Voter vengeance in Kurt Alme’s future?
Barrett argues that Alme could face voter backlash after filing for the Senate seat following Daines’ late withdrawal.
SOURCE CHECK
TAP FOR WHYThe Bozeman Daily Chronicle is an established local newspaper, but this page is explicitly a guest column rather than staff reporting. The author is named, while the article's strongly stated interpretation is not presented as independently verified reporting.
- Source type — Established local-news publisher; a reasonable baseline of institutional credibility.
- Author attribution — The named guest columnist is identified, and the piece is labeled as a guest column.
- Editorial standards — The outlet distinguishes opinion from reporting, but this article is not a newsroom report.
- Transparency — The page identifies its author and publication; no specific corrections information appears in the article.
The column offers a concrete historical comparison and attributes a quoted description to the New York Times, but its central claims about motive and voter reaction are argued rather than supported with multiple sources or a response from Daines or Alme.
HOW WE SCORE ↗This is an opinion column presenting one sustained case against Daines’ maneuver and its benefit to Alme. It provides historical context but no response from either man or competing account of the filing decisions.
- Counterarguments presented — No defense or response from Daines or Alme is included.
- Loaded language — The column repeatedly uses charged descriptions, including “corrupt,” “manipulations” and “snookered.”
- Opinion vs reporting — The piece is identified as a guest column and advances a clear argument.
- Source diversity — The argument relies primarily on the columnist’s account, with one attributed newspaper quotation and historical comparison.
The column is sharply critical of Daines and Alme, but its stated argument centers on voter choice and it also recounts a similar maneuver by a Democratic legislative leader. The text does not establish a broader ideological framing.
- Framing — Frames the issue as voter choice and compares the current episode with an earlier maneuver by a Democratic leader.
- Language tone — Uses strongly condemnatory terms such as “corrupt” and “snookered,” aimed at the current Republican figures.
- Source selection — Presents the guest columnist's case without a response from Daines or Alme.
Guest columnist Evan Barrett argues that Steve Daines’ late withdrawal from Montana’s Senate race cleared the way for Kurt Alme and could provoke a voter backlash. He compares the maneuver to a 1970 episode in which an upset write-in candidate defeated the replacement who had benefited from a similar filing tactic.
Barrett says Daines filed early in 2026 to deter other candidates, then withdrew on the March 4 filing deadline with five minutes remaining. He argues that Alme, whom he calls Daines’ hand-selected replacement, was the only candidate able to file before the deadline; Barrett quotes the New York Times describing Daines’ move as clearing the field for his chosen successor.
Barrett compares the episode with a 1970 Montana Senate race. He recounts that state Sen. Eugene Mahoney withdrew late on the filing deadline and state Rep. Paul Harlow filed for the seat; Republican George McCallum later won the general election after a write-in campaign. Barrett suggests voter anger over the current race could similarly hurt Alme, while noting that the outcome remains uncertain.
Community verdict
6 VOTES
People in this story
SWIPE →
U.S. senator who withdrew from the race and cleared a path for Alme
Daines's version of this story ↗Discussion · 0
Loading comments…