In 2024, Dan Osborn ran a stealth campaign against Deb Fischer, campaigning as an Independent and coming within a surprisingly close margin in a race that should not have been competitive. Now he’s running again, this time against Nebraska’s junior U.S. Senator, Pete Ricketts. While Osborn still campaigns as a “lifelong independent,” he is clearly the candidate for Nebraska Democrats, with party leadership endorsing his campaign a few weeks ago.
On Monday, Osborn held a town hall at the Lucky Bucket Brewery in La Vista. One guest asked which party Osborn would caucus with if elected to the U.S. Senate.
“In the current landscape of politics, there’s only one party that I can see myself caucusing with,” Osborn responded. When the guest pressed which party that would be, Osborn admitted, “not Pete Ricketts’ party.”
On most issues, Osborn seemed to be a boilerplate Democratic candidate. He’s pro-choice on abortion and against school choice in education. He also wants Citizens United overturned.
On other issues, Osborn played to both sides. He criticized Joe Biden for “falling down on the line” on illegal immigration and stated, “without a border, we don’t have a country.” At the same time, he was highly critical of ICE. “I try to support ICE as to the essence and meaning of why it exists. But what we’re seeing right now? Take your masks off, chicken shit. If you have to wear a mask to do your job, you’re probably doing something wrong.”
On taxes, Osborn criticized corporations for sending profits overseas to avoid paying taxes, but he also criticized tariffs as taxes that get passed along to consumers, citing the increasing cost of goods household essentials like water heaters.
Osborn also expressed horror at the attacks on Oct. 7, 2023, and he said that Israel has a right to exist. At the same time, Osborn said that the United States should no longer be sending weapons to Israel. “To think there’s kids walking around without limbs, and tens of thousands of children who have died, by bombs that say ‘Made in the USA’ on them, I’ve got a problem with that,” Osborn said.
Whatever Osborn’s positions, he understands the need for triangulation—at least rhetorically—and aligning himself with traditional working-class Democrats of the past rather than the “woke” left of recent years. There was no talk in his stump speech about “privilege,” “justice,” or “equity.” No one in the Q&A brought up questions about “January 6,” “Russian collusion,” or “dangers to our democracy.”
Osborn’s focus was primarily economic, addressing everyday financial struggles, particularly for young people, such as the cost of a new home, rising healthcare expenses, and the national debt. He styled himself as a populist in the mold of 1890s reformers, comparing Elon Musk and Pete Ricketts to Gilded Age figures like Vanderbilt and J.P. Morgan.
The attendees reflected a Democratic Party of a bygone era. The crowd of nearly 100 guests consisted mostly of gray-haired baby boomers. One woman at my table seemed to enjoy reliving the years of Vietnam War protests, proudly showing me a photo of herself in a crowd at the recent “No Kings” protest in Council Bluffs.
The tone contrasted sharply with a town hall held by Beto O’Rourke in Omaha two weeks ago. O’Rourke used apocalyptic rhetoric, warning of democracy’s end in America, comparing Republicans to Nazis, and stating, “We have to care more about power than we care about anything else.”
Osborn recognized the country’s polarized political climate and sought to lower the temperature. “I think we could all agree that our political landscape is polarized right now. It seems to be this winner-take-all philosophy,” he said. “We have to stop fighting with each other. I get it, we’re angry, we like to blame people for what we’re seeing. But on a day-to-day basis, I give people grace because I don’t know what they go through in their daily lives.”
But a “winner-take-all” mindset seems to dominate a sharply divided Congress. In 2021, when the Senate was split 50-50, Democrats tried to eliminate the filibuster. Moderate Democrats Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema broke with the other 48, voting with Republicans to keep the filibuster in place. The move to maintain Senate norms outraged others Democrats, and both Manchin and Sinema left the party and the Senate by 2025.
During the Q&A, I asked Osborn whether he would support codifying the filibuster to prevent a simple majority from overturning it. Though he hadn’t thought much about the issue, he acknowledged the Founders’ intention to make laws difficult to pass in Congress and said he would entertain the idea.
The real test for Osborn’s independence will come on issues like this, where he will have to choose between party and principles. Why he doesn’t choose to run as a “normal” Democrat in these abnormal times will be a question for the next town hall.
