Context & Background: The Shifting Sands of the Political Center

The United States has long been dominated by a two-party system, a phenomenon reinforced by electoral rules like winner-take-all contests and campaign finance laws. This structure has historically made it incredibly difficult for independent candidates to gain traction, often relegating them to spoiler roles or niche platforms. However, recent years have seen a growing number of Americans identifying as independent, signaling a potential erosion of loyalty to either the Democratic or Republican party.

This trend is particularly noteworthy in states like Idaho and South Dakota, which consistently lean Republican. Idaho, for instance, has not elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1974, and its presidential voting patterns have been overwhelmingly Republican for decades. Similarly, South Dakota has a long history of Republican dominance in federal and state-level elections. These are states where the Republican brand is strong, and the Democratic party often struggles to find a competitive foothold.

Despite this deep-seated partisan alignment, the underlying currents of voter sentiment are not always as monolithic as the election results might suggest. Many voters in these states, while identifying as Republican or conservative, may find themselves at odds with specific party platforms or the increasingly polarized rhetoric emanating from Washington D.C. This can create a space for candidates who promise a more pragmatic, less ideological approach, even if they lack the established party machinery.

Todd Achilles, a business owner and former Army officer, is making his case in Idaho on a platform that emphasizes practical problem-solving, fiscal responsibility, and a focus on local issues. His campaign seeks to appeal to a broad range of Idaho voters who may feel unrepresented by the current partisan divide. Similarly, Brian Bengs, an attorney and former military officer, is running in South Dakota with a message centered on national unity, economic opportunity, and a rejection of partisan extremism. Both candidates are tapping into a sentiment that transcends traditional party lines, suggesting a desire for leaders who can bridge divides rather than deepen them.

The decision to run as an independent in such a challenging environment is a deliberate one. It signals a rejection of the perceived limitations and ideological rigidity that can come with aligning with either major party. For Achilles and Bengs, the independent label is not a concession; it is a strategic choice designed to attract voters who are disillusioned with the status quo and are actively seeking alternatives that prioritize substance over partisan affiliation.

Understanding the context of these campaigns requires acknowledging the deep historical roots of Republican strength in Idaho and South Dakota. However, it also necessitates recognizing the growing, albeit often quiet, dissent among a segment of the electorate that feels left behind or unrepresented by the current political discourse. These independent candidacies are, in essence, attempts to capitalize on that sentiment and forge a new path for political engagement.

In-Depth Analysis: The Independent Advantage and Disadvantage

Running as an independent in a deep-red state presents a unique set of challenges and potential advantages. The most obvious hurdle is the lack of a party infrastructure. Unlike Republican and Democratic candidates who benefit from established voter databases, fundraising networks, volunteer organizations, and name recognition cultivated over decades, independent candidates must build everything from the ground up.

For Todd Achilles and Brian Bengs, this means a relentless effort to connect directly with voters. Their campaigns are likely to be more reliant on grassroots organizing, digital outreach, and direct engagement through town halls and local events. This can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it allows them to cultivate a more personal connection with voters, emphasizing their independence from party bosses and their commitment to representing the specific needs of their constituents rather than a national party agenda.

On the other hand, the sheer scale of building a statewide campaign without party support is immense. Access to media, particularly paid advertising, is often mediated by party endorsement and established funding streams. Independents often struggle to break through the noise of partisan campaigns that command significant financial resources and media attention.

However, there is a potential advantage to being an independent in these states: the ability to attract disaffected voters from both parties, and particularly from the Republican party itself. In states that are reliably red, a significant portion of the electorate may hold moderate views or be uncomfortable with the more extreme positions that have become prevalent in the national Republican party. Achilles and Bengs can position themselves as the “adult in the room,” offering a sensible alternative that doesn’t require voters to abandon their conservative principles but rather to prioritize practical governance over ideological purity.

Their backgrounds as veterans and business leaders or legal professionals also lend them an air of credibility and competence that can resonate with voters weary of career politicians. In Idaho, Achilles’s business acumen and military service may appeal to a sense of pragmatism and national security that many Idahoans value. In South Dakota, Bengs’s legal expertise and military background could similarly position him as a knowledgeable and experienced leader.

The success of these campaigns will hinge on their ability to articulate a compelling vision that transcends partisan labels. They need to demonstrate that their independent status allows them to be more effective problem-solvers, unburdened by party discipline or the need to appease a national base. This requires a clear message that outlines specific policy proposals and a credible plan for achieving them, demonstrating that their independence is a strategic asset, not a hindrance.

Furthermore, the electoral system itself can be a hurdle. Ballots in Idaho and South Dakota may have different rules for independent candidates regarding ballot access. They might need to collect a significant number of signatures to even appear on the ballot, a process that is often more rigorous for non-party candidates. Once on the ballot, they face the challenge of name recognition against deeply entrenched party nominees who have spent years building their political brands.

The political narratives in these states are often framed by national partisan battles. Achilles and Bengs will need to work hard to ensure their campaigns are seen as distinct from these larger, often polarizing, debates. They will need to focus on local issues and demonstrate an understanding of the specific concerns of Idahoan and South Dakotan voters, making the case that their independent stance allows them to better address these unique needs.

The media landscape also plays a crucial role. While major news outlets in these states might cover these campaigns due to their novelty, independent candidates often struggle to gain sustained, positive coverage. They need to be adept at generating earned media and using social media effectively to reach voters directly, bypassing traditional gatekeepers.

Ultimately, the success of Achilles and Bengs will be a testament to whether a growing segment of the electorate in these traditionally conservative states is willing to embrace a different kind of politics, one that prioritizes competence, pragmatism, and independence over party loyalty.

Pros and Cons of Independent Candidacies in Deep-Red States

Running outside the established party system in states like Idaho and South Dakota offers a unique set of potential advantages and significant disadvantages. A careful consideration of these factors provides a clearer picture of the uphill battle faced by candidates like Todd Achilles and Brian Bengs.

Pros:

• Appeal to Disaffected Voters: Independent candidates can attract voters from both major parties who feel alienated by partisan extremism or specific party platforms. In deep-red states, this often includes moderate Republicans and independents who are wary of the direction of the national GOP.
• Perception of Authenticity and Independence: Running as an independent can signal a commitment to representing constituents rather than party leadership. This can foster a perception of authenticity and a willingness to break from entrenched political norms.
• Focus on Local Issues: Without the pressure of adhering to a national party platform, independent candidates can prioritize and focus on the specific concerns and needs of their state’s residents, tailoring their message to local priorities.
• Potential for Cross-Party Appeal: A well-articulated message of pragmatism and problem-solving can resonate with a broader base of voters, potentially drawing support from Democrats who find the Republican nominee too conservative, and Republicans who find the Democratic nominee too liberal.
• Novelty Factor: In political landscapes that can become predictable, an independent candidacy can generate media attention and voter curiosity, offering a fresh alternative to the usual partisan contests.

Cons:

• Lack of Party Infrastructure: Independent candidates do not have access to established party networks for fundraising, voter mobilization, volunteer recruitment, and data analytics, which are crucial for large-scale campaigns.
• Ballot Access Hurdles: Obtaining ballot access for independent candidates often requires collecting a significant number of signatures, a process that is typically more arduous than for major party candidates.
• Limited Media Access and Funding: Independent campaigns often struggle to match the fundraising capabilities of major party candidates, which can limit their ability to purchase advertising and gain widespread media coverage.
• Voter Habit and Brand Recognition: Voters are accustomed to voting along party lines. Independent candidates must overcome ingrained voting habits and the significant name recognition advantage that major party nominees typically enjoy.
• Difficulty in Framing the Narrative: Without the established narrative and messaging of a major party, independent candidates may find it challenging to define themselves and their platforms in a way that cuts through partisan noise.
• Perception of Viability: Voters may be hesitant to support an independent candidate if they believe the candidate has no realistic chance of winning, fearing their vote will be “wasted.”
• Lack of a Coherent Governing Coalition: Even if elected, an independent senator may struggle to build coalitions and exert influence in Washington without the backing of a party caucus that can provide legislative support and committee assignments.

Key Takeaways

• Todd Achilles (Idaho) and Brian Bengs (South Dakota) are running for the U.S. Senate in 2026 as independents in states with strong Republican leanings.
• Their candidacies tap into a growing segment of American voters who identify as independent and may be disillusioned with the two-party system.
• Independent candidates face significant challenges, including a lack of party infrastructure, funding, and established voter bases.
• However, they can appeal to disaffected voters and position themselves as pragmatic problem-solvers, potentially drawing support across the political spectrum.
• Success will depend on their ability to articulate a compelling, localized message and build grassroots support outside traditional party structures.
• These campaigns represent a test of whether outsider, non-partisan politics can gain meaningful traction in historically partisan strongholds.

Future Outlook: A Ripple or a Wave?

The candidacies of Todd Achilles and Brian Bengs in Idaho and South Dakota are more than just isolated political curiosities; they represent a potential indicator of broader trends in American political engagement. The increasing number of registered independents across the nation suggests that voters are not uniformly satisfied with the choices presented by the Democratic and Republican parties.

If Achilles and Bengs can achieve even a modest level of success—defined perhaps not by winning outright, but by significantly impacting the debate, drawing attention to issues, and forcing the major parties to address voter concerns more directly—their campaigns could serve as a blueprint for future independent bids in other deep-red or deep-blue states.

The future outlook for independent candidacies in America is complex. On one hand, the structural advantages of the two-party system remain formidable. Electoral laws, campaign finance regulations, and the entrenched nature of party loyalty create significant barriers to entry. Major party nominees will continue to benefit from name recognition, established donor networks, and media access that independent candidates can only dream of replicating.

However, the persistent narrative of polarization and partisan gridlock continues to fuel voter dissatisfaction. If major parties fail to adapt and address the concerns of a growing segment of the electorate that feels unrepresented, the appeal of independent alternatives may continue to grow. The “wildcards” in states like Idaho and South Dakota could indeed signal a larger shift, a growing demand for candidates who prioritize pragmatic governance and bipartisan cooperation over ideological purity.

The success of Achilles and Bengs could inspire similar candidacies in other states, potentially creating a more diverse and representative political landscape. Alternatively, if they face insurmountable challenges and their campaigns fail to gain significant traction, it could reinforce the perception that the two-party system is too entrenched to be meaningfully challenged from the outside.

The outcome of these races will be closely watched not just by political strategists in Idaho and South Dakota, but by those who believe in the potential for independent voices to reshape American politics. Their efforts are a crucial experiment, testing the boundaries of voter choice and the enduring appeal of a political middle ground in an increasingly divided nation.

Call to Action

The journeys of Todd Achilles and Brian Bengs offer a compelling look at the challenges and possibilities of independent politics in America. For voters in Idaho and South Dakota, their candidacies present a unique opportunity to consider alternatives to the traditional partisan choices.

For those interested in the future of political representation and the health of the two-party system, paying attention to these campaigns is crucial. Understanding their strategies, their successes, and their failures can provide valuable insights into how political engagement is evolving. Supporting these types of candidacies, even if only through advocacy or awareness, can help foster a more diverse and potentially more responsive political environment across the country.

As the 2026 election cycle unfolds, the efforts of these independent “wildcards” serve as a reminder that the political landscape is not static. They are testing the waters of a system that often seems resistant to change, and their bravery in doing so is a story worth following.