Winning in Unfriendly Territory: Close, but no cigar. What the past shows us about previous Senate elections with former crossover governors and independents and the potential success of future races
It's no secret that the Senate map has gotten increasingly harder for both Democrats and Republicans to expand the states they can compete in and have a reasonable chance of winning. This is to the point Democrats have allowed Independents to run without opposing them on the ballot and all but endorsing them, and Republicans and Democrats alike have lobbied and successfully recruited former Governors to run for Senate in states where practically anyone else is guaranteed to lose.
The examples in the above post show this dynamic perfectly. For example, the independent Dan Osborn, who made a race that would have been assuredly lost by Democrats into a 7 point race that ended up even more competitive than Montana ended up being despite the Democrat Tester's incumbency and massive spending. The Democrat he shared the ballot with, Preston Love Jr., lost the concurrent Senate Special election by over 25 points to former governor Pete Ricketts. It is this same seat that Osborn is now challenging in 2026, which is shaping up to be a favorable midterm for Democrats banking on backlash for Trump due to his handling of the Iran war, the economy, immigration and ICE, and other issues. However, no public polling has been done in this race so far and the only polling that is available is unfortunately Osborn's own internal polling. The question many are asking is if he can pull it off this year, to which I personally believe that he may be able to. He may prove that the strategy of campaigning as an Independent in states where another party is dominant can actually result in a victory instead of burning millions for a result that may be close, but no cigar.
As polarization only continues to increase in the U.S., having a D or an R next to your name may either guarantee your victory or your inevitable loss in states where one party is dominant. A good, very recent example of this is Larry Hogan. He ran in 2024 for the U.S. Senate race in Maryland after the urging of Mitch McConnell, the then U.S. Senate Republican Leader, jumping into the race hours before the filing deadline closed. Polls initially showed him being able to win against Angela Alsobrooks, who he eventually lost to, which made some voters concerned and convinced that David Trone was the only person who could beat him. However, partisanship soon kicked into high gear and he ended up getting 42.84% of the vote to Alsobrooks' 54.64%, although Democrats were forced to spend money to shore up their chances. One could argue that being on the same ballot as Trump made the race a foregone conclusion: after all, why would voters in Maryland, who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, decide to give up a Democratic voice in the Senate for a Republican one on the same ballot as the man that only won a dismal 34.08% of the vote in 2024 and 32.15% in 2020?
With all of that said, this may be one of the key strategies going forward for both parties as the Senate map continues to grow more restricted cycle after cycle due to partisanship. The question is though, when will the strategy break through, if ever? Time will tell.
Thanks for reading this write-up.