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
nebraska
Lessons from Dan Osborn’s Defeat in Nebraska
Even the strongest individual candidate cannot substitute for the patient work of building an independent political movement.
Nov 05, 2026
Dan Osborn, the independent candidate and former local union president, once again came within a few percentage points of winning the Nebraska US Senate seat. (He lost by 6.7% in 2024 and the same again this year.) He mounted an impressive challenge, but he couldn’t close the gap. Why? And what does his defeat tell us about the future of independent working-class politics?
Wouldn’t Osborn have done much better if he ran as a Democrat?
The anti-Trump Blue Wave created key red state Senate Democratic victories as it tore through Texas, Kansas, Iowa, Ohio, South Carolina, and maybe even Mississippi. But, it hit the shoals in North Dakota where the Democrat lost by 20.7 percent, by 18 percent in Oklahoma, and by 30.4 percent in Wyoming. The wave also didn’t reach the rest of the South and border states.
It would be prudent to lay the foundation for an independent party that would be overtly committed to take on corporate power, runaway inequality, and job insecurity.
So, it is not at all clear that a Democrat would have outperformed Osborn in Nebraska. Nevertheless, there are several lessons from Osborn’s defeat worth considering.
1. Running for the Senate is a big deal.
Anyone running for the US Senate against a Republican in a very red state is going to face a wall of money. There are only a handful of genuinely competitive Senate races every two years, and enormous sums flow into them. Osborn was up against $37 million—about $40 per voter—the most ever spent on a Senate race in Nebraska.
It would be nice to think money doesn’t matter, but when the sums are that enormous it does. Money buys advertising, organization, visibility, and an increased ability to define a candidate, as well as to define the candidate’s opponent. Overcoming those advantages is extraordinarily difficult.
2. Running for the Senate is a big jump.
I can’t think of anyone who has gone directly from serving as a local union president to being elected to the US Senate. That’s a hell of a leap, and Osborn deserves enormous credit for attempting it.
But it raises a question: Why not first run for a less demanding office, build an organization, establish a political record, and develop a broader base of support? Why not Congress or the state legislature?
We can second guess all we want, but there’s no guarantee that a smaller race would have been easier for Osborn. And sometimes political opportunities don’t wait. Especially because building political power takes time, which means the odds were stacked against Osborn from the start.
3. Was he really an independent, or a Democrat in disguise?
Everyone knows the Democratic brand is in terrible shape in Nebraska, as well as in much of red America. We did a survey that shows how much. Running as an independent, for Osborn, made considerable sense. But according to the New York Times,
“more than half of voters — 55 percent — say they see Mr. Osborn, a union leader, as more of a Democrat than anything else. Just one third of voters say they consider him to be an independent.”
And, of course, the Republicans spent millions hammering away at that perception throughout the campaign.
To make matters worse, a leaked recordings captured Osborn privately expressing views that were far more liberal from the more cautious public positions he took during the campaign on issues like the border wall, transgender people, and ICE.
Whether or not voters agreed with the positions on those issues he’d taken in public, the episode created a credibility problem. It reinforced the Republican argument that Osborn was really a Democrat hiding behind an independent label.
This points to a larger problem: An independent candidate running alone must convince voters that his independence is real if he’s going to avoid negativity of the Democratic brand in red America.
4. There is no substitute for building an independent political organization, step by step.
Osborn could be labeled—or mislabeled—a Democratic shill precisely because he was an individual candidate. He did not represent a political organization with a record of independence from the two major parties. He had no established movement behind him to demonstrate what that independence meant. As an individual, it was all on him.
Compare that with the Nonpartisan League, which prospered in North Dakota during and after World War I. It had a coherent platform, including the public ownership of grain elevators and the establishment of a publicly owned bank. (The public Bank of North Dakota still operates today.) In a few years, the League recruited tens of thousands of dues-paying members and ran candidates for local and state offices.
It was never about one person. It was a movement and a political organization. The verbal gaffes or vulnerabilities of any individual candidate could not bring down the entire effort.
Building that kind of organization takes longer than trying to produce a dramatic political breakthrough from the top down. It’s not impossible for one individual to pull it off—Osborn has come remarkably close—but relying on one candidate makes the entire effort vulnerable to that person’s mistakes, inconsistencies, or political liabilities. (Consider the Dem’s experience with Graham Platner in Maine.)
It was never about one person. It was a movement and a political organization. The verbal gaffes or vulnerabilities of any individual candidate could not bring down the entire effort.
An organization built around a clear platform is much stronger over the long run. It can explain, over several years and through many different candidates, what it means to be independent of the two major parties. Its record, membership, and collective work become the proof of its independence, and it becomes much more difficult to dismiss the entire organization as a Democratic front.
5. Osborn’s race shows why we need a long-term vision for a new working-class party. Or will the Democrats again become the party of working people?
The alternative to running as an individual is the creation of a new political organization of working people—one that is fundamentally different from the Democrats and the Republicans.
But why bother? Aren’t the Democrats now positioned to fight for powerful pro-worker policies like raising the minimum wage, facilitating labor union organizing, and putting price controls on pharmaceutical and food cartels?
Let’s hope so. But, it’s just as possible for the Democrats with narrow victories in purple districts to call for moderate policies to secure their positions and maintain the support of their wealthy donors. Although we might see a slew of investigations to uncover corruption and the Epstein files, there may be little movement on the most basic economic protections for working people.
And the Democrats still do not have the support of a majority of voters without college degrees, according to exit polls.
Therefore, it would be prudent to lay the foundation for an independent party that would be overtly committed to take on corporate power, runaway inequality, and job insecurity. It would fight for good jobs, decent wages, strong unions, and support for communities where working people can thrive.
Osborn’s campaign demonstrated that an independent working-class candidate could mount a serious challenge in a red state. His defeat should not obscure that achievement.
But it would also have to welcome working people with a range of social and cultural beliefs, including people who might not feel comfortable with the progressive left. That doesn’t mean abandoning basic principles of fairness, equality, and justice. It does mean recognizing that working people will not agree on everything, and that a successful political organization must be broad enough to unite them around their common economic interests.
Most important, it must be a party of and by working people. Its members—not wealthy donors, not political consultants, not a handful of prominent leaders—must shape its platform, choose its candidates, run its campaigns, and recruit new members. It must be an organization people actively participate in, not simply a label they vote for every few years.
Dan Osborn’s campaign demonstrated that an independent working-class candidate could mount a serious challenge in a red state. His defeat should not obscure that achievement. But it also reminds us that even the strongest individual candidate cannot substitute for the patient work of building an independent political movement.
We need to move beyond the search for the next Dan Osborn. We need to build a political organization that can produce hundreds of them.
Let’s hope Osborn’s remarkable effort helps lay the foundation for that movement.
(For more, please see A Party of Our Own.)
Keep ReadingShow Less
Mentally Ill Trump Thinks It's Funny to Joke About Iran Bombing US Cities Into Oblivion
Ironically, San Diego is a major port for the US Navy, the sailors of which Trump is abusing by keeping them near the Strait of Hormuz for months at a time without a secure base for resupply or rest and recreation.
Oct 06, 2026
In a stemwinder of a speech in Nebraska, our mentally ill president joked around that if Iran took out Los Angeles and San Diego, it would be a small price to pay for keeping the rest of the country safe. Or at least that is what he appeared to say. What his slurred free association means is often anyone’s guess. The corporate media report on his speeches as if they are in any way coherent to stay on his good side, since he threatens people who disagree with him.
Angelenos and San Diegans reacted with outrage at their president’s blithe willingness to throw them under the bus. Ironically, San Diego is a major port for the US Navy, the sailors of which Trump is abusing by keeping them near the Strait of Hormuz for months at a time without a secure base for resupply or rest and recreation.
Trump is campaigning on how great an idea his abrupt war of aggression on Iran was. Although the president kept saying in summer 2025 that he had destroyed Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, he has made the now-crippled program his pretext for his war, which was instead transparently an effort to seize control of Iran’s gas and petroleum, as he had that of Venezuela.
US intelligence agencies have repeatedly assessed over the past 25 years that Iran does not have a military nuclear weapons program. The country was enriching uranium for civilian purposes and for deterrence. Tehran hoped that having a stockpile of highly enriched uranium would give enemies pause about assaulting it. It was a miscalculation, since Netanyahu-Trump attacked anyway.
Iran does not have an intercontinental ballistic missile and cannot strike at Los Angeles and San Diego.
As I reported, a poll in July found that 75% of Americans say that the Iran War is not worth it, and 61% blamed Trump’s policies for the high cost of gasoline and diesel. Americans finally have Trump’s number, and know what he has done to them. His old tricks of blaming the Democrats for everything and gaslighting his MAGA base about what is going on are failing before the sticker shock when people fill up at the pump.
Trump also says he is winning the war on Iran and that it will be over quite soon. Reality, as is usually the case with the addled DJT, says something else.
TradeWinds reports that Iran has struck 11 ships in the Strait of Hormuz in the past week, potentially a sign of increased belligerence. Or it could just be there are more targets, since Kpler has seen a rise in the number of ships transiting the Strait in the past week or two.
The rise in strikes coincides with more fiery rhetoric from Tehran and with further US withdrawals. Having left the naval base in Manama, Bahrain, the former HQ of the Fifth Fleet, and having completely withdrawn from Iraq and Syria, the US has now even withdrawn bombers from a UK base after rumors of an Iranian terrorist plot against them. “Debasing” and forcing the US out of the region has become a key strategic goal for Tehran after the February 28, 2026, joint Netanyahu-Trump war of aggression on Iran.
The chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, Major-General Ali Abdollahi, warned recently that further attacks on Iran are in the offing, and the consequent conflagration will touch everyone in the Middle East.
Gee, I think Maj.-Gen. Abdollahi should challenge Whiskey Pete Hegseth to a bombast competition. Whoever loses has to withdraw from the war.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Nebraska Is the Canary in the Coal Mine': Trump-GOP Medicaid Cuts Spark Mass Chaos, Coverage Loss
"Medicaid work reporting requirements are a flawed policy if the goal really is to incentivize work, but they are very effective at taking Medicaid coverage away by tangling folks up in red tape," said one expert.
Oct 01, 2026
Human rights organizations said Thursday that Nebraska should be seen as a bright red warning sign of what's to come for states across the US as they implement the draconian Medicaid work requirements included in the budget legislation that President Donald Trump signed into law last year.
In early May, Nebraska became the first state to implement the new work reporting mandates, which require certain Medicaid recipients to document at least 80 hours of work or other qualifying activities per month to remain enrolled in the program. Republican Gov. Jim Pillen, announced the state's fast-tracked implementation of the requirements at a celebratory press conference late last year alongside Mehmet Oz, head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Human Rights Watch (HRW), Oxfam America, and Nebraska Appleseed said in a joint report released Thursday that the rush to impose the mandates has had the predicted results of mass confusion and bureaucratic chaos, previewing what millions of Medicaid recipients across the country can expect in the months ahead.
“Nebraska is the canary in the coal mine for issues that most states will face when they begin implementing these work requirements,” said Matt McConnell, a US researcher on economic, social, and cultural rights at HRW. "As they do, they should make sure red tape doesn’t strip people of healthcare."
The trio of advocacy groups interviewed a dozen Nebraskans who have directly experienced or witnessed the unruly rollout of the expanded work requirements. One 64-year-old man "said he lost his Medicaid coverage while undergoing treatment for kidney cancer and multiple chronic health conditions," the groups noted.
"He said a representative of the health plan that managed his Medicaid coverage informed him he lost access because he was not working, even though he is unable to work due to his condition," the groups added. The man said the loss of Medicaid coverage disrupted his care, including an appointment with a cancer specialist.
The Trump administration has said even people with terminal cancer are not necessarily exempt from the new work reporting requirements.
One Medicaid eligibility worker from the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services told HRW, Oxfam, and Nebraska Appleseed that "poor training, vague and inconsistent guidance, and technical issues, including unprepared software systems, had caused stress and uncertainty for applicants and for state employees."
“We just sometimes don’t know what we’re doing,” the worker said. "I wish the people who make policies knew what they were doing."
It's unclear exactly how many people have lost Medicaid in Nebraska as a result of the new requirements. Sarah Maresh, healthcare access program director at Nebraska Appleseed, said Thursday that obtaining data from the state has been "like pulling teeth."
"Nebraskans deserve access to this information," said Maresh. "You can’t fix problems you refuse to measure."
Earlier this week, following relentless pressure from advocates, Nebraska's health department released preliminary data showing that more than 1,000 Nebraskans have been deprived of Medicaid coverage due to the expanded work requirements—a figure that's believed to be a significant undercount.
"I have been saying for years that Medicaid work reporting requirements are a flawed policy if the goal really is to incentivize work, but they are very effective at taking Medicaid coverage away by tangling folks up in red tape," Joan Alker, executive director of Georgetown University's Center for Children and Families, wrote in a blog post earlier this week. "Unfortunately, Nebraska’s data only reinforces this point."
Nationwide, millions of people have lost Medicaid coverage since Trump signed the GOP budget package, which includes around $800 billion in cuts to Medicaid over the next decade.
States face a January 1, 2027 deadline to implement the expanded work requirements—though states are allowed to move more quickly. Montana and Arkansas have joined Nebraska in implementing the mandates ahead of the federal deadline, resulting in similar chaos and confusion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Billionaires Have Two Parties. Why Do the People of America's Great Plains Have Only One?
Abandoned by the party they once considered their own, many Democrats across vast areas of the nation's heartland turned to the Republicans to vent their anger at a system that was screwing them.
Jun 03, 2026
Not so long ago the Democrats wielded significant power in the Great Plains states. In 1990, 10 of the 18 Senators from Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Idaho were Democrats. Today, none are.
In much of this area, the Democrats are no longer functioning as a competitive second party. They lose by 25 percent or more in 21 of the 30 congressional districts in these states. By my rough count, the Democrats did not even run candidates in about 40 percent of the region’s 1,400 state legislative races. Clearly, something has gone profoundly wrong.
What happened?
During the Reagan era (from his election in 1980 and up through the early 1990s) Great Plains Democrats resurrected the populist traditions of the late 19th-century People’s Party, the progressives of the early 20th century, and the Nonpartisan league a few years later. The core ideology of this tradition focused on protecting family farmers and workers from the rapaciousness of big corporations and banks. The political opponents of the Reagan Revolution followed in their path and enough of them were in Congress in 1983 to form the Congressional Populist Caucus.
"It is political malpractice to abdicate so much of America’s heartland."
These 14 congresspersons adopted the populist moniker and fought against corporatized free trade deals, the high Federal Reserve interest rates, plant closings, anti-union legislation, and farm foreclosures. And they did so in alliance with, and in support of, dozens of community groups including abortion and gay rights organizations.
But in 1990, a powerful segment of the Democratic establishment created the centrist Democratic Leadership Council and made a firm decision to embrace corporations, agribusiness, free trade, and Wall Street deregulation, while moving away from labor unions and family farmers. In the 1992 presidential primaries, Bill Clinton was the Democratic Leadership Council’s representative, while Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa represented the progressive populists. As we know, Clinton won.
In When the Democrats Lost the Heartland Corey Haala shows that this turn to neoliberalism was not the inevitable result of technological advances, nor was it predetermined by the iron laws of capitalism. Rather, it was a victory by one interest group within the Democratic Party over another, and the consequences were felt immediately.
After the centrists won, they starved the Great Plains Democrats of funds and legislative victories, leaving them with little to offer their constituents—the populist-oriented farmers and workers struggling to survive against corporate power.
Working-class voters and family farmers sensed that the party’s priorities were changing long before Chuck Schumer said the quiet part out loud:
“For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs of Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”
The same logic could easily have been applied to the Great Plains.
Abandoned by the party they once considered their own, many Democrats turned to the Republicans to vent their anger at a system that was screwing them.
Rebuild the old or build something new?
Despite this fundamental ideological shift, it’s hard for progressives to move away from the Democratic Party, especially given the rise of MAGA. Don’t we have to do everything we can to support Democratic candidates in order to win back Congress and stop the fascist takeover of America?
Of course, defeating the MAGA Republicans is crucial. And the fortunes of the Democrats are a real concern in blue and marginal districts where new seats can be won and old seats can be held. Third-party candidates in those competitive districts would only serve as spoilers likely to help elect MAGA Republicans.
But that’s not the case in the ruby red states in which the Democrats have given up on 40 percent of the local races, and where they lose congressional seats by 25 percent or more.
In these areas there is nothing to spoil.
It is political malpractice to abdicate so much of America’s heartland. One strategy is for progressives to recapture the Democratic Party in the Great Plains and elsewhere, infuse it with new energy, change its neoliberal brand, and run new working-class candidates across the board.
But a new survey by the Center for Working Class Politics shows that many of those who have given up on Trump show little interest in voting for Democrats. And a recent New York Times/Siena survey reports 43 percent of registered voters nationally are dissatisfied with both parties. That’s a hell of a headwind to overcome, given how tarnished the Democratic Party brand has become.
Something new that isn’t blue?
Dan Osborn’s race for the US Senate in Nebraska points in another direction. This former local labor leader is running against both parties, what he calls “the two-party doom loop,” in an unabashed progressive populist campaign—the Nebraska Fairness Plan. As he says “It’s not a party’s platform or written by consultants. It’s written for the people who punch a clock and wonder why nobody in Washington is fighting for them.”
Osborn is appealing to independents, disaffected Democrats, and even disgruntled Republicans. So far, the race is a toss-up in a state where Republicans outnumber Democrats by nearly two to one. The Democratic nominee, Cindy Burbank, has said she will avoid playing the spoiler by dropping out before ballots are printed if she doesn’t see a path to victory.
Osborn’s effort (and the polling we report on in The Billionaires Have Two Parties, We Need a Party of Our Own) strongly suggests that the best path forward in the Great Plains districts largely abanoned by the Democrats is to create a new organization by and for working people to run independent candidates.
That requires a break from the Democrats. Osborn says he will not caucus with either major party, and attacks both billionaire parties that have left so many working people high and dry. Independent working-class candidates will need to take strong progressive populist positions that protect jobs, create new ones, and save what’s left of family farming—positions with strong support across the Great Plains.
Working people can build independent political power even in places where the Democratic Party has ceased to function as a competitive second party.
And progressive political activists will need to get comfortable with turning neoliberalism on its head—putting people instead of capital in the center of our economy. That means promoting real job creation, not public-private partnerships that enrich corporations and rarely produce new jobs.
We will need to promote strong policies like “the right to a job at a living wage, provided by the public sector if the private sector fails to do so.”
As radical as this policy seems, polling shows again and again that it is very popular. People want stable, secure jobs even if the government has to step in to provide them.
Rebuilding progressive populism in the Great Plains requires the kind of boldness that challenged corporate power from the 1880s onward. Those populists were able to grow their appeal nationally, and their efforts led to progressive reforms like the graduated income tax, anti-monopoly moves against the robber barons, the formation of public universities and colleges, and even a public bank in North Dakota, among other successes.
We must escape the corporatist framework that governs today’s Democratic Party, which appeals to wealthy donors, admires the billionaire class, and has given up on the working class it considers socially backward.
Can it be done? Not quickly. Not easily. But the Great Plains once produced some of the most powerful populist movements in American history that challenged concentrated wealth, built durable institutions, and won reforms that reshaped the country. We won’t know what is possible until we try again.
We need to leave our blue bubbles, talk face-to-face with alienated working people, and rebuild an independent politics rooted in work, community, and economic security.
And really, where better to spread populism than in America’s heartland, “where the wind comes sweeping down the plain.”
If we dare to act boldly, perhaps we can once again become the wind.
*****
The questions raised in this essay are explored in much greater depth in my new book, The Billionaires Have Two Parties, We Need One of Our Own: How Working People Can Build Independent Political Power.
The book examines why so many working people have abandoned the Democratic Party, why independents are now the largest political bloc in many states, what voters in the heartland actually want from politics, and whether a new working-class political organization can be built without acting as a spoiler.
Drawing on new polling and historical research, it argues that working people can build independent political power even in places where the Democratic Party has ceased to function as a competitive second party.
If these arguments resonate with you, I hope you’ll take a look at the book.
All book proceeds support our Reversing Runaway Inequality educational programs for working people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP Lawmaker Distances Himself From Trump Slush Fund After Angry Pushback at Town Hall
"I do not think we should be creating a fund for people that commit physical violence against law enforcement," said US Rep. Mike Flood.
May 27, 2026
A Republican congressman on Tuesday tried to distance himself from President Donald Trump's $1.8 billion slush fund after being grilled about it at a town hall appearance.
During the town hall, Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.) was asked for his opinion about the fund, which was created by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) as a "settlement" for Trump's $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) over the 2019 leaking of his federal tax returns.
As constructed, the fund is set up to pay Trump allies who have been prosecuted for assorted criminal offenses, including the violent storming of the US Capitol building on January 6, 2021.
Flood was quick to state that he never voted to approve the fund, while emphasizing that "I do not think one penny of any fund should ever go to any January 6th insurrectionist that was in the Capitol on January 6, 2021."
"I do not think we should be creating a fund for people that commit physical violence against law enforcement," Flood added.
The crowd applauded the congressman in response.
GOP Rep. Mike Flood is clearly not happy about the anti-weaponization fund, but says he will follow Senate Rs on oversight issues
“I do not think one penny of any fund should ever go to any January 6th insurrectionist that was in the Capitol on January 6, 2021.” pic.twitter.com/QzhrLQQTXt
— Matt Rice (@matt____rice) May 26, 2026
According to a Tuesday CNN report, Flood throughout the event was jeered by constituents, who pelted him with questions not only about the Trump slush fund, but the war with Iran and the president's proposed luxury ballroom, for which he is seeking $1 billion in taxpayer funding.
Flood is far from the only Republican squeamish about Trump's slush fund, as even GOP hardliners have expressed reservations.
During an episode of his "Verdict" podcast last week, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) revealed that Republican senators erupted in fury when acting Attorney General Todd Blanche tried to justify the fund during a luncheon.
"Fiery does not begin to cut it,” Cruz said of the meeting. “My guess is there are probably 45 senators in the room, at least half of them were blasting the attorney general, and they were pissed. There were multiple senators yelling at the attorney general, saying this feels like self-dealing.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
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
With GOP 'Looking at' Tyson's Alleged Market Manipulation, Nebraska Candidate Osborn Says 'Enforce the Law'
"Candidate for Senate Dan Osborn is already doing more for the people affected by the Tyson closure than the current Nebraska senators," said a worker rights advocate.
Dec 12, 2025
Instead of "another investigation" into possible wrongdoing by meatpacking giant Tyson, independent US Senate candidate Dan Osborn is demanding that elected officials in Nebraska simply "pick up the damn phone" and demand action from the Trump administration following the company's closure of one of the nation's largest meat processing plants in what one antitrust expert said was a clear-cut case of market manipulation.
Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.), whom Osborn is challenging in the 2026 election, said Thursday that his team is "taking a look at any allegation of wrongdoing" by Tyson, weeks after the company announced its massive plant in Lexington, Nebraska is set to close in January—putting more than 3,000 people in a town of 11,000 out of work.
The closure comes months after Tyson boosted its stock buybacks and following an announcement that its adjusted operating income had increased by 26% compared to 2024. Tyson controls about 80% of the US beef market along with three other companies, and the Department of Justice is investigating whether the four corporations are colluding to keep beef prices high.
Despite near-record high prices in the industry, Tyson said last week it was closing the Lexington plant and scaling back operations at its facility in Amarillo, Texas to "right-size its beef business and position it for long-term success."
Basel Musharbash, an antitrust lawyer at Antimonopoly Counsel in Paris, Texas, attended a press conference with Osborn across the street from the Lexington plant this week and said that the "legal analysis here is pretty straightforward" regarding whether Tyson has engaged in market manipulation.
“The Lexington plant accounts for around 5% of the nation’s cattle," said Musharbash. "By shutting down a plant that slaughters such a large portion of the cattle in this region and the country, Tyson will single-handedly reshape the nation’s cattle markets from boom to bust.”
Ranchers will be forced "to accept lower prices, and Tyson will be able to make higher profits," he said.
Osborn and Musharbash say Tyson has broken the 2021 Packers and Stockyards Act, which prohibits meatpackers from engaging "in any course of business or [doing] any act for the purpose or with the effect of manipulating or controlling prices."
Addressing Ricketts on social media, Osborn said Tyson workers "don’t need another useless congressional report that leads to nothing. We need ACTION!"
"Tyson workers and Nebraska ranchers need you to demand that [US Agriculture] Secretary Brooke Rollins immediately initiate an action to hold Tyson accountable for any market manipulation," he said.
The USDA told the Nebraska Examiner this week that it is monitoring "the closure of the plant to ensure compliance with the Packers and Stockyards Act," but Musharbash said Rollins can and should "compel Tyson to either keep the plant open or sell the plant to an upstart rival who will introduce honest competition into this cartelized industry."
"There is nothing left for Ricketts to 'look into,' and Nebraskans certainly don’t need some intern on Ricketts’ staff to write a research paper about this issue for the next six months while Tyson hollows out the Lexington community for its selfish gain," added Musharbash. "Nebraska—and this whole country—deserves better leaders than this."
Osborn pointed out Thursday that Ricketts has taken more than $70,000 in campaign donations from Tyson.
“The people of Lexington need their elected officials to fight now more than ever,” Osborn said at the press conference this week. “The law that’s been on the books for over 100 years should be enforced... So pick up the damn phone, call Brooke Rollins, and get the USDA to enforce the law.”
By visiting Lexington and speaking out against Tyson's gutting of thousands of jobs, former Federal Trade Commission member Alvaro Bedoya said that "candidate for Senate Dan Osborn is already doing more for the people affected by the Tyson closure than the current Nebraska senators."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Rigged System': Pro-Union Nebraska Candidate Shreds Private Equity for Jacking Up Home Prices
"Hard work should lead to home ownership, not permanent rental payments to corporate landlords," said Osborn.
Jul 21, 2025
Independent Senate candidate Dan Osborn, a mechanic and former labor union leader, posted a lengthy thread on the social media platform X on Monday in which he discussed the role that private equity firms play in increasing the cost of housing in the United States.
Osborn, who earlier this month announced he'd be running against Republican incumbent Sen. Pete Ricketts, drew a line between the lack of affordable housing and private equity firms that have gone on a buying spree of residential properties in recent years.
" Wall Street discovered they could make billions by turning homes into commodities," Osborn explained. "Since 2008, private equity firms and hedge funds have gobbled up hundreds of thousands of single-family homes—the exact starter homes that young families used to buy. Because of their financial strength and ability to pay in cash, larger investors can out-compete first-time homebuyers, making it harder for real people without millions to buy homes in neighborhoods where these corporate giants are active."
Osborn then pointed to reporting that the Flat Water Free Press did three years ago about how real estate firm VineBrook Homes aggressively bought up properties in Omaha, Nebraska, and then proceeded to evict current residents while also jacking up rents.
"From January 2020 through September 2021, VineBrook bought more Douglas County single family homes than anyone else, according to data from the Douglas County Registrar and Assessor of Deeds," the publication wrote. "All told, VineBrook Homes has bought up some 250 houses in the metro area since October 2019, a company spokesman said."
Osborn made the case that what VineBrook has done in Omaha is part of a concerted strategy by investors across the country to buy up single-family houses and raise rents for tenants. He then linked to a recent report from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution from earlier this year that found 30% of single family homes in the Atlanta metro area are now owned by investors.
"The shift to these corporate landlords almost NEVER brings an improvement in housing conditions or rent prices," Osborn charged. "New layers of bureaucracy and random new fees always seem to appear... And back in Nebraska, here's what the VineBrook situation was like for the North Omaha residents: '...tenants complained about unresolved maintenance issues, unfounded evictions, aggressive rent collection tactics, and poor customer service.'"
Osborn emphasized that he was "open" to a number of ideas to remedy this situation, including the removal of "unfair tax advantages that give private equity an edge over individual homebuyers"; ending "taxpayer subsidies for giant corporate mergers that create housing monopolies"; barring foreign investors from "buying up American neighborhoods"; and enacting "reasonable limits on how many homes Wall Street can control in any one community."
"Every kid deserves what we had—a real shot at the American Dream," he wrote in conclusion. "Hard work should lead to home ownership, not permanent rental payments to corporate landlords. Time to fix this rigged system."
Osborn kicked off his Senate bid two weeks ago by ripping into the budget megabill recently passed by Republicans that slashed roughly $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade and enacted tax cuts that are heavily tilted toward the wealthiest taxpayers.
He launched his campaign following an unexpectedly close race with Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) last year, which he lost by fewer than 7 points despite being heavily outspent.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ripping GOP Megabill's Attack on Medicaid, Pro-Labor Dan Osborn Runs for Senate in Nebraska
"We're seeing tax cuts for the billionaires at the expense of workers, people that are struggling to get by," Osborn said.
Jul 08, 2025
Mechanic and former labor union leader Dan Osborn, who last year ran for the United States Senate as an independent in deep-red Nebraska and came within 63,000 votes of defeating incumbent Republican Sen. Deb Fischer, is getting back into the ring.
Osborn announced on Tuesday that he will be running for Senate again next year against Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.), whom he lampooned in his opening campaign video as "Wall Street Pete."
🚨MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT🚨
Ok. You've all convinced me. I'm in.
I'm running for Senate against billionaire Pete Ricketts In Nebraska.
This race represents the foundational battle taking place in America right now:
The Billionaire Class vs. The Working Class
Who's with me? pic.twitter.com/QQmcq4H3bl
— Dan Osborn (@osbornforne) July 8, 2025
In an interview with New York Times opinion columnist Michelle Goldberg, Osborn said that he believes he can make the recently passed GOP budget bill a key issue in a state that has not elected a non-Republican to serve in the Senate since Democrat Ben Nelson defeated Ricketts back in 2006.
"They were sold a bill of goods that if you work hard in this country, your government is going to be there, to have a level playing field for you to get ahead," Osborn explained to Goldberg. "But now we're seeing tax cuts for the billionaires at the expense of workers, people that are struggling to get by."
In fact, The New York Times reports that Osborn is resurrecting many of the class-based economic themes that he deployed in a race that he lost by just six-and-a-half points despite being in a state that President Donald Trump won by more than 20 points.
"If you're truly a party for the working class, your candidates are going to be mostly working-class," he told the Times. "I like to call it paycheck populism, because I get a paycheck once a week. I know how much money comes in. I know much money goes out. And I know how much harder it is to live now versus eight years ago."
In his interview with the paper, Osborn once again made sure to bring up the just-passed GOP budget bill.
"We can talk about the Big Beautiful Bill and the fact that it is going to continue funneling money toward the top by taking from social services, and healthcare from hard-working people," he said. "I doubt there's a bunch of billionaires that are in line for Medicaid."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy