How Playing Nice (and a Little Neutral) Wins Elections
In a political climate where partisan divisions dominate the headlines, a new trend is emerging: candidates who downplay their political affiliations are finding a path to victory. This approach seems to resonate with an electorate tired of the constant bickering and ideological warfare.
A recent poll from the Independent Center highlights this shift in voter sentiment. It found that 57% of registered voters hold a favorable view of a "politician willing to work with both sides of the aisle," while a mere 9% view this unfavorably. Think about that: only 9% find a candidate willing to work with both sides unfavorable, presumably those who prefer their politics with a side of pitched battle. Now, compare that with the favorability ratings of, say, Donald Trump, the Republican Party, or the Democratic Party (go ahead, look up any aggregator tracking these numbers – it's not exactly a rave review for any of them). It seems the American public is craving a unifier, not another partisan pugilist.
This strategy has proven effective in recent high-profile races. Glenn Youngkin's successful gubernatorial campaign in Virginia is a prime example. Virginia, by all accounts, was steadily settling into a comfortable blue hue, a state where a Republican statewide win was becoming as rare as a politician admitting they were wrong. Yet, Youngkin won. How? By ditching the elephant logos and the GOP banners, running a campaign that was less about party dogma and more about uniting people around common-sense issues. He was the guy next door, ready to fix things, not the partisan warrior ready for ideological combat. He soared above the fray, and the voters, apparently, appreciated the view.
Similarly, in Nevada, Jackie Rosen pulled a similar Houdini act in a state that loves to keep us guessing. Her campaign ads were a lovely shade of purple – the color of compromise, perhaps? She presented herself as a bipartisan problem-solver, carefully avoiding any overt declarations of party allegiance. She ran against a candidate playing politics as usual, and guess what? She won, turning what many expected to be a tough race into a decisive victory by projecting an image of collaboration over confrontation.
A critical distinction must be made: being labeled "Independent" is not the same as being independent-minded. The goal of running outside the major parties is to offer an alternative to partisan conflict. If a non-affiliated candidate adopts the same attack-heavy, divisive rhetoric and tactics as the Democrats or Republicans, they risk losing their independent credibility. When a campaign immediately defaults to partisan brawling—even if the target is another party - the independent label becomes meaningless. At that point, the candidate might as well place an "R" or a "D" next to their name. True independence requires a commitment to pragmatic engagement, not just a different letter on the ballot. If the mission is truly to rise above the partisan fray, why must an independent candidate place that very affiliation (or lack thereof) front and center?
A familiar debate in political circles often centers on the effectiveness of negative advertising, especially in the closing days of an election. The traditional playbook, a product of an earlier era, maintains that a strong dose of negativity is the most reliable way to energize a candidate's core supporters. This approach was highly effective when the American electorate was more predictably divided between two major party affiliations.
However, the political landscape has undergone a significant transformation. For well over a decade, a growing number of Americans have chosen not to identify with either major party, instead embracing a politically independent identity. As a result, the old playbook of fear and partisan division is less potent than it once was. Ads designed to mobilize the base by demonizing the opposition are now just as likely to alienate the very independent voters who hold the balance of power. These voters are often weary of partisan conflict and respond more favorably to a positive, unifying message. In this new era, candidates who choose to rise above the fray and focus on solutions rather than attacks are finding a path to victory, demonstrating that a message of "Let's be reasonable" is a powerful force in modern politics.
The lesson here is about more than just a label. It's about a fundamental shift in political strategy. Candidates who rise above the partisan fray appear more authentic and capable of bringing people together. Youngkin and Rosen both stayed positive, focused on solutions, and ran against opponents who stuck to politics as usual. Their victories suggest that a path to success lies in connecting with voters on shared values and a commitment to collaboration, rather than on rigid party lines.