Rust Belt Voters Are Sick of Both Parties
Polling shows Americans are ready to support independent populists running on economic platforms. But what they don’t want is anything associated with the Democratic Party’s brand.
A substantial majority of respondents in the Rust Belt said they would support or strongly support a new workers political association. (Melissa Sue Gerrits / Getty Images)
Support for America’s two major political parties has been on the decline — and it’s only getting worse. Today political independents by far outnumber the ranks of either Democrats or Republicans. Up to two-thirds of Americans have reported in surveys that they think both parties do such a bad job that a third major party is needed. Of course, just because voters don’t like either major party doesn’t mean they’d be willing to support a third party, especially since that support would depend, among other things, on the type of party on offer.
But the combination of widespread disaffection alongside extreme party polarization has put more and more races outside the realm of possibility for any Democrat. Even economic populist Dems, like former Ohio senator Sherrod Brown, who avoid most of the pitfalls that plague Democrats’ reputation among working class voters, are unable to overcome this dynamic. The Democratic brand is now simply too tarnished and polarization too strong among working-class voters in many purple and especially red states.
Today most Democrats simply can’t win — and there is increasingly little that can be done about it. As Bernie Sanders has recently argued, it is “highly unlikely” that the Democratic high command will “learn the lessons of their defeat and create a party that stands with the working class and is prepared to take on the enormously powerful special interests that dominate our economy, our media, and our political life.”
But could independent economic populist candidates break through to the voters that Democrats have lost? How much electoral support might there be for independent candidates who run on a strictly pro-worker agenda independent of both major parties?
Americans Say They’re Ready for an Independent Pro-Worker Party
To get a sense of the level of support that such candidates might receive in red and purple states, we included a question in a recent survey conducted with YouGov. We asked respondents in four rustbelt states whether they would support an independent political association that ran candidates on a strictly economic populist, pro-worker platform — and then asked them to rate the level of support they’d give them. The survey of 3,000 adult residents in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin reveals strong support for a new political organization that would run and back economic populist candidates independent of the Democrats and the Republicans.
The survey, designed by the Center for Working Class Politics and the Labor Institute, included a question that asked respondents to give their opinion of a new working-class political organization that championed a bold set of progressive economic issues that included a mix of popular policies that are already in the Democrats’ platform — but are underutilized in their messaging — as well as jobs-focused polices that go further toward addressing decades of working-class decline. Specifically, the question asked:
Would you support a new organization, the Independent Workers Political Association, that would support working-class issues independent of both the Democratic and Republican parties. It would run and support independent political candidates committed to a platform that included
- Stop big companies that receive tax dollars from laying off workers who pay taxes.
- Guarantee everyone who wants to work has a decent-paying job, and if the private sector can’t provide it, the government will
- Raise the minimum wage so every family can lead a decent life
- Stop drug company price-gouging and put price controls on food cartels
Despite the fact that a federal jobs guarantee and restrictions on corporate layoffs go well beyond the edge of what most Democratic-leaning politicians and pundits believe most would accept, we find strong overall support for the program in these pivotal working-class-heavy states. A substantial majority of respondents (57%) in the Rust Belt said they would support or strongly support a new workers political association, while just 19% expressed opposition. This amounts to 39% net support for the association.
Just as important, the idea of running independent candidates on a pro-worker platform was particularly appealing to precisely the kinds of voters Democrats have struggled most to persuade or turn out in recent elections. For example, support for a working-class political association consistently runs higher among working-class voters. Respondents without a four-year college degree show 60% support, versus just 52% among college graduates. The same pattern holds across income groups as well: while just 39% of those making over $250,000 supported the workers’ organization, support rose steadily with falling income: 53% among those earning $100,000 to $149,000; 57% at $60,000 to $99,000; 60% at $30,000 to $59,000; and 66% among those making under $30,000. In turn, renters (68%) were far more supportive than homeowners (54%), and 59% respondents who hold working-class occupations favored the organization, compared to just 55% among non-working-class respondents.
Respondents who reported higher degrees of job insecurity — a demographic critical to Donald Trump’s 2024 victory — also showed stronger than average support for independent economic populism. Those who say they are “very insecure” in their jobs support the organization at 74%, compared to 56% among those who are “very secure.”
Similarly, those who are “not confident” they could find a new job if laid off show 62% support, compared to just 54% among respondents who were more confident. Support also rises with perceived downward mobility: 66% of those who say they are “much worse off” than their parents support the organization, compared to just 54% of those who say they are “much better off.”
The independent worker’s organization also enjoyed stronger backing among the racial and ethnic minority groups that swung toward Trump in 2024: while support is 57% among white respondents, it rose to 66% among black respondents and 68% among Hispanic respondents. Finally, while support among those who voted recently is 57%, it climbs to 62% among those who did not vote, and the critically import youth vote also showed particularly strong support for independent working-class politics — 71% of respondents under the age of thirty supported the organization, compared 51% of those over sixty.
Overall, the independent workers association appealed most to the very constituencies that Democrats have struggled to mobilize or retain in recent cycles: working-class Americans, people of color, and those who feel that the American Dream is slipping away. The organization’s strong appeal to these groups highlights not only its potential, but also the scale of the political vacuum left by a Democratic Party that has often failed to speak convincingly to their economic insecurity and sense of exclusion from the political system.
But Can a Working Peoples Political Movement Be Built?
It’s certainly encouraging that a working-class political movement independent of both the Republicans and the Democrats polls well, but given the many barriers to independent politics in the United States, is it really possible to build such a movement? There’s no doubt that the obstacles are very real and have hindered all attempts to build strong third parties of any kind for over a century. These include our winner-take-all electoral system, highly restrictive ballot access laws, and the increasing dominance of money in politics.
Based on an awareness of these constraints, many commentators have argued that independent candidates can be little more than spoilers to help elect more Republicans. It would be far more effective, according to these critics, to simply nudge more Democrats toward populist economic positions (which, in fairness, a small number of Democrats already do more or less effectively).
While there is obviously sound logic in supporting Democrats in places where party competition is high, our survey results suggest that progressives really need to start thinking more outside the box in places where Republicans are strong. We know from a range of successful recent progressive economic ballot initiatives in red and purple states that when partisanship is taken out of the equation, populist economics can cut through to a much broader coalition of Americans than Democrats could hope to reach in the foreseeable future.
Our survey results suggest that this logic can be extended to political candidates as well: even a robust progressive economic platform that includes economic measures far to the left of what even the most economic populist Democrats typically propose can garner widespread support — if it’s not attached to the Democratic Party’s brand.
What our survey suggests is that there is an enormous political vacuum in the United States around economic resentment, and inevitably something will fill it. The Democratic Party’s brand is tarnished, perhaps beyond repair. If progressives don’t build something new, the odds are high that Republicans like Steve Bannon, Josh Hawley, and J. D. Vance will find ways to offer enough for Republicans to continue to win elections behind a platform that favors deregulation, rolling back health, safety, and environmental protections, all while rewarding workers on the margins.
Progressives can use independent politics to tap into the economic populist energy that Democrats have consistently squandered. And they should understand that what voters say they want is not just some mirage nor is it manipulative polling. It’s concrete economic proposals.
The question is not whether this energy exists, but how to build a political force capable of channeling it. Working people and their allies need a political home — one that fights for job security, decent wages, and universal health care, while speaking credibly to the economic frustrations the Democratic Party has too often failed to address.
Building this kind of movement requires a foundation: an anchor like a major labor union or coalition of unions that can back progressive economic ballot initiatives and support independent candidates — especially in one-party districts where the spoiler argument doesn’t apply. The build-out can and should be modest at first, with room to experiment and adapt. With success, it can grow.
Dan Osborn, a union leader in Nebraska, showed what’s possible. Running as an independent in a race where Democrats didn’t field a candidate, he campaigned on a populist economic message and came within 6.7 percent of unseating a Republican senator — drawing 66,500 more votes than Kamala Harris did in the same state. That kind of campaign speaks to the potential of tapping into disaffection with both major parties.
Instead of rehashing reasons why we can’t build outside the Democratic Party, it’s time to help working-class voters get what they actually want: candidates who represent their interests and are free from corporate and billionaire influence. Yes, this will be hard. And no, it won’t happen overnight. But that’s not an argument for waiting. It’s a reason to get started now.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans truly fight for working people — working people deserve a political formation that puts their interests first.