Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Democrats Look to Independents for Help

Democrats Look to Independents for Help

A person voting, casting a ballot at a polling station, during elections.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Democrats are taking stock. Some are arguing for a major overhaul in light of growing defections of working-class, Black, and Latino voters. Others want to stay the course. Some want to work with Trump when possible while others advocate for a program of permanent resistance.

It’s a familiar conversation. With a new twist. If you listen closely, some Democrats are uttering words of blasphemy: Maybe we can’t regain our relevancy without the help of independent voters.


In Florida, where the Democratic Party’s journey from competitive to marginal has been swift and staggering (in just ten years the number of Democrats has declined by 10% while the number of independents has grown by 9%), State Party Chair Nikki Fried, former House Speaker Tom Gustafson, and other party leaders have begun to call for a change to party rules to allow independents to vote in Democratic primary elections. This represents a significant change from 2020, when a resolution for open primaries, developed by a coalition of Democrats and open primaries activists, was denied a floor vote at the party’s state convention.

In New York City, well-heeled Democrats are spending millions of dollars on calling and texting independent voters, urging them to change their voter registration to Democrat in order to vote in the Democratic primary—the only election of consequence in NYC. There are now over one million independents in the Big Apple, one of the few major U.S. cities to deny them the right to vote in municipal primaries.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Rahm Emmanual told podcaster Ezra Klein that independents are a “gold mine” that should be exploited by Democrats.

What’s driving this conversation? Math. More independents voted than Democrats in 2024 and the number of independents is accelerating, particularly among young people and in communities of color.

But Democrats need to look back to look forward. 18 years ago, they had a relationship with independents, and they sabotaged it.

In 2007, Barack Obama constructed a coalition of African Americans, disaffected Democrats, moderate Republicans, and independents. He built this coalition to defeat Hillary Clinton in the primary and John McCain in the general. Obama tapped into independents’ desire to turn the page on the cynical triangulation of the Clinton and Bush dynasties, both of which supported the second Iraq war. He oriented his campaign towards the 33 states that allowed independents to vote in presidential primaries. Little known fact: if it were not for the votes of independents, Clinton would have easily defeated Obama in the primaries. Obama paid respect to his elders in the civil rights movement while promising a new deal based on inclusion, respect, and an end to the partisanship of the Clinton/Bush era. Obama elevated political independence as a virtue. And after he was elected, John Heileman opined that “Without entirely realizing it, America elected its first independent president. The implications for how the country will be governed are profound, exhilarating, and loaded with risk.”

Without entirely realizing it, Heilemann was right.

The Obama coalition could have governed America for generations. Independents seemed to be on equal footing with Democrats. Obama was challenging the Democratic Party to grow beyond the narrow confines of union and identity politics. The coalition was independent, inclusive, patriotic, and forward-looking. It could have transformed America.

But it was dismantled by the Democrats before Obama was even inaugurated.

In December of 2008, the DNC took over Obama’s groundbreaking email/activist/donor list and stunted its growth by insisting its job was to elect and support Democrats, not transform the country. Pelosi and company pursued an orthodox legislative agenda designed and sanctioned by Democratic Party insiders and stakeholders, not the upstart Obama coalition. The message from Pelosi and Schumer—and tacitly agreed to by President Obama—to independents was, “Thank you for your votes, we’ll take it from here”.

By 2012, the Obama reelection team was committed to running a “bring out the partisan base” campaign. Independents got the message and broke hard for Romney and, four years later, for Trump. The coalition that elected America’s first Black and post-partisan President was shockingly short-lived.

Independents are not an organized force, nor are they ideologically aligned. This deceives political strategists into thinking that they don’t have common values. But independents are independents for a reason. Young and old, liberal and conservative, urban and rural, they are deeply attuned to the difference between partisanship and leadership.

So, Democrats, listen up. It’s good that you are talking about a reset with independents. It’s smart to explore opening up the primaries. And yes, Rahm, independents are a gold mine. But pay attention to what you did to dismantle the Obama coalition in 2008. If you try to get our votes without giving us a seat at the table, if you refuse to listen to our concerns about the culture of partisanship, if you continue to insist that you are the party of democracy while asserting that only Democratic Party voters and stakeholders matter, then independents won’t take you seriously.


John Opdycke is the President of Open Primaries, a national election reform organization.

Read More

Americans wrapped in a flag
Citizens are united and legislators don’t represent us
SeventyFour

Defining the Democracy Reform Movement: Rev. F. Willis Johnson

The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's weekly interviews engage diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This series is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.

The second interview of this series took place with Reverend F. Willis Johnson, an entrepreneur and an elder in the West Ohio Conference of the United Methodist Church in Columbus, Ohio. Reverend Johnson provided a religious and spiritual perspective on the needs of this moment, which is different from many organizations that often receive outsized attention.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats are from Mars, Republicans are from Venus

A simulation of two planets in space.

Getty Images, Jose A. Bernat Bacete

Democrats are from Mars, Republicans are from Venus

As I think about Tuesday’s address by President Donald Trump and the response of Senator Elissa Slotkin from Michigan—a former CIA analyst and a rising star in the Democratic Party—I am reminded of the book “Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus” by John Gray published in 1992.

A sequel should be written today: “Democrats Are from Mars, Republicans Are from Venus”…..or vice versa since the planet they each are from doesn’t matter.

Keep ReadingShow less
Defining the Democracy Reform Movement: Julia Roig

USA flag on pole during daytime

Photo by Zetong Li on Unsplash

Defining the Democracy Reform Movement: Julia Roig

The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's weekly interviews engage diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This series is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.

I’m excited to start this series by highlighting an interview with Julia Roig, the Chief Network Weaver for the Horizons Project. Julia brings extensive experience working for democratic change around the world, and her work at the Horizons Project focuses on supporting and building the broader pro-democracy ecosystem.

Keep ReadingShow less
One party worked harder to build a bigger tent in 2024
Getty Images, tadamichi

One party worked harder to build a bigger tent in 2024

Democrats keep pointing fingers for reasons they lost last November. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s new role leading the Department of Health and Human Services underscores an important factor deserving more attention: Democrats spent millions trying to bully Kennedy, Jill Stein, and other insurgents off the ballot rather than respect their supporters. They treated it as a strategic masterstroke, but their anti-democratic bet was a miscalculation.

In a change election resulting in the closest popular vote since 2000, hypocrisy was a fatal sin. Democrats would have benefited from embracing competition and building a bigger tent of their own, not fighting against voter choice. It was not enough to stand up for the rule of law and protection of voting rights. To build a majority in today’s America, one must embrace voter choice.

Keep ReadingShow less