A Democratic Senate could need more independents

State Democratic parties will need to occasionally step aside

In Nebraska, Republican voters outnumber Democrats by a nearly two-to-one margin, yet incumbent Republican Senator Deb Fischer is facing the toughest race of her career against independent candidate Dan Osborn.

Why is the election so close?

Let’s begin by looking at the issues. Osborn is often described as an economic populist. Drawing on his roots as a mechanic and union leader, he speaks out against big corporations, champions the right to repair, and promotes a style of politics that resonates with Nebraska’s independent political spirit. He’s not a progressive by any contemporary definition. He’s called for reduced federal spending, downplayed any discussion of social issues, and adopted a hardline stance on immigration. In contrast, Fischer’s country-club style conservatism, her coziness with corporate donors, and, perhaps most importantly, her failure to take the race seriously, have made her particularly vulnerable to Osborn’s challenge.

But I think there’s another somewhat overlooked reason why one of the reddest states in the country is the site of one of its closest Senate races.

The independent Osborn refused to solicit and ultimately rejected the Nebraska Democratic Party’s endorsement. And after contemplating a dueling write-in campaign to support a chosen candidate, the party swallowed their feelings and decided to stay out of the race.

Osborn’s ascendancy wouldn’t have been possible without his populist platform and the genuine, unpolished style he brings to the campaign. But it was the Nebraska Democratic Party's choice not to field a candidate that provided him the space to consolidate the anti-Fischer vote and gain traction in the race. His potential victory will likely come by the slimmest of margins — one that could have been erased if a Democratic candidate had entered the contest.

This all invites the question: Is this a strategy more red state Democratic parties should adopt in an effort to unseat GOP Senate incumbents?

The unlikely Democratic Senate majority

In answering this question, it’s important to acknowledge the tough political reality for Democrats: If the party loses the Senate this cycle, they’re probably going to be locked out of power for the rest of the decade. We can debate policies to combat climate change, increase affordability in the care economy, or expand the welfare state, but the reality is that no matter who is in the White House, there likely won’t be enough votes for action on any of these issues anytime soon.

Just look at the Senate map.

This election cycle is brutal for Senate Democrats — campaign committee chair Gary Peters said the task of defending so many seats has driven him to therapy — and 2026 isn’t looking much better.

In two years, Republicans will be defending 20 seats, but only one (Senator Thom Tillis’s in North Carolina) is genuinely in play. The next closest race is in Iowa, where Joni Ernst holds a seat she won by nearly seven points in a state that has only tilted more Republican since her last election. From there, the potential pickups grow even more unlikely. In Maine, Susan Collins stands as an enduring political force. In Texas, it will be difficult to overcome the state’s entrenched Republican tilt and an incumbent not named Ted Cruz. Democrats, meanwhile, will be defending four vulnerable seats, including toss-ups in Michigan and Georgia.

The 2028 cycle has the potential to be even tougher for Democrats, who will be defending four true swing races in Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. Republicans, meanwhile, will only have to defend likely toss-ups in Wisconsin and North Carolina.

A lot can shift in four years, but if Democrats want to stop a Republican majority, or build an effective governing coalition of their own, they can’t just hope that a favorable electoral climate swings enough of those races their way. They’ll need to explore new strategies, including competing in places where they haven’t been viable for over a decade. That could mean taking on Republican senators in ruby-red states like Mississippi and Louisiana.

Democrats, of course, should try to win these races by persuading swing voters on the issues rather than relying on an imaginary progressive coalition to mobilize from the woodwork. But they should also be clear-eyed about the limits of that strategy. Even candidates with strong statewide profiles have struggled to gain traction in deep red state Senate races.

In Tennessee, Phil Bredesen, once a popular Democratic governor, was soundly defeated by Marsha Blackburn, losing by 10 points. In Alabama, Doug Jones, who flipped a Senate seat against a scandal-plagued opponent, was crushed by Tommy Tuberville just a few years later. Perhaps those candidates needed to lean harder into an Osborn-style economic populism. But my guess is that populism has its limits as long as that candidate has a “D” next to their name on the ballot.

This all goes to show that Joe Manchin is a rare political breed that is nearly impossible to replicate in other states. Of course, even he will retire without being a member of the Democratic caucus. Maybe the legend was onto something?

The independent alternative

Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins is an adviser to the Osborn campaign, a former Alaska state legislator, and an expert on the emerging independent movement. I asked him about independent candidates and their potential to out perform Democrats in red states. He compared a candidate’s ability to beat electoral expectations to their vertical jump. “Democrats are trying to jump on Earth’s gravity… but if you have an independent and they’re not party affiliated, it’s like they’re jumping on the moon.”

So how do we get more moon-jumping candidates, candidates who can appeal to the red state voters who consistently support certain popular policies (Medicaid expansion, minimum wage increases, the right to abortion) and the politicians who refuse to support them?

Democratic parties could follow Nebraska Democrats, but that means swallowing their pride and letting an independent candidate operate in a clear field. It might also involve not opposing independent candidates who push back on national Democrats and even openly criticize Democratic state officials — whatever it takes to prove that their independent label is sincere.

For Democrats, there are valid concerns about this strategy. It could further tarnish the intra-state brand, or even hurt down-ballot candidates. To be clear, the Nebraska Democratic Party nearly led a write-in effort to challenge Osborn in the general election, and their relationship still remains somewhat fraught, a sign that this won’t be an easy path for other state Democratic parties. But if the current best-case scenario means Democrats pouring substantial resources into a seasoned, popular candidate, only to be crushed by a GOP incumbent, then an independent strategy might be worth considering.

This strategy could also be a low-cost, high-reward play for Democrats. Even if Osborn loses, he’s forced the GOP to scramble, diverting resources to defend what should be a safe seat. Election funds are finite, and for down-ballot Republicans in 2024, they’re spread thin. Every dollar the Republican Senate Campaign Committee and PACs spend in Nebraska is a dollar they’re not using to go after Democrats in states like Ohio or Montana.

For the Democratic party, the race is basically free. A few party-aligned independent expenditures are airing pro-Osborn ads, but overall, it’s significantly cheaper than the long-shot races Democrats ran against Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham in past cycles.

And the Democratic fundraising infrastructure wouldn’t necessarily have to lend significant support to future independent candidates. As future candidates emerge from the political wilderness to launch this potential independent red state revolution, the network of moderate donors who are frustrated with status quo partisan politics should be ready to pitch in to support them.

Who are these independents?

So what kind of independent candidates are we realistically talking about here? Democrats rallying around (or at least not actively opposing) independents in order to beat Republicans is pointless if it doesn’t achieve important policy goals.

My guess is that the most successful candidates will attempt to win over their state’s median voter, and the policies this results in will be dependent on the politics of the state.

It could mean echoing a Clinton-era stance on abortion policy, while advocating for moderate expanded welfare policies like a child tax credit. It also will probably mean bucking traditional Democratic groups on issues like immigration and gun control. The idea is that they won’t be tied to national party positions — or, most importantly, to a national party reputation that would make them unelectable in their own state. But the overwhelming likelihood is that these candidates will be more amendable to certain Democratic policies than the Republican they replaced.

Kreiss-Tomkins isn’t convinced there is a formula for the ideal candidates’ positions, but he seconded the median voter theory, with a caveat. “These candidates can’t just be a warm body who has an I next to their name. It’s very important that they are truly independent and have a heterogeneous set of policy preferences.”

This is key. Candidates can’t simply wear an “independent” label as a tactical disguise, dodging real accountability on issues while planning to caucus with whichever party holds Senate control. Think of Greg Orman’s independent Senate run in Kansas — a campaign that made him “the cycle’s most cynical politician” for using this exact tactic. They need to be more like Osborn, or Evan McMullin in his independent 2022 Utah Senate race: hold both idiosyncratic and popular positions, have a unique background to leverage on the campaign trail, and then once in office, try to form a caucus of independent legislators who are willing to form a bridge between the moderates in both parties.

Certainly, more election losses will accumulate than wins. But the result could be a sensible coalition of lawmakers who could empower the mighty center of US politics. Pragmatic solutions to permitting reform or the “care economy” could be pursued without relying on the fractious political pressures of intra-party interest groups.

Of course, this is a strategy that could work in congressional races, too. But to get there, we need certain deep red state Democratic parties to occasionally get out of their own way, and let electorally viable independent candidates emerge to freely challenge Republican incumbents.