Democrats Must Step Aside in Red States
And let a new party—one that could actually defeat MAGA Republicans—compete there in 2026 and 2028.
THE CHAOS, INCOMPETENCE, AND CORRUPTION of the Trump administration threaten the American economy, rule of law, and way of life. The only way this ends is through elections.
Yet we face a hard fact: The Democratic party is failing as a national party. The brand is toxic in too many places. The chance that Democrats could win back a Senate majority within the next decade is vanishingly small. Simply counting on Republicans to mess up won’t save it.
Just because the Democratic label is radioactive in some parts of the country doesn’t mean that majorities in those places are necessarily locked into voting for Republicans. That’s why it’s time for Democrats to step aside in out-of-reach states and districts and let a new party compete instead. Doing so would not only increase the odds of denying Republicans control of the Senate in 2026, it would also put pressure now on Republicans in Congress, whose only current challenge is a MAGA-dominant primary electorate. And it would bring many more states and districts into genuine competitive territory, empowering tens of millions of citizens to cast a consequential vote.
Why could this work? Let’s do a little math.
Consider the 2024 Senate races in Nebraska and Missouri. Trump won both states handily (he won Nebraska by 19.7 points and Missouri by 18.4 points in 2024, and by comparable margins in 2020 and 2016).
In Missouri, Democrats chose Lance Kunce, a thirteen-year Marine veteran who portrayed himself as a Fetterman-style populist. Kunce outperformed Kamala Harris by only about 2 points, and the race was never in doubt.
In Nebraska, Democrats stood aside and an independent candidate, Dan Osborn, made a race out of it, outperforming Harris by almost 8 points with a platform similar to Kunce’s. Approximately 12 percent of the Nebraskans who voted for Trump crossed over to vote for Osborn. (Nebraska also had a special election for the Senate seat vacated by Ben Sasse; the Democratic candidate in that race ran behind Harris.)
Osborn’s experience echoes Evan McMullin’s in Utah in 2022. McMullin, running as an independent, lost to Mike Lee but ran almost 9 points ahead of Utah House Democrats. Roughly 17 percent of Utahans who voted for Republican House candidates in 2022 chose McMullin over Lee.
The Osborn approach of running as an independent is promising. But banding together in a new party will be more effective. The “independent” label is fuzzy and unclear. A new party with a new identity makes it clear that voters are supporting something distinct.
We’ll use the “Patriot party” as a placeholder name. A winning platform might look something like this: tough on the border, moderate-to-conservative on cultural issues, but populist on economics, and most importantly, unafraid to combat the crony capitalism of the Trump-Musk axis of greed and in favor of Congress fighting back for the rule of law and accountability. This platform could appeal to disaffected voters who are, at best, weakly attached to Republicans but see Democrats as elitist, out-of-touch, feckless scolds.
The new party can succeed by tapping into anger at both parties and committing to only voting for Patriot party members for Senate or House leadership. When reporters ask, as they inevitably will, But really, who will you caucus with?, candidates can push back on the question: Why do there only have to be two answers?
Midterm Math
Let’s do some back-of-the-envelope math. Republicans currently hold a 53–47 majority in the Senate. In 2026, Democrats have two realistic pickups: Maine and North Carolina. If Democratic candidates could run even 6 points ahead of Harris’s 2024 state performance, they could put Maine and North Carolina in play, but only those two states. (In 2018, Democrats increased their vote share in Senate races by 5.6 percent over the previous election. That’s on the high end of recent midterm bounces.) But Democrats also have to defend Georgia, Michigan, and Nevada.
What if Democrats were to step aside and let a Patriot party candidate run instead? That candidate would receive a few extra points, which would open more seats.
To illustrate the possibilities, we offer a table of potential scenarios. Here’s how to read that table. For each Senate race, we start with the percentage that Harris received in 2024 in the state. Each row adds a potential bump for a Patriot party candidate: no bump, a 2-point bump, a 4-point bump, or a 6-point bump. Note that each of these bumps is less than what Osborn received.
Each column assumes a different potential midterm swing for Democrats: no swing, a 2-point swing, a 4-point swing, or a 6-point swing. If there is a midterm swing against Republicans of 4 points and a Patriot party bump of 4 points, states like Florida, Iowa, Ohio, and Texas are potentially winnable. With a 6-point Patriot party bump—again, less than Osborn got—Alaska, Kansas, and South Carolina are competitive.
The prospects for stopping MAGA in the House are better. Using the vote share for Democrats in 2024 for each House race, we calculated how many Republicans would lose if we added various midterm swings (in the columns) and Patriot party bumps (in the rows). Even with no Patriot party bump, Democrats can pick up ten seats and win back the House outright with even a 2-point midterm swing. A 6-point Patriot party bump puts forty Republican House seats into play.
What It Would Take
The numbers above are analytical estimates, not predictions. The reality of what would unfold if this plan were attempted would bring all sorts of complications and surprises. Recruitment could be an issue. Some candidates might fizzle. But even the threat of competition is a game-changer. Right now, many Republican elected officials believe correctly that they are immune from a Democratic challenger because whatever qualms many voters may have about Republicans, the Democrats would be worse. A new Patriot party would force Trump-addled Republicans to rethink how they get re-elected.
We anticipate some obvious objections.
First, Democrats would effectively be giving up on a Democratic-only majority in the Senate for the foreseeable future. This may be true, but let’s be realistic. Democrats need a virtually unprecedented midterm swing of 8 percent to topple enough Republicans in 2026 to control the Senate. The 2028 map is not great for Democrats, either.
Some may believe Democrats can defeat Republicans by running candidates who distinguish themselves from their national party by cultivating an independent, locally rooted personal brand. However, 2024 showed that even talented candidates like John Tester and Sherrod Brown could not outrun the “D” label. Hoping that will change in today’s hyperpartisan reality seems naïve. In addition, the internal politics for moderate and populist Democrats are rough, as many online partisans quickly lose patience with candidates who part ways with liberal orthodoxy.
Second, a new party would have to start from scratch, which is not easy. Democrats have an existing infrastructure and the legal advantages of an established party. It’s possible to overstate the organizational burden here—with enthusiasm, leadership, money, and good lawyers, anything is possible. Still, it does take work, and work takes time—that’s why people need to get moving now.
Third, Republicans will campaign against Patriot party candidates as Democratic stalking horses. We saw this in Nebraska and Utah. But even a modest 4-point boost transforms unwinnable states into competitive battlegrounds. To counter this, Patriot party candidates must make clear their intention to hold the balance of power and force Democrats and Republicans to compete to be the governing partner of the Patriot party.
Fourth, some might worry that dispirited Democratic base voters would stay home rather than vote for a Patriot party candidate. This did not happen in Nebraska in 2024 and Utah in 2022, where liberals joined moderates in supporting independent candidates.
The bottom line: Democrats and anti-Trump independents don’t have a lot of options. Trump’s presidency is a break-the-glass emergency for those who believe liberal democracy is under attack. In red state Senate races, their options are to support Democrats and lose almost certainly or do something different. Time is short.
The American political system is breaking before our eyes. Some fixes will require years and difficult changes. Aimlessly doing the same old thing does not rise to the moment. Adding a new voice to the party system offers a realistic and bold path for America to back away from the brink of chaos and corruption.
 | A guest post by
|
 | A guest post by
|