All 4 it. But I wonder what happens if the Dems need Dan Osborne to caucus with them in order to have senate majority. Do they entice him to do it. Even though it's electoral harmful 6 yrs later. But if he doesn't caucus with them, does he allow the Republicans to be the majority, w/ or w/o him?
Would he caucus with the dems if they held the house and the presidency. Or would he defy them a trifecta?
Cause I'm all on the MY moderate train.. but did I waste a $200 donation if dan Osborne doesn't be a team player for dems if really really needed?
One big reason why the independent strategy is so difficult is that the Senate majority leader has so much power. A Republican Senate majority leader means only Republican-priority bills are allowed to be voted on, and only Republican presidents are allowed to get judges (and, to a lesser extent, cabinet officials) confirmed. By contrast, a Democratic Senate majority leader means the reverse - only Democratic-priority bills are allowed to be voted on and only Democratic presidents are allowed to get judges confirmed.
As long as this is the lay of the land, it seems very difficult for an independent candidate to gain traction. If Senate rules could somehow be restructured to ensure that both parties get to bring bills to the floor and that any nominee of a president is entitled to an up or down vote on the Senate floor, things might be easier. But, whoever is in control of the Senate has little reason to ever approve a rule change that would relinquish their control, so it's not happening.
This is why we need a centrist king-making party that pursues legislative control as its raison d’etre.
Formal independence and separation from the Democratic Party has reputation effects that can also affect people’s votes and allow candidates to win where a Democrat just cannot.
But independence is not enough. You actually need a separate party that can have power on its own terms (again, in a narrow king-making capacity to help control the legislative agenda).
If the Democratic Party started to strategically use independent candidates as beards, voters would see through this. And Republicans would flood the zone with their own beards. This is something only a formal party could help organize.
Yeah, to maintain credibility, this separate party would need to run just as many independents in blue states as in red states, in order to avoid any appearance of being a secret arm of one party or the other.
It's easier if Dems as a whole move right on immigration and crime and give up the gun control issue (which is pointless with hundreds of millions of guns in circulation already, people will not accept forced confiscation and buyback will be too expensive). Then they could win 60+ Senate seats.
If Harris loses, I'd expect Maine to be a very clear pickup opportunity in 2026 (and that is assuming Collins doesn't just retire before the election). They'll point to her votes for several conservative justices as the reason Roe v Wade was overturned and portray her as a fake moderate. If Harris wins, then I agree, Collins would likely win rather easily again.
If Harris loses, it also depends on how many Senate seats they could keep. Brown probably loses in that scenario, but if they manage to win in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in the Senate, then it is 48-52. There would be two clear pickup opportunities in 2026 in an off year election and then there would be North Carolina and Wisconsin up in 2028. So, if the Dems won the Presidency in 2028 after a Harris loss in 2024, I see a feasible scenario where they could sweep everything that year.
Overall, I agree with this strategy for independents, though, in these states where the Dems have minimal chance.
This is a good strategy, but its long-term success depends on one important proviso: it has to extend past election day. In practical terms, that means that as long as the elected Independents are doing their part in the agreed-upon coalition, Democratic officeholders and party officials have to continue giving them cover against "traditional Democratic groups" that will be more than happy to rain attacks down on them. If the way that Joe Manchin (who will undoubtedly now be replaced by a Republican) and Kyrsten Sinema were treated by the left wing of their party continues to be the best offer available, there will be fewer and fewer viable takers.
This whole model has similarities to the 'teal' movement in Australia.
In Australia's 2022 election, there were various seats held by Liberal members (our right-wing party). These members tended to be socially progressive themselves, but their party was bad on three key issues: climate change, women, and integrity. In a number of seats these Liberal members were challenge by independent women, collectively known as the Teals. Many of these candidates had a centrist or even right-of-centre economic slant, but they were more forward-looking on climate in particular. They enjoyed considerable success, party helped by financial support from 'Climate 200', a funding vehicle not entirely dissimilar to a PAC.
So I see an interesting discussion here: Matt is talking about appealing to socially-conservative voters open to more populist economic policies, but in Australia it was almost the inverse. At the same time, the general point is true that it was very helpful for Labor (our equivalent of the Democrats) and a major pain for the Liberals.
Republicans are just as unpopular in blue states as Democrats are in red states. That's why Larry Hogan (the close we have to a mirror image of Osborn running in a blue state) running behind.
This whole model has similarities to the 'teal' movement in Australia.
In Australia's 2022 election, there were various seats held by Liberal members (our right-wing party). These members tended to be socially progressive themselves, but their party was bad on three key issues: climate change, women, and integrity. In a number of seats these Liberal members were challenge by independent women, collectively known as the Teals. Many of these candidates had a centrist or even right-of-centre economic slant, but they were more forward-looking on climate in particular. They enjoyed considerable success, party helped by financial support from 'Climate 200', a funding vehicle not entirely dissimilar to a PAC.
So I see an interesting discussion here: Matt is talking about appealing to socially-conservative voters open to more populist economic policies, but in Australia it was almost the inverse. At the same time, the general point is true that it was very helpful for Labor (our equivalent of the Democrats) and a major pain for the Liberals.
The other big reason to lean hard into states like Nebraska is how much of a bargain they are. We all love Colin Allred, but Texas is a massively expensive state with multiple large media markets. Florida is the same--a big population, geographically diverse state that, like every other, only gets two (2) Senate seats.
In comparison, Nebraska is an incredibly cheap place to campaign. There are just fewer voters to communicate to! Let's use the biases of the US Senate to our advantage and invest more resources into the cheap seats.
Great insight. I think that the interest in Independents suggests that in many of these states the problem isn't that Democrats can't compete, but that they've chosen not to compete, or "traditional Democratic groups" have chosen for them by excommunicating anyone who wants flexibility from what have become the standard orthodoxies.
I’m glad that you’re calling attention to Dems’ incoming Senate apocalypse. Also, unless the Dems manage to improve their position in Arizona, NC and Georgia, or Texas, they have an incoming Electoral College apocalypse, thanks to anticipated relative population loss in states like NY, California and Pennsylvania.
Maybe a background point here is that as society gets more polarized and politics gets more nationalized, the state parties get out of whack with state electorates. E.g., the California Republican Party really makes no attempt to compete by shifting left on social issues.
So a party which can figure out how to finesse this and actually run more appropriate candidates for each state has a big advantage.
I'm not sure where you live, but I think this really understates the problem both parties face in a state where the brand has become toxic. You really do have to take the D or R off, and it has to be real. If an independent is still associated with the toxic party, they have no chance.
All 4 it. But I wonder what happens if the Dems need Dan Osborne to caucus with them in order to have senate majority. Do they entice him to do it. Even though it's electoral harmful 6 yrs later. But if he doesn't caucus with them, does he allow the Republicans to be the majority, w/ or w/o him?
Would he caucus with the dems if they held the house and the presidency. Or would he defy them a trifecta?
Cause I'm all on the MY moderate train.. but did I waste a $200 donation if dan Osborne doesn't be a team player for dems if really really needed?
One big reason why the independent strategy is so difficult is that the Senate majority leader has so much power. A Republican Senate majority leader means only Republican-priority bills are allowed to be voted on, and only Republican presidents are allowed to get judges (and, to a lesser extent, cabinet officials) confirmed. By contrast, a Democratic Senate majority leader means the reverse - only Democratic-priority bills are allowed to be voted on and only Democratic presidents are allowed to get judges confirmed.
As long as this is the lay of the land, it seems very difficult for an independent candidate to gain traction. If Senate rules could somehow be restructured to ensure that both parties get to bring bills to the floor and that any nominee of a president is entitled to an up or down vote on the Senate floor, things might be easier. But, whoever is in control of the Senate has little reason to ever approve a rule change that would relinquish their control, so it's not happening.
This is why we need a centrist king-making party that pursues legislative control as its raison d’etre.
Formal independence and separation from the Democratic Party has reputation effects that can also affect people’s votes and allow candidates to win where a Democrat just cannot.
But independence is not enough. You actually need a separate party that can have power on its own terms (again, in a narrow king-making capacity to help control the legislative agenda).
If the Democratic Party started to strategically use independent candidates as beards, voters would see through this. And Republicans would flood the zone with their own beards. This is something only a formal party could help organize.
Yeah, to maintain credibility, this separate party would need to run just as many independents in blue states as in red states, in order to avoid any appearance of being a secret arm of one party or the other.
Osborn is running on building the wall https://host2.adimpact.com/admo/viewer/c675f9cd-3be6-4779-8590-cd1327909e83
Great article Ben!
I think you may mean “amenable“, not “amendable”
It's easier if Dems as a whole move right on immigration and crime and give up the gun control issue (which is pointless with hundreds of millions of guns in circulation already, people will not accept forced confiscation and buyback will be too expensive). Then they could win 60+ Senate seats.
If Harris loses, I'd expect Maine to be a very clear pickup opportunity in 2026 (and that is assuming Collins doesn't just retire before the election). They'll point to her votes for several conservative justices as the reason Roe v Wade was overturned and portray her as a fake moderate. If Harris wins, then I agree, Collins would likely win rather easily again.
If Harris loses, it also depends on how many Senate seats they could keep. Brown probably loses in that scenario, but if they manage to win in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in the Senate, then it is 48-52. There would be two clear pickup opportunities in 2026 in an off year election and then there would be North Carolina and Wisconsin up in 2028. So, if the Dems won the Presidency in 2028 after a Harris loss in 2024, I see a feasible scenario where they could sweep everything that year.
Overall, I agree with this strategy for independents, though, in these states where the Dems have minimal chance.
This is a good strategy, but its long-term success depends on one important proviso: it has to extend past election day. In practical terms, that means that as long as the elected Independents are doing their part in the agreed-upon coalition, Democratic officeholders and party officials have to continue giving them cover against "traditional Democratic groups" that will be more than happy to rain attacks down on them. If the way that Joe Manchin (who will undoubtedly now be replaced by a Republican) and Kyrsten Sinema were treated by the left wing of their party continues to be the best offer available, there will be fewer and fewer viable takers.
This whole model has similarities to the 'teal' movement in Australia.
In Australia's 2022 election, there were various seats held by Liberal members (our right-wing party). These members tended to be socially progressive themselves, but their party was bad on three key issues: climate change, women, and integrity. In a number of seats these Liberal members were challenge by independent women, collectively known as the Teals. Many of these candidates had a centrist or even right-of-centre economic slant, but they were more forward-looking on climate in particular. They enjoyed considerable success, party helped by financial support from 'Climate 200', a funding vehicle not entirely dissimilar to a PAC.
So I see an interesting discussion here: Matt is talking about appealing to socially-conservative voters open to more populist economic policies, but in Australia it was almost the inverse. At the same time, the general point is true that it was very helpful for Labor (our equivalent of the Democrats) and a major pain for the Liberals.
What I dont get is why Democrats are so unpopular while Republicans aren’t
Republicans are just as unpopular in blue states as Democrats are in red states. That's why Larry Hogan (the close we have to a mirror image of Osborn running in a blue state) running behind.
There are more blue state republicans than red state democrats
Republicans are basically equally as unpopular as Democrats which is why this race is 50/50.
This whole model has similarities to the 'teal' movement in Australia.
In Australia's 2022 election, there were various seats held by Liberal members (our right-wing party). These members tended to be socially progressive themselves, but their party was bad on three key issues: climate change, women, and integrity. In a number of seats these Liberal members were challenge by independent women, collectively known as the Teals. Many of these candidates had a centrist or even right-of-centre economic slant, but they were more forward-looking on climate in particular. They enjoyed considerable success, party helped by financial support from 'Climate 200', a funding vehicle not entirely dissimilar to a PAC.
So I see an interesting discussion here: Matt is talking about appealing to socially-conservative voters open to more populist economic policies, but in Australia it was almost the inverse. At the same time, the general point is true that it was very helpful for Labor (our equivalent of the Democrats) and a major pain for the Liberals.
The other big reason to lean hard into states like Nebraska is how much of a bargain they are. We all love Colin Allred, but Texas is a massively expensive state with multiple large media markets. Florida is the same--a big population, geographically diverse state that, like every other, only gets two (2) Senate seats.
In comparison, Nebraska is an incredibly cheap place to campaign. There are just fewer voters to communicate to! Let's use the biases of the US Senate to our advantage and invest more resources into the cheap seats.
Great insight. I think that the interest in Independents suggests that in many of these states the problem isn't that Democrats can't compete, but that they've chosen not to compete, or "traditional Democratic groups" have chosen for them by excommunicating anyone who wants flexibility from what have become the standard orthodoxies.
I’m glad that you’re calling attention to Dems’ incoming Senate apocalypse. Also, unless the Dems manage to improve their position in Arizona, NC and Georgia, or Texas, they have an incoming Electoral College apocalypse, thanks to anticipated relative population loss in states like NY, California and Pennsylvania.
I see a lot of people talking about Democratic strategy downballot. Hands down, the best place to discuss and learn is this subreddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/VoteDEM/
Maybe a background point here is that as society gets more polarized and politics gets more nationalized, the state parties get out of whack with state electorates. E.g., the California Republican Party really makes no attempt to compete by shifting left on social issues.
So a party which can figure out how to finesse this and actually run more appropriate candidates for each state has a big advantage.
Maybe national Democrats could actually try to improve their brand instead of continuing to try nothing and lament that they're all out of ideas.
Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, and North Carolina are all states where at least one Democrat has won statewide and have an open Senate seat in 2026.
I'm not sure where you live, but I think this really understates the problem both parties face in a state where the brand has become toxic. You really do have to take the D or R off, and it has to be real. If an independent is still associated with the toxic party, they have no chance.