Democrats embrace independents in red states: sidelining party nominees to boost wins

Show summary Hide summary

• Local moves, national implications
• Why supporters say it makes sense
• Risks and internal pushback
• What could change in Congress
• A deliberate gamble

Democratic operatives facing an uphill climb in conservative states are quietly embracing a blunt new tactic this midterm season: backing nonpartisan challengers instead of — or alongside — their own nominees. The shift, already visible in places from Nebraska to Alaska, aims to blunt Republican strength but carries uncertain political and practical consequences as control of Congress remains precarious.

In Nebraska, party officials chose Cindy Burbank as their Senate nominee but, according to state Democratic chair Jane Kleeb, she has signaled an intention to step aside to avoid siphoning votes from independent Dan Osborn, who party leaders believe is better positioned to take on Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts. That approach — preparing to defer to an unaffiliated candidate seen as more electable in a red state — is being discussed quietly in other contests as well.

Local moves, national implications

Democratic operatives say this is not a one-off tactical choice but part of a broader effort to build winning coalitions where the party’s label is a liability. Kleeb, who also serves as a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, frames it as a long-range plan in states where registered Democrats make up only a slice of the electorate.

At the national level, some party resources and allies have been less visible than a formal endorsement but still helpful to independent hopefuls — from donor infrastructure to digital tools and quiet logistical assistance from campaign committees. That reluctance to publicly oppose or undermine independents signals a pragmatic calculation: in several conservative states, an unaffiliated candidate may be the best route to displace entrenched Republicans.

Still, the strategy is not uniform. In Idaho, South Dakota and Montana, some national party figures have been more reluctant to openly embrace independents even while privately acknowledging their potential to disrupt GOP incumbents.

Why supporters say it makes sense

Backers argue the move addresses a basic arithmetic problem: in many red states the Democratic base is too small to win on its own, while independents can attract voters across the political spectrum. State-level parties are already targeting legislative races where independent candidates could help flip chambers or block entrenched majorities.

Key selling points to Democratic strategists include:

• Reducing vote-splitting in three-way contests that would otherwise favor Republicans.
• Expanding appeal to unaffiliated voters and conservative-leaning swing voters.
• Creating local alliances that may pay dividends in future cycles.

Risks and internal pushback

Not everyone in Democratic circles welcomes the pivot. Some donors and activists worry that sidelining party nominees undermines the Democratic brand and sacrifices long-term organizing for short-term gains. Critics argue the party should invest in rebuilding its identity rather than effectively masking it.

There are also concrete policy and governance risks: an independent who wins does not necessarily vote with Democratic leadership. In Idaho, independent Senate candidate Todd Achilles — a veteran and former Democratic lawmaker — has said he would not automatically caucus with either party and describes his politics as centrist. That kind of independence can complicate legislative math for Democratic leaders in Washington.

Veteran candidates running outside the two-party framework say their appeal comes from not wearing a partisan label. In South Dakota, Brian Bengs — who previously ran as a Democrat and lost by a wide margin — says voters often reacted negatively to the Democratic label and that he can reach constituencies that the party cannot. In Alaska, retired educator and commercial fisherman Bill Hill, a lifelong independent, has outraised a Democratic challenger and secured local union endorsements while declining to promise he would join either caucus in Congress.

What could change in Congress

If several independents prevail this fall, the dynamics in the House and Senate could shift in unpredictable ways. There are already independents in the Senate — Maine’s Angus King and Vermont’s Bernie Sanders — who caucus with Democrats, but future unaffiliated winners might take a different path.

Possible outcomes:

• Independents caucusing with Democrats could help blunt Republican majorities.
• Independents who remain unaffiliated could make governing coalitions more fluid and unpredictable.
• Failure of independents would risk splitting anti-Republican votes and fortifying GOP incumbents.

A deliberate gamble

Party officials couch the approach as pragmatic rather than ideological: where the Democratic label is a net drag, alternative routes to victory are being explored. That pragmatism is already reshaping local tactics — from which names appear on ballots to how organizers allocate limited field resources.

But the choice to favor unaffiliated candidates reflects a hard calculation about the current limits of Democratic appeal in deeply red states, and it raises immediate questions about cohesion, accountability, and the longer arc of party building.

Bottom line: For Democrats, quietly supporting independents is a tactical experiment meant to protect or expand footholds in hostile territory this fall. The approach can produce short-term gains, but it also risks diluting party influence and leaving key policy goals dependent on the choices of newly elected independents.

Correction: Brian Bengs said he was turned down by Democrats for party-supported ballot access in 2022, not this year.