Democrats Look to Independents for Help

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.

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.