SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
dan osborn
Emulating Dan Osborn, Nebraska Independent Targets Corporate Greed in US House Run
Austin Ahlman argued that "it's Tyson; it's Google; it's Facebook; it's every other corporation that is putting the squeeze and pressure on communities like mine and ripping us apart" that are "stealing your way of life."
May 14, 2026
As the winner of the Democratic US Senate primary in Nebraska mulls dropping out to boost Independent Dan Osborn, another congressional candidate not tied to either major political party launched a campaign for the state's 1st Congressional District on Thursday.
Joining incumbent GOP Rep. Mike Flood and Democratic primary winner Chris Backemeyer is Austin Ahlman, a 28-year-old investigative journalist, anti-monopolist, and self-described "insurgent Independent running in NE-01 to fight for the little guy."
Ahlman's launch video shares some struggles his family has faced—his parents working at the Tyson Foods meatpacking plant in Norfolk that closed in 2006, his dad's cancer battle, and his mom's suicide—and his work in journalism, "uncovering corruption among Democrats and Republicans, and taking on the corporations that are destroying our way of life."
It also features his fights for loved ones: against a bank for his family home, to assist his grandmother, "who was getting cheated by utility and insurance companies," and to help his brother "get his small business off the ground."
"My family's story isn't unique," he says in the three-minute ad. "Families all across our state are fighting, but the only ones who seem to be getting ahead are the elites on the coasts and the politicians who are selling us out to them."
The emotional ad makes Ahlman's policy priorities clear: taking on rising costs, Wall Street buying family homes, corporate monopolies, taxpayer-funded foreign wars, and health insurance companies that deny coverage.
"It's time we show the billionaires in Wall Street and Silicon Valley who are pitting us against one another that we won't let them steal our way of life out from under us," he concludes. "If you agree, then join us, and let's take Nebraska back."
As Nebraska Public Media reported Thursday:
Since Ahlman isn't running with a party affiliation, he will need to petition onto the general election ballot. According to the Nebraska Secretary of State's Office, Ahlman will need to collect at least 2,000 valid signatures from voters in the 1st Congressional District to get onto the ballot.
"I think most people these days are Independents," Ahlman said in a Thursday interview with Nebraska Public Media News. "They do feel pretty fed up with things."
He said he'd like the country's spending to refocus on the US and not in conflicts abroad.
"There is so much money from Americans' pockets being poured into other countries, armies to fight wars in places that we couldn't even find on a map. And I think this is one area where current voters in... this district don't have a choice," he said. "The blue-haired baristas are not the ones stealing people's way of life. Your uncle, who's perhaps a little gung-ho at Thanksgiving, is not the one stealing your way of life. It's Tyson; it's Google; it's Facebook; it's every other corporation that is putting the squeeze and pressure on communities like mine and ripping us apart."
On social media Thursday, Ahlman called out the GOP incumbent for taking campaign cash from corporate political action committees and special interests.
"I'm in this to beat Mike Flood—and yes, this is personal. We grew up in the same town, but Millionaire Mike's life was not like mine. I lived in trailer parks. Our whole family spent periods living in my grandmother's basement. I went to bed hungry," he explained. "Last year, Millionaire Mike... voted to hand tax cuts to big business and billionaires while gutting healthcare, education, and food programs. Those callous votes show he takes voters for granted."
Meanwhile, the Lincoln Journal Star reported Thursday that the Independent Norfolk native is already drawing vote-splitting criticism "from Republicans and Democrats alike."
In response, Ahlman said: "It seems I’ve pissed some people off! Look, taking on the establishment of both major parties was never going to be easy. They're fighting back, and that isn’t very surprising. But here's the deal—the overwhelming majority of real people in Nebraska—whether they're registered Republicans or Independents or Democrats, they all want change."
"They're sick of being looked down on, and sold out on, and lied to," he stressed. "Congressman Flood is selling us out to big money donors as he climbs the ladder in Washington. Americans are ready to elect Independents who work for them, not party bosses or corporate donors. That's why we're going to win."
The state's Democratic Party is standing by its candidate. The party chair, Jane Fleming Kleeb, told Drop Site News' Ryan Grim that "Chris Backemeyer is the clear choice for Nebraska's 1st District. He brings real federal experience from the State Department and is laser-focused on what Nebraskans actually care about—lowering costs and expanding access to affordable healthcare. Mike Flood has failed this district, and a fringe Independent won't fix that. Nebraska doesn't need noise from either extreme—we need a steady, experienced leader who will fight for fairness and protect our democracy. That's Chris Backemeyer."
Backemeyer was at the State Department under former Democratic President Joe Biden. While there, Zeteo News' Prem Thakker noted Thursday, he "helped coordinate aid to Israel amid its genocide in Gaza."
According to Thakker, the Democrat has received "much of his campaign donations from the DMV," a term for the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, which includes Maryland, and Virginia. Donors include key Biden officials, such as former Secretary of State Antony Blinken and ex-National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan.
The journalist also highlighted some early polling from Adam Carlson's Zenith Research that shows Ahlman doing well, particularly after respondents are introduced to candidates' biographies:
"In head-to-head matchups in these post-bios ballot tests, Ahlman (I) doesn't just outperform Backemeyer (D) overall by 16 points, but outperforms him among nearly every single subgroup," Carlson wrote. "Ahlman's largest overperformances relative to Backemeyer are among groups that Democrats have struggled with of late (especially in this part of the country)—Independents (+46), age 18-44 (+34), moderates (+26), white noncollege (+25), suburban voters (+24), white men (+21), and gun-owning households (+20)."
"In the post-bios three-way vote, Backemeyer (D) is in third place, 6 points behind Ahlman (I)," the pollster added. "But Flood still leads by 14 points despite only being at 42%. As we've seen, if Backemeyer drops out, Ahlman takes the lead if it's a 1:1 race against Flood."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Nebraska Democrat Wins Senate Primary—But Signals She'll Drop Out and Back Working-Class Independent Dan Osborn
"We believe Dan Osborn... represents the best opportunity to defeat Pete Ricketts and deliver real results for working families," said the chair of the state Democratic Party.
May 13, 2026
The winner of the Democratic US Senate primary in Nebraska has no expectation that she'd be able to win the general election in November, and her official website alludes to a plan to drop out of the race—which could ultimately help the party in its goal of wresting control of the chamber from Republicans.
The campaign website of Cindy Burbank, a pharmacy technician who jumped into the Democratic primary race after hearing the Republicans were plotting to place a right-wing "plant" on the ballot, suggests Burbank did some maneuvering of her own to secure a favorable result—even if she has no intention of actually going to the US Senate and instead aims to help Independent candidate Dan Osborn win.
Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) "knows he’s losing to Dan Osborn and this is his plan to cheat his way to victory. We can’t let that happen," reads Burbank's website. "Support me—and I’ll make sure Pete Ricketts’ stooge never gets anywhere near our November ballot!"
Osborn, a former organizer who came within seven points of beating Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) in 2024, has been endorsed by the state's Democratic Party, which poured money into Burbank's campaign before Tuesday's primary.
In March, state Democratic Party Chair Jane Fleming Kleeb said William Forbes, an anti-abortion rights pastor who has voted for President Donald Trump in recent elections and attended a training run by a right-wing group, had joined the Democratic Party to "deceive Nebraska voters."
"The Nebraska Democratic Party made a deliberate, principled decision not to field a candidate in the US Senate race," said Kleeb. "We believe Dan Osborn—a veteran, a mechanic, a Nebraskan, and an independent voice—represents the best opportunity to defeat Pete Ricketts and deliver real results for working families."
Forbes has denied being a "Ricketts plant," as Kleeb has called him, and Burbank on Tuesday denied she had joined the race with the intention of dropping out to help Osborn win in a state where a Democrat has not won a Senate race since 2006. She told NBC News that "some people" she had worked with on previous political campaigns had spoken to her about running, but said they were not connected to Osborn's campaign or to the state Democratic Party.
But she added that following her overwhelming win, with 89% of primary voters supporting her, that Osborn is "a great guy, and we have to keep in mind that he might be able to be on [the ballot].”
“For me to stay on the ballot and take votes away from Osborn, it’s not fair,” she told the outlet.
Burbank added that she "will drop out when and if the time comes that I cannot win in November. And I think anybody with any dignity should do that."
David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, said Burbank's resounding victory "suggests a well-educated [Democratic] electorate" and a well-organized push by Kleeb.
Osborn, who has emphasized that he would caucus independently if elected to the Senate, came closer than expected to beating Fischer in 2024, when Trump carried Nebraska by 20 points.
Polling has been limited so far, but Tavern Research found ahead of the primary election that 47% of likely voters were supporting Osborn while 42% backed Ricketts. The same survey found Ricketts 16 points ahead of Forbes, 9 points ahead of Burbank, and 7 points ahead of a generic Democrat. Earlier polls sponsored by Osborn's campaign found Ricketts just one point ahead of the Independent.
Tavern Research said the polls pointed to "an Independent problem in Nebraska" for Ricketts, whose wealth and financial industry ties have earned him the nickname "Wall Street Pete."
The state has long been a stronghold for Trump and the GOP, but Cook Political Report currently rates the state's Senate race as "likely Republican," downgrading it from "solidly Republican," ahead of the November election.
Osborn, a US Navy veteran and mechanic, became president of his union while working at the Kellogg's plant in Omaha and led a successful strike there in 2021, securing benefits for his fellow union workers. He has called his platform the Nebraska Fairness Plan and is vowing to "take on the corporations and their chosen political lapdogs to restore economic liberty and fairness for the working Americans who make this country run."
He has called to overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that allowed unlimited corporate spending in elections, refuses corporate political action committee donations, and has demanded an end to corporate practices like "shrinkflation" and surveillance pricing.
"We deserve a government that is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people," reads Osborn's platform. "But for decades, career politicians in both parties have been bought and paid for by the corporate cronies and lobbyists pouring money into our political process to bend the system to their will. When I’m in the Senate, I will champion the strongest anti-corruption platform Washington has ever seen."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why the Working Class Has Given Up on the Liberal Establishment
Billionaires are in control of both parties and working people across this country are not dumb. They are ready for populist change. How do we know this? They told us.
May 05, 2026
You’ve spent 25 years working for a company. You’re proud of your work. Your wages and benefits are good, and you’ve put together a decent life. Then your CEO says the company is heading for some tough times, and that everyone from the executive suite to the shop floor will need to make some sacrifices. You are willing to join with others to help the company survive. You feel part of it. It’s your identity. You will sacrifice if that’s what you and your company need to survive.
But when the sacrifice comes, the price paid is far from equal. You, along with hundreds of other workers, are laid off and are replaced with low-wage sub-contractors.
How would you feel?
I found out when a similar scenario was foisted on 114 food service and maintenance workers at Oberlin College in 2020. Many of them had been there longer than any of the administrators and most of the faculty. Their work for the college was their life, their identity. They cared for the students. They were proud to be associated with this elite liberal institution, wokeness and all. It was by far the best employer in northeastern Ohio, which has had its industrial base decimated over the last four decades.
In 2018, Oberlin’s administration had come up with a PR program called “One Oberlin” to secure the school’s finances, upgrade facilities, and prepare for the college’s third century. At the outset of the Covid-19 pandemic the Oberlin community was asked to pull together to make ends meet. But while the financial stress was real, it turned out “One Oberlin” was not: It failed to include the college’s unionized blue-collar workers. They were summarily dismissed, dispatched with a little severance and little else. They were devastated.
We know how they felt because a group of Oberlin student interns interviewed many of the laid off workers. These workers were hurt and they were angry. They saw this very liberal institution as hypocritical, as betraying its values, and as uncaring and cruel.
As an Oberlin alumnus, this was a wake-up call. Although a group of us did all we could to call out the college’s hypocrisy and compel it to save these jobs, we couldn’t get them to consider the workers as part of “One Oberlin.” (We were able to raise about $180,000 from alumni for these workers to cushion the blow.)
That led me to conduct a larger study of the impact of mass layoffs on politics. It didn’t take much of a leap to see that Oberlin’s liberal establishment was very similar to that of the Democratic Party. A declared ethos of caring and positive social values seemed always to stop when budgetary restraints forced a choice between the interests of workers and those of the party’s elites and their wealthy allies.
That turned out to be the case throughout the Midwest, where the Democratic Party’s fortunes have flagged over the past few decades as their “Blue Wall” crumbled. We used demographic and mass layoff data in conjunction with election results and found a statistically solid causal relationship: As the county mass layoff rate went up, the Democratic vote went down between 1996 and 2020. Year by year, voters in areas hard hit by mass layoffs were abandoning the Democratic Party.
Sherrod Brown, the former senator from Ohio who is trying to reclaim his job this year, found that the Democrats are still being blamed for the job destruction caused by NAFTA. After his loss in the 2024 campaign, he said:
The national Democratic brand has suffered, again, starting with NAFTA. My first term in the House [was] when NAFTA was voted on. I led the freshman class of 160 Democrats, and 40 Republicans, give or take, in opposition to NAFTA. I was in all the strategy meetings, all the vote counts. So, more Democrats voted against NAFTA than for it. More Republicans voted for it than against it. But it was seen [as a mark against Democrats], because we had a Democratic president, even though it was negotiated by a Republican, but that’s all background noise now. But what really mattered is: I still heard in the Mahoning Valley, in the Miami Valley, I still heard during the campaign, about NAFTA.
I’ve seen that erosion of American jobs and I’ve seen the middle class shrink. People have to blame someone. And it’s been Democrats. We are more to blame for it because we have historically been the party of [workers]. They expect Republicans to sell out to their corporate friends and to support the rich. But we don’t expect that from my party…
Our YouGov survey of 3,000 voters in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin found that 70 percent of the respondents have negative opinions of the Democrats. That’s what happens when the Democrats, like Oberlin, bastions of liberal good will, become so cavalier about job destruction.
Can the Democrats Recover?
Everyone who wants to stop MAGA this coming fall, as well as in 2028, sure hopes so. But in the 130 congressional districts where the Democrats lose by 25 percent or more, the odds are slim. In those districts, the Democratic Party’s presence is so diminished it might as well not even exist. And it’s in those districts we need something new, starting with working-class candidates like Dan Osborn, who is running as an independent in Nebraska for the US Senate.
Are voters in red areas ready for working-class independents? Our YouGov survey shows they are. Looking only at rural county data in those four states (the reddest areas), there is strong support for a new party, independent of the two parties, that would run on a progressive populist working-class platform:
Voter Support for the New Independent Workers’ Political Association
- Rural Republicans: 50%
- Rural Independents: 50%
- Rural Democrats” 77%
(For more data and analysis please see my new book, The Billionaires Have Two Parties, We Need a Party of Our Own.)
A Policy Hail Mary?
If the Democrats want to reconnect with working people, they need to put job security front and center. They need to stop relying on public-private partnerships, which use public funds to encourage corporate job creation that too often fails to materialize. And the Dems need to purge vacuous language, like the phrase “the opportunity society,” which promotes corporate-first thinking that adds to, rather than reduces, job precarity. In fact, they should replace their corporate-first thinking, with people-first thinking.
To do so the Democrats should call for federal job guarantees. They would do well to read Jared Abbot’s review of a compendium of poll data that shows massive support for the government serving as the employer of last resort. People don’t want handouts; they want a chance to earn a fair living. (Even the new “Working Families Guarantee” agenda, put forward by the Working Families Party, guarantees just about everything but stops short of a federal job guarantee.)
But a shift to ensuring people-first job security will not come easily to a party dominated by wealthy donors, millionaire politicians, lobbyists, pollsters, and consultants. Corporate leaders will rail against the prospect of workers having access to federal jobs and thereby forcing the company to bid up wages and benefits to retain and attract employees. Heaven forbid that direct government support go to workers instead of corporations!
Until the party supports job guarantees and runs hundreds of working-class candidates, we can expect more working people to reject the Democratic establishment (and the liberal college administrators) who care so little about working-class job security.
That leaves us with a dangerous political vacuum that is pulling the working class both away from politics and towards demagogues who claim they will trash a system that has neglected so many for so long. But most working people know that genuine positive change is better than destructive change and they would welcome a new working-class party, especially in red areas. They have told us so.
They know that billionaires are in control of both parties, and that they really do need a party of their own.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular