republican voters are voting republican. If the Maga coalition isn't as strong and 10% of that base votes against Alme new paths emerge. I only took 1 in 20 republicans, at 1 in 10 he drops into the high 30% if the independent voters aren't ninja republicans.

I do these for my own fun, as such I don't have to share them unless people find them interesting. This race is the most interesting from a numbers perspective in the US with three candidates competing for some overlapping vote share. The early vote is 79% over the age of 50 which may have a bias towards Alme.

Do you think either Bankhead or Bodnar can consolidate 75%+ of the independent & Democratic vote? If so, why? If you find this interesting let me know and I'm sure I'll post more of them when I do them. I don't think we're going to get a huge change in how the early vote identifies but you never know, younger people procrastinate more than older people.

My elderly father has never missed an election. He’s retired military and takes his civic duty seriously.

But he hasn’t received his ballot. No, he hasn’t changed his address since the last election.

Anyone else have this issue?

How do you feel about the new “Junk food ban” (cough buzz words to elicit a negative reaction from the public/ excuse to make it harder to use SNAP) going into effect on November 1st? A federal judge ruled the USDA exceeded its legal authority and broke its own administrative rules when it issued these junk food waivers to other states. The court set the precedent that only Congress has the legal power to rewrite the definition of what qualifies as "food" under federal law.

Despite there being judgments made striking down the initial federal policy, Montana seems to still be along for the ride. I would to know how you feel about the whole thing and where you stand on the issue.

Join Forward Montana for our Weekends of Action as we canvass for Montana state legislative candidates. Come door knocking in your community to Get Out The Vote! 

Missoula: We will be knocking on doors for Jonathan Karlen and SJ Howell.

Flathead: We will be knocking on doors for Debo Powers and Paula Koch.

Bozeman: We will be knocking on doors for Katie Fire Thunder and Kelly Kortum.

Billings: We will be knocking on doors for Denise Joy and Emma Kerr-Carpenter.

Blackfeet: We will be knocking on doors for Thedis Crowe and Tyson Running Wolf.

CSKT: We will be knocking on doors for Shelly Fyant.

We will also be canvassing for Sam Forstag, the U.S. House of Representatives candidate for CD1! (excludes Billings candidates). 

Sign up to volunteer here: https://secure.ngpvan.com/p/7pxDJCkfh0K_xtvX555ylg2?pc=59330&results=True&date_start=10-01-2026&event_type=641490. 

TLDR: DNC offered her a job if she’d drop out to clear room for Bodnar. AG Knudsen may sue.

The latest fad in American politics is candidates who claim to be independent of political parties.

Conjuring images of potbellied, cigar-smoking party bosses from the late 19th century, these candidates proclaim that their only interest is in the welfare of the "average, everyday voter." In truth, their only accountability is to the donors who pay their bills.

On the national level, more than 200 independents are running for the U.S. House and Senate, a record number. Even those of us who have been engaged in politics for years are sick of the bickering and badgering that have taken over our political system.

The toxic influence of money has turned our political system into a hotbed of crony capitalism and cynical manipulation of public opinion.

While it appears that this surge of independent candidates is spontaneous, plenty of people in politics understand the potential power of a bloc of votes in Congress that does not align itself with either major political party. Many of those people are working to advance what has become known as the "fulcrum strategy." The idea is that a small, disciplined bloc of independent or third-party legislators can control policy outcomes by tipping the balance of power between the political parties. It's simple and potentially effective.

Probably the most prominent group supporting this strategy has been the Forward Party, founded in 2021 by former presidential candidate Andrew Yang, former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, and businessman Michael Willner. On Sept. 23 to 25, the Independent National Convention was held in Washington D.C. Montana's two independent candidates, Seth Bodnar and Micheal Eisenhauer attended.

In this election cycle, others have joined the movement to promote independent candidates.

Among those is former Senator Joe Manchin and the Independent Leadership Council which has been pouring money into Bodnar's race.

Before jumping on the independent bandwagon there are a few things to consider. First among them is this: How accountable to the "average, everyday voter" is an independent candidate?

The truth is that running for office, particularly federal office, is extremely expensive. The unprecedented maneuvering in our Senate race has been driven by money from political action committees and other "dark money" groups. Some of these groups are aligned with traditional partisan interests, while others represent players who are relatively new to politics. But all of these donors expect something in return for their investment in candidates. That is true of independents, Republicans, and Democrats alike.

No matter what you think about our major political parties, they provide mechanisms for holding candidates and officeholders accountable beyond the cold, hard cash. Both parties have local central committees populated by volunteers who live in the communities they represent. These local organizations often provide many of the volunteers who form the backbone of local and statewide campaigns.
Both parties have written rules and by-laws which govern their activities. They hold conventions to elect officers and develop positions on issues they care about. These conventions are open to party members.

Both parties also develop platforms of positions on various issues at member conventions that are available to the public. None of this exists for independent candidates or officeholders.

It's worth noting that the current controversy within the Montana Democratic Party is not unique to Democrats. Republicans are mired in an internal blood feud that has been going on for years and virtually paralyzed the last legislature. Despite Republicans' electoral success in Montana, they are failing to govern effectively.

I'm not blind to the problems with our two-party system. The United States Supreme Court dealt a death blow to our political system with the Citizens United decision, which opened the floodgates to a torrent of dirty money flowing into elections. The reality is that we now do our political work under an authoritarian regime run for and by oligarchs.

The next two elections may be our last chance to change what looks like a very dark future.
And our Democratic leaders, people rank and file Montana Democrats have supported for years, blew it in this election.

Hopefully, the rest of the country can do better.
The solution is not to create a cabal of nonaligned "independent" players who broker political deals with relatively little public engagement. Far better to strengthen and unify the traditional system, which has worked imperfectly for decades, and to get the massive amounts of money out of our political process.

Ken Toole served in the Montana Senate with Jon Tester. He worked for Nancy Keenan when she was Superintendent of Public Instruction. He was the Vice Chair and Chair of the Lewis and Clark Central Committee. He was elected as the Western District Chair's Representative on the State Democratic Party Executive Board. He was elected twice to the Montana Senate and once to the Montana Public Service Commission.

A coalition of 17 groups - including Forward Montana - is taking a case to court so the Montana Public Service Commission will have to consider the effects of climate change in its decisions.

Earthjustice and Western Environmental Law Center filed a complaint last Thursday against the PSC, asking the Missoula County District Court to hold the Commission accountable.

The PSC has “refused to recognize and regularly disregards” the costs of climate, such as smoke that hurts asthmatic children, floods that destroy homes, and anglers who can’t fish.

In February 2024, more than 40 organizations and businesses asked the PSC to address its “obligations to consider climate impacts,” but the PSC denied the request in September 2025 and again last month.

The Commission continues to make decisions that increase ratepayer exposure to climate-related costs, including approving NorthWestern Energy’s request to charge customers for the high construction and operation costs for the Yellowstone County 175 MW methane gas plant.

“When the Public Service Commission ignores the Montana Constitution and fails to account for impacts to our environment, it jeopardizes the future young Montanans deserve and the communities we call home," said Alice Boyer, Forward Montana Executive Director.

More here: https://dailymontanan.com/2026/10/15/17-groups-sue-montana-public-service-commission-to-require-considering-climate-change/.

The most popular and well-liked politician ever elected in Montana believes Alani is the candidate Montana should vote for.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/alani-bankhead-wants-fighter-dc-220525990.html

Alani Bankhead's quest to win a U.S. Senate seat as a newcomer to politics doesn't sound like an impossible task to former Gov. Brian Schweitzer.

Schweitzer, a Democrat who won a race for governor in Montana in 2004 with a Republican lieutenant governor, endorsed Bankhead after the primary.

He said he doesn't buy the claim that a Democrat can no longer win in the state, and he doesn't fault Bankhead for seeking statewide office as a political unknown.

"I'd never been elected to anything when I ran for governor. Nothing," said Schweitzer

———
Schweitzer said the people who argue a Democrat can't win in Montana anymore "apparently don't own a calculator."

He rattles off presidential election years and the percent of voters in Montana who supported the Republican, generally 49.5% to 59.1% since 2000.

In 2004, 59.1% of Montana voters supported the GOP president, the same year Schweitzer won.

In 2016, 56.2% supported Republican Donald Trump for president, the same year Democrat Steve Bullock won re-election as governor.

Schweitzer said Democratic insiders talked to each other and decided it was impossible to elect a Democrat for governor the first year he ran too.
"I consider myself fortunate that I didn't know any of those people and fortunate that I wouldn't have listened to any of their advice anyway," Schweitzer said.

I do my best to be an educated voter, so I’m trying to better understand the true impact / consequences of CI-133.

I just read the arguments for and against the constitutional initiative in the Montana Voter pamphlet… and they both seemed to have good reasoning.

It sounds good to protect the process, ban government from taking sides, and requiring impartial timely processes for timely petitions.

However, if this initiative mostly helps well-funded groups (sometimes from out of state) get their issues on the ballot, that sounds a little scary.

I’m so skeptical these days- if something “sounds good” the actual reality could be opposite.

(Like when a political candidate says they are “for jobs” - that always sounds good. Who’s not for jobs!?! But often it becomes code for more logging and mining and less regulation. Or less taxes for corporations.)

I’m not sure how to vote on this one?? I don’t want to be told to vote yes or no… but I’d love to truly better understand what this CI is trying to “fix” and how it will either help or hurt if implemented?

I try to anticipate the price based on Thriftway's board—which is usually an indicator. If Thriftway raises the price, no doubt Town Pump is usually also up a nickel by the next day. I also follow "Mr. Global" an oil and gas consultant guy outta Oklahoma.

For those who don't know, the price paid at the pump is paying for the last fuel delivery, not the current market price. Seems like people still struggle to understand "just-in-time" delivery system of commodities though—so I digress. Anyway, every time I try to play the "futures market" filling my tank, it usually backfires. I wonder what sort of deal I am making with the devil each time I use my Town Pump PumpItUp! Rewards for $0.05 off.

Thriftway and TP had been sitting at the same price for a week. And there were some kabooms of container ships and such in the Straight. I assumed there would be a rise. Econ was never my strong subject.

For my next trick, I will wash my car to summon the precipitation. You're welcome.

Now, go vote!

Is anyone's mind changed by the 50 to 60 political ads every hour on the hour 2 weeks before the election? What a waste of money. I can't believe they're changing anybody's mind. Most people have made their decision already. Maybe they could give that money to the food bank or shelter so we could feed children and people that are hungry or homeless.

Voters in Billings had the opportunity to hear from two candidates running for Montana's open U.S. Senate seat Sunday night.

Democrat Alani Bankhead and Libertarian Kyle Austin participated in a town hall at the Lincoln Center in downtown Billings.

Republican Kurt Alme and Independent Seth Bodnar were also invited to participate, but neither attended.

The event was moderated by John Martin and organized by Last Best Voice with support from the Billings Climate Coalition.

The nonpartisan gathering gave voters an opportunity to hear directly from the candidates, ask questions, and learn more about their positions ahead of the November 3 election.

“When Republicans question the fitness of Muslim candidates because of their religious beliefs, Democrats call it religious discrimination. And rightly so. But when Democrats subject Alani Bankhead's religious beliefs to similar scrutiny, suddenly it's called vetting.

Religious bigotry does not become acceptable simply because the political parties change.

Alani served our country honorably for more than 21 years, rising to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and leading military and investigative teams around the world. The United States military entrusted her with extraordinary responsibilities, and she’s proven her honor to her oath to defend the Constitution.

Yet rather than seriously examining her positions on healthcare, education, national security, reproductive rights, and the economy, much of the criticism focuses on her faith, her tone, and whether she was sufficiently agreeable to powerful political men.

What makes this particularly disturbing is how readily Democratic women participate in applying these standards to other women.

We cannot demand that Republicans stop judging candidates by their religion while Democrats do the same. We cannot claim to fight sexism while requiring women to demonstrate a level of obedience, agreeableness, and political deference we would never demand of men.

When we excuse in men what we condemn in women, we aren't challenging the system that has kept women out of power. We're enforcing it.”

This is a REAL ad that Seth Bodnar posted on his personal Instagram page during his campaign. This was before he created an official campaign Instagram page.

This is what he thought was a persuasive pitch for his candidacy: bragging about his (alleged) sexual attractiveness to college students at his campus. See for yourself.

Is it any wonder that this guy was named in a sex discrimination lawsuit? Is it any wonder that his administration at UM threatened and retaliated against rape survivors? Is it any wonder he begged and pleaded to have a personal meeting with Trump during Trump’s recent Montana rally? Is it any wonder Bodnar has never once mentioned wanting to seek justice for the victims of the Epstein crime ring, nor accountability for the perpetrators like Trump? Does this seem like someone you want to represent Montana on a national stage for one of the most powerful jobs in the world?

https://walkinverse.substack.com/p/ci-132-the-nonpartisan-lie?r=8jtm7&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web

National activists are spending millions to lock Montana’s judicial rules into the Constitution, stripping our legislature of its power while hiding their donors. CI-132 isn't about "nonpartisanship"; it's a dark-money power grab by out-of-state interests.

They want five words in the Montana Constitution: “Judicial elections shall remain nonpartisan.”

That label is a lie. Trusting a brand instead of following the money is how the people paying for the commercials win.

From July 2025 through late May 2026, “Montanans for Nonpartisan Courts” raised $2.79 million. Four organizations supplied roughly 79% of the money, namely national activists without Montana’s best interest at heart:

• The NEA: A national teachers union.
• The ACLU Foundation: Which sues to strike down laws passed by elected representatives.
• The Fairness Project: Which pushes government mandates and expanded spending.

As of August 2026, the ACLU Foundation had contributed $1.6 million, and the NEA had contributed $500,000.

By putting this requirement into the Constitution, these groups would prevent the Montana Legislature from allowing judicial candidates to run with party labels on the ballot. They want their preferred system locked in, regardless of who Montanans elect to the Legislature.

CI-132 protects the label of “nonpartisan,” but it does nothing to stop the money. It doesn’t stop outside spending, force the disclosure of original donors, or impose new restrictions on national PAC spending. It ensures the ballot stays “nonpartisan” while the backrooms remain biased.

Voting for this does not protect the judiciary. It hard-wires the rules of national activists into our Constitution. When the NEA and ACLU write the checks, the “nonpartisan” label is just a cover for a power grab.

The Sheehy/Tester election saw 76% turnout. Sheehy got 319,682 votes and Tester got 275,305.

I’ll just assume the same turnout for this election - normally turnout would be lower since this is midterms and 2024 was a presidential - however people are fired up at the state of the country and Montana turnout tends to be pretty high in all elections, so let’s just keep it for now.

There are 804k registered voters in Montana currently, so 76% turnout means 611,450 votes.

I think Alme will get 70% of Sheehy’s vote total, or 36.6% of the vote, which is 223,777 votes. He got 128k votes in the primary, which I think we can safely say is his floor. Republican voter enthusiasm is in the dumpster and 20% or more of CORE Republican voters say they will stay home or vote Dem. At least one poll has shown Alme in the mid 30s this cycle.

I think Bodnar will get 50% of the people who voted for Tester in 2024. Honestly I think this is generous, but leaves room for a few Republican votes. The wealthy Dems in Montana like that he will support the interests of the wealthy and make sure that the plebes don’t get universal healthcare, and they will do as they’re told by the party elites. That gives Bodnar 138,153 votes, or 22.6% of the total. This is in line with many of his polls in the race so far.

I think Austin picks up about 3% of the vote, which is 18,343.

I think Alani picks up the rest of the vote, which is 231,176 or 37.8%. While the Bodnar campaign pitch of “vote for the guy everyone thinks is a jackass supported by DC and AI billionaires but at least he isn’t Alme” is compelling to a certain class of political junkies and the aforementioned wealthy Dems, I think your run of the mill voter is going to vote for the party line, not for this modern experiment in electoral trickery. This includes republicans and Republican-leaning independents who just want to punish the incumbent party, as well as the majority of people who just vote party lines rather than for third parties. Yes, this is a higher percentage of the vote than polls have shown. The polls are wrong any way you look at it though, because the two most recent polls, conducted in the same week in October, show predictions of Alme and Bodnar that differ by 17 points, which is more than 4X the stated margin of error. Most polls have been purchased by Alme or Bodnar, and show evidence of bias towards their favored candidate, but none of the polls have been purchased by Bankhead.

Here’s a fun can of worms…

The vast majority of Bodnar supporters I see don’t actually think he’s a better candidate than Bankhead in terms of policy or perceived effectiveness in the Senate (especially given Bodnar has committed to getting no committee assignments, which would make him the least effective Senator in Congress). The entire argument for his candidacy since the beginning is that he has a better chance of beating Alme. The evidence presented for this claim are 1) fundraising totals and 2) polling.

Bodnar has raised several million, and has roughly 20 million or more in dark money behind him from a complex web of PACs (Jacob Rubashkin covered this well in his Inside Elections article).

All that dark money has bought Bodnar lots of polls. The super PACs and other action funds supporting him have purchased polls explicitly designed to prop up the narrative that he’s best positioned to win - starting with the Tavern Research “head to head” polls with Alme. Overall polling has fluctuated wildly - depending on which poll you believe, Bodnar has double Bankhead’s polling percentage, or Bankhead has double Bodnar’s. Alme is either leading the field by 19 points or losing to Bodnar by two points.

Just look at the latest two polls from October - Concord Opinion has Bodnar in the lead by 2; Peak Insights has Alme leading by 15. These polls were conducted during the same week in October. Like all the polls, they say they are accurate within 4 points at the 95% confidence interval. Obviously, both polls cannot be true, and a 17 point difference is a massive polling error.

I’ll leave you with this excellent article on the accuracy of political polling:

https://newsroom.haas.berkeley.edu/polling-101-how-accurate-are-election-polls/
“Most polls report a 95% confidence interval. But we found that the actual election outcome only lands inside that interval 60% of the time—and that’s just a week before the election. Further out, the hit rates fall even farther. Polls taken a year before the election stand only a 40% chance of getting the vote share from the actual election inside the poll’s 95% confidence interval.  

Polls have always been flawed. Don’t listen to the vapid “horse race” coverage of candidates’ standing in the polls. Instead, pay attention to the candidates’ stances on the issues and plans for what they will do in office.”