top of page
Search
Writer's pictureHowie Klein

There's Only One Senate Race In America Where Voters Can Defeat Schumer And McConnell



In 2020, Trump won Nebraska in a walk—556,846 (58.2%) to 374,583 (39.2%). Trump won all 93 of Nebraska’s counties other than Douglas (Omaha) and Lancaster (Lincoln). This cycle, Trump is on track to win again. The 538 polling average shows him up 55.9% to 39.3%… pretty hopeless. Also hopeless is the Senate race pitting former gov. Pete Ricketts beating Democrat Preston Love 56% to 38%. This cycle, Nebraska is the only state in the union with two Senate races— and both with incumbents running running for reelection, Ricketts and unpopular me-too-MAGat Deb Fischer.


The Fischer race doesn’t have a Democrat running. Dan Osborn is a populist labor leader who isn’t taking any orders— or support— from either Chuck Schumer or Mitch McConnell and is in a see-saw dead heat with Fischer. Thousands of people planning to vote for Trump and Ricketts are also planning to vote for Osborn.


He’s an exceptionally good candidate and she’s and exceptionally bad one. Yesterday, former congressman Marie Newman (D-IL) compared GOP billionaire spending (the robber barons) to Nebraska support from the state’s grassroots. Start with this:



“[W]ere the Carnegies, Vanderbilts and Rockefellers who bribed and schemed their way to favor with Congress allowing them to create monopolies, terribly different than some similar folks at the top of the economic heap today? Immediately, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg come to mind.” Oh, absolutely. Newman continued that “Over 85% of Congress takes corporate PAC money and in return, members of congress frequently are heavily influenced by these corporations. Corporate PACs are the reason our healthcare is unaffordable, we do not have any real transformative climate change legislation, pricing gouging is omnipresent, and we have a housing crisis. How can we change this? Pass a law ending corporate PAC money or start a third independent party that does not accept corporate PAC money. Gasp! How could we possibly? Well, I do think both options are getting closer, but I want to spend a minute today on a very interesting situation arising forcefully and organically that might act as a pilot program for an independent movement: the current Nebraska race for Senate.


“Osborn,” wrote Newman, “is not a standard candidate. He is a union leader with a working-class focus who has rejected the Democratic Party’s endorsement and is vying for a seat Fischer has held since 2012 in a Republican-dominated state. And, even though Fischer has raked in $2 million in corporate PAC money, Osborn’s campaign has brought in more than $7.95 million, with almost entirely small donations, outraising the $6.49 million Fischer has pulled in. What is going on in Nebraska? While I’ve watched this race closely and the related coverage, nobody knows for sure. I will say every time I hear a voter in Nebraska speak, they indicate they want their lawmakers to support small business, farmers, increasing the minimum wage, families and unions. Equally as frequently, voters in Nebraska are fed up with both parties for a bunch of reasons including the fact that they let corporations and money run Congress and our legislation process. It seems, like many Americans, they would like to see folks who have jobs like mechanics, local shop owners, teachers, nurses, run and win races for Congress. In short, they want corporate money out and real folks in.”


Please consider a last minute Get Out The Vote contribution for Osborn here. This could well be the most important Senate race this cycle… not because Osborn will play nice with Schumer, but because we won’t.

96 views

3 Comments


ptoomey
7 hours ago

Osborn's campaign is a repudiation of everything that $chumer's $enate Dems stand for. It reminds me of Paul Wellstone's epic 1990 MN-Sen campaign. I still get a lump in my throat whenever I think about Wellstone and how we lost him. It would be amazing to have someone like him now with Osborn. Plus, Osborn likely would have some actual clout in a closely divided Senate.

Like
Guest
19 minutes ago
Replying to

he would have no clout at all. and you know it. In fact you quite succinctly said why in your first sentence.


The Wellstone simile is close. But Feingold was also a close comparison and he didn't die... he got UNelected. And failed again. MI isn't WI, but it's possible that Wellstone may have pissed off Harriet Reid, $cummer et al (their owners, actually) and would have been well and truly "Graysoned".

Like

Guest
12 hours ago

voters in Nebraska are fed up with both parties for a bunch of reasons including the fact that they let corporations and money run Congress and our legislation process.


quite astute, those nebraskians. would that the rest of america be so enlightened.


If I lived there, he'd get my vote for sure. But I also realize that he'd be 1% of a body that is 99% corrupt careerists and 50% pussies. They'll retain their sacrament of the filibuster as the money's firewall against anything useful being done. Also, if he refuses to caucus with corrupt pussy democraps, he'd almost surely throw the leadershit to the nazis to control the docket. And if he decides to make it 50-50 for…


Like
bottom of page