Why more candidates are running without a party label

The following is an analysis from A.J. Simmons, Research Director of the Center for State Policy and Leadership at UIS.

Eleven independent or third-party candidates for governor and U.S. Senate currently appear on track to clear the threshold political scientists often use to define an electorally viable campaign. That may not seem like a lot, but it already exceeds the combined total from the 2022 and 2024 election cycles.

The threshold is about five percent of the vote. It's an imperfect measure, but it's meaningful: several states use similar benchmarks when determining future ballot access for statewide elections.

For decades, candidates outside the Democratic and Republican parties have struggled to achieve that level of support. By that standard, 2026 is shaping up to be one of the strongest election cycles for independent candidates in recent memory.

But why is this happening?

One explanation is surprisingly practical: in many states, one party's label has become a political liability, and candidates appear to be adapting accordingly. Every viable independent Senate candidate is either a former Democrat or closely aligned with the Democratic coalition in a state, and all are running in Republican-dominated states where Democrats are unpopular.

By contrast, several independent gubernatorial candidates are former Republicans running in Democratic-controlled states where Republicans are unpopular. Some of these campaigns across both offices have allegedly even tested whether voters responded more favorably to an independent label than a major-party label for their candidate, and found that they did, which influenced their decision.

Notably, several of the campaigns also employ former major-party staff and rely on former major party donors, and in some states one major party has declined to field a nominee as part of supporting the political alternative.

One way then to understand these campaigns is not as something truly independent but as a strategic rebranding due to the unpopularity of a given party in each state. Basically, in some states, "Independent" has become a more electorally useful label than "Democrat" or "Republican," even when the underlying core supporting coalition has changed very little. Notably, the Senate candidates are even coordinating somewhat, like a party might.

Not every state fits neatly into that explanation, however. Alaska and Maine have long demonstrated an unusual willingness to elect independents and candidates outside the traditional two-party structure. Maine's Angus King and Alaska's Bill Walker, who is running for office again as an independent in 2026, are examples of this. Their openness predates ranked-choice voting, suggesting the explanation lies in political culture over electoral systems that may be beneficial to political alternatives.

The Idaho governor candidate John Stegner presents perhaps the most interesting puzzle. If running as an independent mainly happens in states with a weak major party dominated by the other major party, why would a former Republican pursue the same strategy in a Republican-leaning state? Political science offers one possible explanation. Idaho consistently ranks among the most conservative states in the country.

Running as an independent allows candidates like John Stegner to occupy the political middle without carrying either party's label, potentially appealing to moderate Republicans, Democrats, and unaffiliated voters alike. In short, it might be the only “lane” available to him as a moderate.

Taken together, these races suggest that party labels appear increasingly contextual. Whether "Democrat," "Republican," or "Independent" is an electoral asset depends not only on a candidate's ideology, but also on the political environment of the state they hope to represent.

However, there's another explanation operating alongside these state-level dynamics that may be playing a role too. Americans have grown deeply dissatisfied with their political and economic system, leading to high levels of hopelessness. Trust in government remains historically low. Approval of Congress continues to languish. More Americans identify as independents than at any point in modern polling, even if many continue voting for one of the two major parties, whom they strongly dislike.

In short, frustration has become one of the defining features of American politics. We're living through an era of anti-establishment politics driven by grievances that neither major party has fully addressed.

Throughout American history, alternative political options have emerged when the major parties failed to address a dominant public concern, with widespread frustration possibly being that issue in the present.
The timing is notable. The last comparable surge in viable alternative statewide candidates occurred in 2010, another period marked by widespread dissatisfaction voter following the Great Recession.

Some researchers argue the political discontent unleashed during that era never truly subsided; it merely evolved as it went unaddressed by our political elites. And this dynamic isn't unique to independent candidates. Political entrepreneurs across the ideological spectrum have succeeded by channeling voter frustration with established institutions. Democratic Socialists of America appear to be doing so on the Democratic side, while Donald Trump's rise in the Republican Party is perhaps the clearest example of a politician successfully channeling anger at the political establishment.

Yet, halfway through his second term, public frustration remains high, suggesting many Americans still believe the system isn’t working as it should and perhaps driving the demand for political alternatives.

Whether any of these independent candidates will ultimately win may be less important than why they're running in the first place. But, if you’re insistent on getting an answer to that question, Dan Osborn probably has the clearest path, largely because Democrats are not fielding a competing nominee.

However, I’ll insist the larger story isn't whether any of them wins this November. It's that an unusually large number of candidates seem to believe, at least in some places, that they can compete without a major party label due to the deep unpopularity of one or both of the parties.

In others, they reflect political cultures already comfortable with candidates outside the major parties. And everywhere, they are benefiting from an electorate that increasingly doubts whether either party is capable of solving the country's problems.

Win or lose, that alone suggests the American political marketplace may be changing in ways neither Democrats nor Republicans can afford to ignore even if there isn’t electorally victories yet.