Matt Shinners
Republicans have converged on their messaging against the independent Senate candidates running in Nebraska, South Dakota, Idaho, and Montana: “Dan Osborn, Brian Bengs, Todd Achilles, and Seth Bodnar would work in lockstep with the toxic socialist Democrats to enact their woke agenda and raise taxes for American working families,” National Republican Senatorial Committee national press secretary Bernadette Breslin said (via NOTUS).
It is not an isolated line. Sen. Jim Risch’s campaign manager, Marc Kilmer, called Achilles “a liberal Democrat masquerading as an ‘independent.’” Pete Ricketts’ deputy campaign manager, Max Oberg, said the campaign’s approach was to expose Osborn’s “far-left views and the Democrat infrastructure behind his campaign.” Rob Skjonsberg, a senior adviser to Sen. Mike Rounds, pointed to Bengs’ use of ActBlue as proof “he’s a Democrat.” Montana Republican nominee Kurt Alme has called Bodnar a “Democrat in disguise” (via Breitbart).
The framing definitely has some evidence for it. Bengs ran for Senate as a Democrat in 2022. Achilles was appointed and then elected to the Idaho House as a Democrat before leaving the party in 2025. The Nebraska Democratic Party endorsed Osborn. Bodnar’s candidacy was encouraged by former Democratic Sen. Jon Tester. Democratic nominees withdrew in Idaho, Nebraska, and South Dakota, leaving three of the four in one-on-one races. Osborn, Bengs, and Bodnar have all raised money through ActBlue, a traditionally Democratic fundraising platform, though one which permits independents on a case-by-case basis that does focus on alignment with the Democratic platform.
However, when digging past the candidates’ histories and use of certain fundraising tools and into their publicly stated positions, do they stand in “lockstep” with the Democratic Party, or have they demonstrated publicly that they’re willing to stake out different stances? Are they more aligned with Democrats or Republicans, or neither? How do their stances align with polling on independents?
This analysis uses current forms of the major party platforms (and, in the Republicans case, their enacted legislation and executive orders given their current control of the Executive and Legislative branches). It also uses the websites of the independent candidates and their public statements, as well as polling that pulled out independent sentiment on key issues.
Let’s look at the major issues and where there’s alignment and space between the independent candidates and the major parties.
1. The Economy
Polling
Candidates
- Bengs — Frames affordability and cost of living as a top-three priority alongside money in politics and healthcare. Funds his healthcare expansion through taxes on billionaires and corporations. Platform includes balancing the budget and paying down the debt.
- Achilles — Calls the national debt a “bright red line” and says he is the more conservative candidate in the race on fiscal grounds, citing the debt’s growth under Risch. Would close tax loopholes used by corporations and the ultra-wealthy, ban non-compete agreements, and “fight against corporate socialism.” Says national investments like the IRA and CHIPS Act needed corresponding revenues attached.
- Bodnar — Launched on the debt, tariffs, and the cost of housing, healthcare, and child care. Calls tariffs “taxes that are crushing our ag producers and small businesses” and the tariff regime “nonsensical.”
- Osborn — Populist economic framing: close corporate loopholes, end subsidies to profitable industries, raise the minimum wage, pass the PRO Act. Also has a cut-waste-and-balance-the-budget plank and would have Congress reclaim tariff authority.
Conclusion
On taxing the wealthy, all four sit close to the Democratic platform, which aligns with a solid majority of independents (62%). On tariffs, all four oppose the Republican position, which is also where 72% of independents are. Many discuss the debt as a central issue and being out of control under both parties, separating themselves from both the Republicans and Democrats.
2. Healthcare
Polling (Gallup annual Health and Healthcare survey)
Candidates
- Bengs — The most expansive plan of the four: a five-stage overhaul extending ACA coverage to age 30, enhancing subsidies, lowering Medicare eligibility to 55, creating a public option, and funding it with taxes on billionaires and corporations. This is to the left of the Democratic platform.
- Achilles — Sequences healthcare third, behind corruption and the debt: “After tackling corruption, we can tackle our national debt. After that, we can tackle healthcare.” Has not released a comparably detailed plan.
- Bodnar — Rural-delivery focus: telehealth expansion, rural workforce incentives, opposition to cuts to critical access hospitals, and an explicit commitment to defend Medicaid expansion. Frames it as working “with Senators from all sides.” His position is more limited than the Democratic position and aligns with the stated goals of both parties.
- Osborn — Anti-profiteering framing: don’t let insurance companies make healthcare decisions, stop subsidizing Big Pharma, block private equity takeovers of providers. Said he would not have voted for the reconciliation bill, citing a dialysis facility closure in Chadron he attributes to its Medicaid cuts.
Conclusion
This is the section where the Republican claim comes closest to holding — but imprecisely. Bengs overshoots the Democratic platform. Bodnar and Osborn are defending existing programs against cuts, a position 65% of independents share.
3. The Second Amendment
Polling (Gallup crime poll, most recent available with crosstabs)
Candidates
- Bengs — The only one of the four with a documented record supporting platform-aligned measures: as a Democratic candidate in 2022 he backed universal background checks and red flag laws. Whether those positions carry into his independent campaign is unresolved on his current platform.
- Achilles — Policy page states Idaho already decided how Idahoans carry “and we got it right,” and that his job is “to keep Washington out of the way and protect Idahoans’ rights.”
- Bodnar — Frames it as a privacy principle: government has “no business in our bedrooms, no business in our doctor’s office, no business at our gun cabinets either.”
- Osborn — Says he is “fundamentally in favor of the Second Amendment” and that law-abiding citizens must always have the right to bear arms, while saying he would defer to law enforcement on specific measures.
Conclusion
The clearest divergence from the Democratic platform of any issue in this list. Three of four are explicitly opposed to new federal restrictions. Independents split almost exactly on an assault weapons ban (50%), so this is not a position with a clear independent-voter consensus behind it in either direction, and, for the most part, the Independents align with the Republicans.
4. Immigration
Polling
Candidates
- Bengs — Expand legal immigration; faster work authorization; more pathways to permanent status. Robust border protection and funding, but reactive instead of proactive.
- Achilles — Support CBP with staffing and funding; ensure farmers/ranchers have necessary workers (after hiring local workers); modern visa system.
- Bodnar — Has said he could work with Trump and Republicans on border security and immigration reform, alongside prescription drug pricing.
- Osborn — The most documented and the most cross-pressured. Ran a 2024 ad offering to help build the border wall, though recently audio leaked where he called it a “symbol of racism.” Previously said Trump is doing a good job securing the border, but has recently been critical of ICE because of its divisiveness and fiscal waste; has called illegal immigration “detrimental to every American worker” while affirming legal immigration’s economic value. CNN’s KFile reported in June that Osborn said in 2021 he helped alert federal immigration authorities to a company allegedly using undocumented replacement workers. Seems to be similarly torn to many independents - wanting to crack down on illegal immigration, support legal immigration, and protect American workers, but viewing certain actions taken by the current Administration as going too far to achieve these goals.
Conclusion
Most of the Independent candidates are critical of current Republican policy on immigration, but their criticisms align with the shift in opinion of Independents - there’s alignment on goals but not methods. The candidates are largely to the right of Democrats on border security and enforcement against illegal immigrants, while more aligned with them on legal immigration.
5. Abortion Rights
Polling
*Note: Much more than any other issue, wording for these questions has a large impact on responses, as seen by the discrepancy in the first and third column here. Where most people seem to be is that abortion is a tough topic, where there should be more freedom earlier in the pregnancy and less freedom later in the pregnancy, with people being flexible with where they believe the line should be between permissiveness and restriction.
Candidates
- Bengs — Supports codifying Roe and opposes a federal 15-week ban. In a candidate questionnaire he argued the Court “got it wrong” and that the Roe standards “were right the first time.” Has previously favored a constitutional right-to-privacy amendment as a more durable alternative to statutory codification.
- Achilles — No detailed public position.
- Bodnar — Frames it as government non-interference: “no business in our doctor’s office.” No detailed position on federal legislation located.
- Osborn — A Roman Catholic who has described himself as personally pro-life, says he does not support “extreme national measures to ban abortion” and that the decision belongs to a woman and her doctor.
Conclusion
While they all use different language to describe their position (outside of Achilles, who has been a bit silent on the issue), their conclusions align more with the Democratic position of keeping legislation (both federal and state) outside of the decision process.
Balance of Power
Accusations of these candidates being in “lockstep” with the Democratic Party are overblown. While they do share policy alignment with the Democrats on several issues, those positions tend to align with where a majority or plurality of independents are (and, frequently, registered voters as a whole).
However, the more consequential divergence might be over their stated positions on caucusing. While some have made pledges not to caucus with either party, should several of these candidates get elected and deny either side a majority, they would likely determine the rules of the chamber and who is leading it.
Based on our interviews with these individuals, it seems likely that they’d press for things that would increase the power of individual members of the Senate to get things done. They’ve pledged to push for rules that would require single-topic bills, and for an up-or-down vote on all bills, not just those that have support of the majority party.
They’ve pushed for votes on key agenda items that align with independent preferences—things like a ban on stock trading, on money in politics, on gerrymandering, on term limits, and healthcare.
Is it more likely that the Democrats would agree to these requirements than the Republicans? A strong argument can be made for that position, especially given the focus on removing money from politics, ending partisan gerrymandering, and expanding healthcare coverage in a way that aligns with the views of independents that are closer to the current position of the Democratic Party.
However, they also share a lot of ground with Republicans on immigration and border security, on a focus on rural healthcare and farming/ranching industries, and especially on the Second Amendment. In a Senate where Independents have forced the rules to allow for single-issue bills raised by the minority party, there’s a lot of room for Republicans to advance their agenda with this fulcrum even if the Independents have voted for a Democratic leader.
In short, the Independents seem to be less in lockstep with Democrats and more in lockstep with a majority of Americans—not just on policy, but also on how the Senate itself should work.