Democrats Supporting Non-Democrats to Block Republicans
A desperate but plausible gambit made necessary by a flawed system.
AP (“Democrats test a new red state strategy: Back independents over their own nominees“):
Democratic leaders, desperate to compete in red states where their party brand is toxic, are embracing something new this midterm season: Not backing Democrats.
In states like Nebraska, Idaho and Alaska, Democratic officials are, in some cases, looking past their own party’s candidates while subtly encouraging — or even openly promoting — independent candidates they hope can outperform the Democratic label. The Democratic National Committee and some of its allies in Washington are quietly supporting the new strategy.
Meanwhile, some of the independent candidates are chatting in a group text about their approach as they plot a path that could shake up Congress, which is consumed by partisan gridlock.
Nebraska Democrats this week chose a nominee for U.S. Senate, Cindy Burbank, who said a major campaign priority was to ensure a Democrat wouldn’t be on the fall ballot to pull support from independent Dan Osborn. Shortly after polls closed, Burbank reiterated her plan to drop out in the coming weeks during a private conversation with a party official, according to state Democratic chair Jane Kleeb.
Democratic leaders believe Osborn, who came within 7 points of winning a Senate seat in 2024, has the best chance to defeat Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts.
Democrats’ pivot toward independents is part of an intentional strategy in some places — and something closer to a wink and a nod in others — that covers a handful of high-profile Senate and House and even statehouse contests. Independent Senate candidates are also running in states like Idaho, South Dakota and Montana, where Democratic leadership has so far been unwilling to fully embrace the independents, although many view them as the Democrats’ best chance to stop Republicans this fall.
“For some states, and Nebraska is one of them, where Democrats are 32% of the electorate, this is a long-term strategy for us,” said Kleeb, who also serves as a vice chair to the Democratic National Committee.
Kleeb said her state party is backing independents in at least four state legislative seats in addition to the U.S. Senate: “We have to build a coalition with independents in order to win elections so we can do good work for the people. Period.”
Some of the Democratic Party’s national political machine appears to be on board.
The Democrats’ fundraising site, ActBlue, serves some of the independent candidates, as do popular Democratic-allied website builders. At the same time, some of the party’s campaign committees in Washington quietly provide logistical support in some cases, while avoiding public criticism of the independent candidates even in some races where there is a Democratic nominee.
“The Democratic Party’s brand is awful right now,” said Democratic strategist Josh Schwerin. “The combination of the brand problem and the existential nature of the threat that our country is facing requires us to have a big tent and look for candidates who can win.”
I saw a report on the Nebraska gambit earlier in the week, but was not aware that it was part of a larger strategy. To the extent Priority One is to deprive President Trump of another two years of a rubber-stamp Congress, it’s a sound approach. But it’s just another illustration of the problems of our bimodal system.
Schwerin is not being hyperbolic when he says, “The Democratic Party’s brand is awful right now.” According to a Pew survey published earlier this month, 59 percent of Americans have an unfavorable view of the party, compared to 39 percent who view it favorably. Of course, the Republican Party has essentially identical (58-40) ratings. But, with exceedingly rare exception, getting elected to major office (President, US Senator, US Representative, governor) requires running under one of those banners.
Complicating matters further, as we’ve noted here ad nauseam, is that almost every state and Congressional district leans so heavily toward one of these parties that, for all intents and purposes, winning that party’s primary is tantamount to election. While it’s doubtful Osborn can get elected to the Senate from Nebraska as an independent, it’s all but certain he can’t as a Democrat barring some major scandal on Ricketts’ part.
Indeed, according to a recent Tavern sample of likely Nebraska voters,
Against Osborn, Ricketts trails 42-47, with 12% undecided. Against Cindy Burbank, he wins 48-39. Against William J. Forbes, he wins 50-34. Against a generic Democrat — the cleanest test of the partisan baseline — he wins 49-42. Four ballots, same incumbent, same week. One of them looks competitive. Three of them don’t.
The driving factor to this is independents. Against Osborn, independents break 62-20 for the challenger. Against Burbank, they break 48-29. Against Forbes, 47-30. Against a generic Democrat, 54-28. Osborn isn’t picking up a few more independents than a Democrat would. He’s running 14 points stronger with them than the generic Democratic baseline, and roughly doubling Forbes’s margin with the same voters.
He’s also pulling Republicans a Democrat can’t reach. Osborn takes 14% of self-identified Republicans and 17% of Trump 2024 voters. A generic Democrat gets 8% and 9%. That’s the difference between a 5-point race and a 7-point loss. [emphases in original]
Granting that some of this may be a function of Osborn’s personal qualities, including name recognition from his previous run, I’m quite certain that his numbers would be quite a bit lower under the “Democrat” label.
The subterfuge of running a Democratic primary with the intent of having the winner drop out and endorse an “independent” is, to say the least, odd. It deprives hard core Democrats of a candidate in the race. But, alas, in a winner-take-all system where the Democrat can’t win, it makes tactical sense.
Still, some Democrats are not happy.
Some Democratic donors, strategists and party leaders from other states have privately pushed back, insisting Democrats should not look past their own nominees for short-term political gain. They want Democratic officials, in Washington and on the ground in red states, to work harder to make the Democratic brand more attractive — even if it takes several more years to be competitive.
“What’s the independent going to do for the Democratic Party if they win?” asked Democratic strategist Mike Ceraso, who sees the shift toward independents as an attempt to disguise Democrats in some cases. “We’re the party of truth and honesty and integrity, but we’re playing these stupid political games?”
And there is no guarantee that the independent candidates, if elected, would support all of the Democrats’ policy priorities or even Democratic leadership in Congress.
In Idaho, independent Senate candidate Todd Achilles, an Army veteran and former Democratic state legislator, said he won’t be caucusing with either party if elected. He explained his politics as “straight down the middle,” and said he believes in individual liberties.
Of course, the unreliability issue will always be there for Red and Purple state non-Republicans. Any regular OTB reader knows full well the pain Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema caused for the Democratic leadership despite carrying (until near the end, anyway) the party brand. They’d still prefer a majority and dealing with a recalcitrant Manchin than with minority status and his replacement, Republican Jim Justice.
And, if elected, Achilles will soon learn that caucusing with neither party means having next to no influence in the Senate. While he might be able to wrest some concessions here and there in order to be the tiebreaking vote on major bills, real power in Congress comes from committee assignments. Here, again, the fact that there are only two viable parties complicates governing and coalition-building.
There are two independents in the Senate who caucus with the Democrats. Bernie Sanders is ranking member of one of the big standing committees. Angus King is just beginning to reach enough seniority to be eligible for a position like that.
That someone has to be into their third six-year term in the Senate before they have any chance of a significant committee position says that there are all sorts of things wrong with the system.
@Michael Cain: And, honestly, Sanders is an Independent in name only. He’s run for the Democratic presidential nomination twice and has run in the Democratic primaries for both the House and the Senate. It’s a farce, really, but he’s been allowed to keep his committee seats.
Indeed. In a multi party system coalitions can form to oust an autocrat, as in Hungary. This is as close as we can get in our two party system.
God bless Burbank. I hope Ds in Nebraska fundraise and run GOTV for Osborn. And pray polling doesn’t force Osborn to pledge to caucus with the GOPs. And in Maine it’s Collins or Platner, end of story. Stop talking about the damn tattoo. The GOPs don’t need any help. But even if we get 51 or 52 in the Senate, the best we can hope for is gridlock. Then in ’28 the GOPs will get the large burn-it-all-down vote by running against the gridlock. I keep looking for signs of hope, and finding little.
To paraphrase The Princess Bride:
“We’ll never get a Dem-endorsed independent elected in a red state!”
“Nonsense! You’re only saying that because no one ever has.”