Running as a Independent in the South makes you lose Black voters who may be very socially conservative but are extremely loyal to Democrats according to a Split ticket Analysis. So that's out of the equation.
Running as a Independent in the South makes you lose Black voters who may be very socially conservative but are extremely loyal to Democrats according to a Split ticket Analysis. So that's out of the equation.
That’s why I said no Democrat runs against the Independent.
From the link you provided:
RED scores also don’t predict the success of specific independent campaigns, only a state’s suitability for one. For example, Al Gross’s campaign in Alaska veered too close to the national Democratic campaign, contributing to his loss. Yet, by RED score, Alaska remains fertile ground for a strong independent campaign.
Brandon Presley almost won with Biden in the White House and strong minority turnout in an off year election. Yes, he ran as a Democrat, but if an Independent candidate shows up and actively courts black voters, they can get strong support from minority voters.
This analysis makes a lot of assumptions I don’t agree with, starting with the fact we know minority turnout is lower in midterms than it is in presidential years. So is it the Independent label turning them off? Or is it them just tuning out any politics until the next presidential and any Democrat running would face the same lower minority turnout in off year elections as an Independent, thus shifting the precincts rightward?
2 of the only 4 examples (which is already far too low a sample size to draw conclusions from) are from midterm elections. In Presidential years when minority turnout goes up, we have 2 examples of Independents running. 1 of which had the I basically run as a D with an I label, the other put actual distance between his views and the D party. The latter gained among all voters. So not only is it an extremely small sample size to make conclusions from, but the type of campaign matters too.
Another one is saying a Libertarian vs a Republican is the same as an Independent vs Republican race in the minds of voters. That’s ludicrous. Voters know libertarians are on the right. It’s equally plausible (if not the actual case) that Democratic voters (aka black voters) saw no choice to vote for and decided to stay home. To assume they would also stay home in an I vs R race has no actual evidence to back it up.
Finally, the only presidential year where the independent candidate actually tried to distance themselves from the party resulted in vote gains among all voters! So that’s 1 race that confirmed the theory, 1 race that doesn’t. And 2 races with lower minority turnout regardless of if an I or D is running. I’d bet that Democrats also had minority voter precincts shift right these same years and for all we know, maybe even worse than the I!
It’s not enough data to definitively say Independents running would have trouble in the Deep South. Even more so because there hasn’t actually been an Independent statewide run in the Deep South! But if you look at the Independents who ran for office in State House/State Senate, you can see them outperforming the district Democratic baseline overall, which means even if this theory is correct, Democrats gain more voters than they lose, so it’s still worth it to run as I’s instead of D’s.
In the end imo this conclusion is flawed at best and is extremely misleading, portraying shaky assumptions as facts.
According to the link you gave me, it says that minority precincts shifted more towards the Independent in Nebraska compared to Democrats? Or am I misunderstanding what you’re saying?
Running as a Independent in the South makes you lose Black voters who may be very socially conservative but are extremely loyal to Democrats according to a Split ticket Analysis. So that's out of the equation.
https://split-ticket.org/2025/03/26/where-should-democrats-run-independents/
That’s why I said no Democrat runs against the Independent.
From the link you provided:
RED scores also don’t predict the success of specific independent campaigns, only a state’s suitability for one. For example, Al Gross’s campaign in Alaska veered too close to the national Democratic campaign, contributing to his loss. Yet, by RED score, Alaska remains fertile ground for a strong independent campaign.
Brandon Presley almost won with Biden in the White House and strong minority turnout in an off year election. Yes, he ran as a Democrat, but if an Independent candidate shows up and actively courts black voters, they can get strong support from minority voters.
This analysis makes a lot of assumptions I don’t agree with, starting with the fact we know minority turnout is lower in midterms than it is in presidential years. So is it the Independent label turning them off? Or is it them just tuning out any politics until the next presidential and any Democrat running would face the same lower minority turnout in off year elections as an Independent, thus shifting the precincts rightward?
2 of the only 4 examples (which is already far too low a sample size to draw conclusions from) are from midterm elections. In Presidential years when minority turnout goes up, we have 2 examples of Independents running. 1 of which had the I basically run as a D with an I label, the other put actual distance between his views and the D party. The latter gained among all voters. So not only is it an extremely small sample size to make conclusions from, but the type of campaign matters too.
Another one is saying a Libertarian vs a Republican is the same as an Independent vs Republican race in the minds of voters. That’s ludicrous. Voters know libertarians are on the right. It’s equally plausible (if not the actual case) that Democratic voters (aka black voters) saw no choice to vote for and decided to stay home. To assume they would also stay home in an I vs R race has no actual evidence to back it up.
Finally, the only presidential year where the independent candidate actually tried to distance themselves from the party resulted in vote gains among all voters! So that’s 1 race that confirmed the theory, 1 race that doesn’t. And 2 races with lower minority turnout regardless of if an I or D is running. I’d bet that Democrats also had minority voter precincts shift right these same years and for all we know, maybe even worse than the I!
It’s not enough data to definitively say Independents running would have trouble in the Deep South. Even more so because there hasn’t actually been an Independent statewide run in the Deep South! But if you look at the Independents who ran for office in State House/State Senate, you can see them outperforming the district Democratic baseline overall, which means even if this theory is correct, Democrats gain more voters than they lose, so it’s still worth it to run as I’s instead of D’s.
In the end imo this conclusion is flawed at best and is extremely misleading, portraying shaky assumptions as facts.
Good analysis but how do we explain Dan Osborn’s underperformance with Black voters compared to Kamala?
According to the link you gave me, it says that minority precincts shifted more towards the Independent in Nebraska compared to Democrats? Or am I misunderstanding what you’re saying?