Today, the United States Senate stands as one of the major culprits of political polarization. Designed to function as an admired vanguard of thoughtful deliberation, bipartisan cooperation, and cordial debate rooted in a shared understanding of the Constitution, the chamber has increasingly succumbed to partisan gridlock and animosity — a trajectory that parallels the divisive rise of President Donald Trump.
Throughout the last decade, the Senate has seen declining rates of bipartisan cooperation as Democratic and Republican legislators have become increasingly polarized. The chamber’s decorum and integrity have suffered as a result. Notable instances include the 2017 confirmation for Attorney General Jeff Sessions, when Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren was formally silenced in an unprecedented maneuver by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell; or in 2023, when Oklahoma Sen. Markwayne Mullin attempted to provoke a fistfight with Teamsters President Sean O’Brien during a routine Senate hearing.
Amidst this rise of polarization in the past decade, a unique phenomenon has emerged in under-the-radar Senate races in heavily conservative states: State Democratic parties choose not to nominate a candidate of their own, setting up a contest between the Republican nominee and an independent, where the latter ends up performing surprisingly well. In an interview with the HPR, Nathaniel Rakich, managing editor of Votebeat and former senior elections analyst at FiveThirtyEight, explained this phenomenon, highlighting that in areas where “they really don’t like national Democrats, voters might be open to supporting a kind of self-styled independent who is more of a unique brand.”
Not only may this strategy of yielding to independent candidates represent Democrats’ best hope for preventing Republican dominance in the chamber — a possibility becoming likelier with each passing election cycle — but it also opens the door to a new reality, where the deciding votes in the Senate are held by independents and liberated from partisan pressure.
Four case studies — Senate elections in deep-red territory which saw independent candidates run in lieu of traditional Democratic nominees — tell the story of how independent campaigns not only have the potential to reshape the competitive landscape, but may also be the key to restoring integrity and balance to a chamber on the verge of losing both.
The 2014 Senate Election in Kansas: The Emergence of a Viable Strategy
In 2014, longtime Republican incumbent Sen. Pat Roberts faced businessman and independent candidate Greg Orman in a highly unusual race to represent Kansas in the U.S. Senate. Democratic candidate Chad Taylor had withdrawn to avoid splitting the anti-Roberts vote, leaving Roberts and Orman the only candidates standing. Although Kansas had a deep-red federal voting history, recent state politics were shaken up by intense dissatisfaction with GOP governance after Gov. Sam Brownback’s controversial “Kansas experiment,” in which sweeping tax cuts depleted state funds and forced reductions in education spending. Roberts also faced questions about his residency, age, and overall effectiveness as a representative of Kansans’ interests rather than those of lobbyists. At the same time, metro and college-town areas like Lawrence, Kansas City, and Topeka were growing and diversifying, nudging Kansas closer to the middle of the ideological spectrum.
Orman pitched himself as a pragmatic outsider and remained coy about which party he would caucus with in the Senate, a strategic ambiguity that became a central storyline in this race and several others. Polls showed a tight contest well into the final weeks, prompting national Republicans to flood the airwaves with advertisements that ultimately helped rescue Roberts, who won by 13 percentage points — a margin that nevertheless paled in comparison to his 24-point victory in 2008. The episode suggests that an independent, anti-establishment strategy has real potential under the right conditions.
The 2020 Senate Election in Alaska: Potential Pitfalls for Independents
In Alaska’s 2020 Senate race, incumbent Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan faced Al Gross, a surgeon running as the Democratic nominee on the ballot while publicly branding himself as an “independent.” Gross ultimately lost by 13 points, underperforming Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden by 3 points in the concurrent election. In evaluating the viability of independent campaigns, it is worth taking a closer look into the underlying factors that might explain Gross’ underperformance.
First, unlike the Senate election in Kansas, this race took place concurrently with a presidential election.
Why does this matter? Midterm and off-year election cycles are usually defined by low turnout, relative to presidential election years. Typically, where recent presidential elections have seen turnout levels at around 60 to 65% of registered voters, midterm elections tend to fluctuate in the range of 40 to 50%. This difference is small yet powerful in a nation almost evenly divided between the two parties. Midterm and off-year turnout dynamics are more sensitive to individual get-out-the-vote efforts by candidates and parties such as advertisements, rallies, and other forms of campaigning. On the flip side, presidential elections are longer-term, nationwide events that guarantee substantial voter turnout regardless of campaign spending and investment.
Election patterns during the Biden administration demonstrate this phenomenon. Democrats performed relatively well in 2022 and 2023, a midterm and off-year cycle respectively, compared to 2024, a presidential cycle, despite President Biden being quite unpopular throughout the entire time period. In 2022 and 2023, Democrats leveraged their more effective get-out-the-vote operations in important races to drum up turnout, while Republicans found themselves largely unable to muster high levels of turnout without President Trump on the ballot. However, come 2024, when Democrats could no longer rely on differential turnout dynamics to eke out victories, they were met with disastrous results and a Republican trifecta.
A second reason that Gross’ campaign failed: His independent profile was undermined by liberal policies he publicly supported.
As mentioned, Gross actually appeared on the ballot as Democrat-affiliated, which likely damaged his credibility as a true independent. More importantly, however, Gross centered his campaign around policies that, while popular with mainstream Democrats at the time, likely didn’t resonate with Alaskan voters. He even ran to Biden’s left, supporting a public option for Medicare, a federal minimum wage increase, and expanding renewable energy. Notably, he publicly opposed broadly popular public works operations like the Pebble Mine Project in Alaska’s Bristol Bay region. This last policy, in particular, likely doomed Gross’ prospects in a state whose economy is heavily reliant on oil and natural gas.
The 2022 Senate Election in Utah: Why the Context Matters
In the 2022 midterms, Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah faced a spirited challenge from independent candidate Evan McMullin, a former CIA officer and policy advisor. In a historic move, Utah Democrats declined to nominate anyone and instead endorsed McMullin.
Utah, unique for its plurality of residents belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, typically ranks among the most conservative states. However, widespread distaste for Donald Trump and his history of sexual aggression and misogyny have pushed the state closer to the center: Trump won the state by 19 percentage points in 2020, a historic low for modern Republicans in Utah.
The 2022 election wasn’t McMullin’s first rodeo: In 2016, he ran as an independent candidate for president, capturing 20% of the state’s vote in an impressive showing against Trump and Hillary Clinton. In 2022, McMullin faced Mike Lee, a known Trump sycophant who once compared the president to Captain Moroni, a famous and revered figure in the Book of Mormon, which drew heavy criticism from Utah residents.
In the end, Lee won 53% to 43%. Despite his loss, however, McMullin managed to narrow the typical gap between candidates in a state that has grown increasingly red in recent decades. It was the closest Utah Senate race in decades and the best independent showing on record in the state. The task of building a coalition of liberals, independents, and conservatives once again proved to be possible.
The 2024 Senate Election in Nebraska, and Why It Changes the Game
This final case study, the 2024 Senate election in Nebraska, represents the most promising result thus far. Unlike the Senate races in 2014 and 2022, this race was decided in a presidential election year. And unlike in the Alaska case, Nebraska independent candidate Dan Osborn actually performed well.
In the 2024 Senate race in Nebraska, the stage was set for an election that could determine whether independent candidates could be received well by a full electorate. On the Republican side, Sen. Deb Fischer ran for her third term after two successful elections in 2012 and 2018. She faced Dan Osborn, a mechanic and union leader who had never previously held elected office. Nebraska Democrats did not field a nominee, though later reporting showed that national Democrats quietly aided a pro-Osborn super PAC.
Osborn made clear that he was a true moderate, taking conservative stances on the border and gun rights and more liberal stances on abortion and raising the minimum wage. He even criticized Sen. Fischer by likening her, a Republican, to 2016 Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
Nebraska is heavily Republican overall, but the increasingly liberal Omaha and Lincoln metro areas presented an opportunity for Osborn’s working-class, nonpartisan pitch, which aimed to attract urban-dwelling liberals and rural conservatives with his plain-spoken rhetoric. He held Fischer to a mere seven-point victory as Democratic Presidential nominee Kamala Harris lost the state by nearly 21 points. This result implies that Osborn was able to convince a significant chunk of Trump voters to split their tickets and support his campaign.
Common Threads and Guidelines for Future Independents
Taking it all in, where do these elections leave us? What do they suggest is the optimal environment to run an independent candidate?
Geographic patterns might tell part of the story. Kansas, Utah, and Nebraska occupy the geographic heartland of America — specifically, the Great Plains and Mountain West. These regions are vast and sparsely populated, overwhelmingly White, and staunchly conservative.
Why is it important that these states are red? In an interview with the HPR, Armin Thomas, a writer at SplitTicket, remarked that the strength of an independent campaign is “inversely related to the strength of the state Democratic party. Like Wisconsin — would Democrats in Madison want to back a right-leaning independent who hates immigration when a Democratic candidate has a 50 percent chance of winning in their own right?” The redder the state, the weaker the Democratic organization — which actually leaves more room for an independent candidate to run without experiencing significant Democratic opposition.
Moreover, Utah, Kansas, and Nebraska are 81%, 78%, and 80% White, respectively — each above the national average of 61%. In line with a well-known phenomenon where White voters are more inclined to back independent or third-party candidates in federal elections, these states’ monolithic demographics likely aided the independent campaigns.
In an interview with the HPR, J. Miles Coleman, associate editor of the nonpartisan elections newsletter Sabato’s Crystal Ball, had a few suggestions for where an independent campaign might flourish: “White states — maybe like an Iowa, if Rob Sand loses this year and Democrats deplete their bench, that’d be a good place to start. Kansas or even Montana, if they could turn out the Native [American] vote. North Dakota, too.” State Auditor Rob Sand is the likely Democratic nominee for Iowa governor in 2026. More relevantly to Coleman’s point, he is the last remaining Democrat holding statewide office in Iowa; if he were to lose the governor’s race, the party would be completely locked out of state government. Perhaps then they would consider handing the baton to an independent.
However, the environment only represents half of the equation; the candidates themselves are essential to any winning formula. The most successful independent candidates have framed themselves strategically, in ways befitting of their states’ electorates while avoiding association with Democrats. Osborn publicly and repeatedly rejected the endorsement of the state Democratic Party, and he, McMullin, and Orman were purposefully vague about which party they would caucus with if elected.
This vagueness extended to the realm of policy. Unlike Al Gross, who made no secret of his progressive stances, the other three candidates centered their pitches to voters around a contrast in character. Orman juxtaposed Roberts’ ineffectiveness with his own success in the realm of business and enterprise, McMullin highlighted Lee’s sycophancy to a morally corrupt president in comparison to his own service to his country, and Osborn emphasized his authenticity as a mechanic and veteran in contrast to his opponent’s entrenchment in D.C. While politicians are often criticized for being vague about pressing issues, in these races it almost certainly helped the independent candidates avoid serious and damning scrutiny from voters.
How Independent Campaigns Can Create a Better Senate
For Democrats, the implications and potential benefits are clear. Even though independent candidates have not yet succeeded in kicking an incumbent Republican senator out of office, they’ve made it a real possibility — one that Republicans have to acknowledge and adequately respond to, usually in the form of monetary investment. In doing so, however, Republicans divert valuable and finite resources that could be spent on races in more ordinarily competitive states.
There is real substance behind this phenomenon. Returning to the 2024 Nebraska race, while Dan Osborn was ultimately unsuccessful in toppling Sen. Fischer, his strong effort may have been crucial in advancing another Democrat across the finish line. In the state of Michigan, Democratic Representative Elissa Slotkin was elected to the Senate by the narrowest of margins over Republican nominee Mike Rogers: 0.3 percentage points, or less than 20,000 votes out of more than five million votes cast. Considering the amount of resources the GOP allocated to Nebraska, it is plausible that if this same aid was funneled to Michigan, Rogers would serve in the Senate today. This assertion, while impossible to know for certain, is backed by Coleman, who followed and analyzed the election closely in the months leading up to it.
More important than independent bids’ strategic consequences for Democrats and Republicans individually, however, are their broader implications for the nation as a whole. These are likely to be overwhelmingly positive.
Independent bids in deep-red states widen the competitive arena, forcing parties to compete and invest in states that ordinarily support one party by an overwhelming margin. Expanding the board might be the unlikely remedy to a hyperpolarized modern electoral system marked by tribalism and animosity. It would also elevate the voices of those in minority parties in their state who feel disillusioned by the winner-take-all, two-party electoral system.
The introduction of independent candidates as viable representatives for these citizens thus provides an invaluable service, and one that makes good on the American promise of fair representation for all. The success of independent candidates is far from assured, relying upon the right conditions and an openness to unconventional campaigns. However, the potential of these candidates to provide ideological balance and nuance to a polarized Senate makes them worthy of attention from both the parties and the country writ large.
Associate Culture Editor
