Osborn, the populist independent who ran a surprisingly close campaign for a Senate seat in Nebraska last year, is back for another run in the 2026 midterms.
In many respects, Democrats have been unable to move the ball down the field. There are many steps needed over many cycles to get back in this game, and they are incapable. Some even think this a good time for a Mamdani, and policies that are dead on arrival in this hyper-capitalistic environment where the greed goblins own the field so hard that any hint of progressivism on the left is blown to bits instantly.
It's not even close to the right time for the left to take their shot.
I know Dan Osborne has to compete in Nebraska and good luck to him, but he seemed to me like a combination of earnest and disingenuous (if I can use a big word like that). Biden did do a bad job at the border, but near the end he supported the border bill, one that Republican Senator Lankford had worked on, and then was tanked because of Trump. Osborne acts like that never happened. Dems would also vote to restrict stock trading- Trump doesn’t want it. Dems care about Farmers and small towns, but they have been demonized on social issues. I read an article where a man didn’t want Green New Deal projects, but would like Red Deal projects just like them. I think real economic pain is the one thing that could matter.
Enjoyed this interview very much and I even took your advice and listened to the entire TC speech, which I would typically avoid. I suspect that our only path out of this MAGA hellscape is to come together on economic issues. Personally, I am sick to death of the emphasis on culture war topics, which are used to manipulate people into a tribal frenzy.
Apropos of nothing, it turns out if you search on Act Blue (Find a Candidate) for US Senate + Nebraska, Dan Osborn's name pops up. Easy to donate if you already use that tool.
Regarding the Covid-19 pandemic, every level failed at policy because few people listened to experts. I watched Vincent Racaniello's podcast This Week in Virology (at microbe.tv/twiv) and so learned the latest FACTS, objective reality, that was not part of policy making. I suggest that people go back to the pandemic dates and listen to some episodes, including those with Dr. Griffen because you will get a good view of the facts at various points in time that allow you to compare the a) policy failings and (b) the politization of the pandemic.
Haven’t watched, but responding to what people hate about Democrats.
We gotta get away from the “issues” thing. People don’t hate Democrats because of issue positions. They hate Democrats because they see Democrats as weirdos, as people who are bringing about cultural changes that leave “working people” (meaning less educated, more religious) disoriented in a world that’s changing fast.
Ok yeah, “people” don’t like trans girls spiking volleyballs on “real” girls. But (a) Democrats aren’t “for” that anyway. And (b) that issue is merely symbolic. The image of a nonexistent 6-10 muscled dress-wearing dude dunking on a hapless girl is a symbol of a culture that feels weird and alien to Evangelical rurals: where the person making their coffee at Starbucks obviously used to be a boy, where mermaids are black people when everyone knows they’re white, where atheists are visible everywhere, where AI is doing schoolwork for their kids…and their little dopamine devices tell them it’s all brought to you by Democrats. Democrats are ushering in this alien world they can’t wrap their minds around.
Maybe a Democrat can sympathize with them about these things, but there’s not a government solution for the “problem” of black mermaids. It’s not a political issue.
People don’t vote on issues. They vote for who they like and who makes them feel comfortable, who seems like “my kind of person.” That’s it. Period. Democrats need to understand that first, and politicians just can’t get themselves to believe issues don’t matter.
If I support letting certain approved trans athletes play on girls’ soccer teams, but at the same time I can convince working people that I too feel alienated by a fast-changing world—and of course I share their religious views—I’ll win their vote, because the cultural affinity will trump the issue position every time. Yes, it’s easier if I oppose the trans athlete, but not because they care about that issue, but because my position on it tells them “this is a regular person like me, not a weirdo.”
It’s not the issues. It’s personality and culture. Now, do Democrats have enough people with the right traits? I doubt it. And I don’t know if I want to turn the party over to evangelicals who go around winking at racism and disparaging trans people as freaks. Because I’m afraid that’s what it takes.
The problem, once again, are the feckless Clinton Democrats. They stand for nothing or if they do they simply cannot speak to working people. Also, look back at your Chris Murphey interview and his wimpy view of dealing with Republicans. The Republicans are THE enemy! Treat them as such. They have been redistributing the earnings of the middle class with their tax cuts for the rich with the full support of those working class morons because of their success in arguing the lies that "taxation is theft" and that the Democrats are simply redistributing white people's earning to welfare blacks.
We need FDR progressives to replace the feckless Democrats. That will do it.
Osborn comes across as someone who doesn’t need to perform authenticity—he just is. That matters, especially in a climate where so many voters are sick of rehearsed talking points and corporate polish. He doesn’t hit every note I’d want from a progressive candidate, but he’s showing up in spaces a lot of Dems have abandoned. And that could make all the difference. I’ll be watching this one closely.
Osborn lost me when he said the democrats aren't concerned with small business owners and small farmers -- then was mute about republican policies that undermine everything rural/small town American. Hypocrisy and bias are not inspiring.
I's part of his "independence" from the political parties that he needs to tell people what they expect to hear in his part of the country. He will get nowhere in electoral politics if he suggests that Republicans do not care about small business and small farmers.
I thought Dan Osborn was thoughtful, authentic and concerned with improving middle and working class lives. I would be overjoyed if he beat Pete Rickets for Senate, even though he I don’t agree on everything. My fellow Democrats need to get over their self-defeating purity tests. Politics is the art of the possible.
Re: Democrats elected representatives vs Democrats- unless we recognize that we need to be representing people rather than polling and also be aspirational, we will lose. I feel more comfortable with an elected who acknowledges that we are not in 100% agreement, but will work to represent our area (and not my political donors) within a bigger tent. That explains why Osborne is running as independent as well as why some in the discussion think Bernie could have won.
I wish this interview could be reposted so the public can see it, missing the rant in the beginning. I just watched it, and I'm a couple days late as usual, but it seems like it would be really great for as many people as possible to see the Osborne interview.
There is a certain element of bothsidesism in Osborn's pitch, which is fine, but the more troubling issue to me is the suggestion I think Tim is implicitly endorsing that a populist like him can appeal to Trump voters without adopting the culture war positions that so obviously animate the base. For example, I just don't see how he gets very many of them if he uses immigration Ianguage similar to what he says in this interview. I guess he can have some appeal to independents, and maybe if there are enough MAGA Firebreathers who think Ricketts is a squish who don't vote for him (or stay home), Osborn could squeak in. Here's the real question, though: are the Dems in Nebraska going to run a candidate? If they do, I think Osborn is toast.
In many respects, Democrats have been unable to move the ball down the field. There are many steps needed over many cycles to get back in this game, and they are incapable. Some even think this a good time for a Mamdani, and policies that are dead on arrival in this hyper-capitalistic environment where the greed goblins own the field so hard that any hint of progressivism on the left is blown to bits instantly.
It's not even close to the right time for the left to take their shot.
I know Dan Osborne has to compete in Nebraska and good luck to him, but he seemed to me like a combination of earnest and disingenuous (if I can use a big word like that). Biden did do a bad job at the border, but near the end he supported the border bill, one that Republican Senator Lankford had worked on, and then was tanked because of Trump. Osborne acts like that never happened. Dems would also vote to restrict stock trading- Trump doesn’t want it. Dems care about Farmers and small towns, but they have been demonized on social issues. I read an article where a man didn’t want Green New Deal projects, but would like Red Deal projects just like them. I think real economic pain is the one thing that could matter.
Enjoyed this interview very much and I even took your advice and listened to the entire TC speech, which I would typically avoid. I suspect that our only path out of this MAGA hellscape is to come together on economic issues. Personally, I am sick to death of the emphasis on culture war topics, which are used to manipulate people into a tribal frenzy.
A lot of people are upset with the democrats because they aren’t fighting more!
Apropos of nothing, it turns out if you search on Act Blue (Find a Candidate) for US Senate + Nebraska, Dan Osborn's name pops up. Easy to donate if you already use that tool.
Regarding the Covid-19 pandemic, every level failed at policy because few people listened to experts. I watched Vincent Racaniello's podcast This Week in Virology (at microbe.tv/twiv) and so learned the latest FACTS, objective reality, that was not part of policy making. I suggest that people go back to the pandemic dates and listen to some episodes, including those with Dr. Griffen because you will get a good view of the facts at various points in time that allow you to compare the a) policy failings and (b) the politization of the pandemic.
Haven’t watched, but responding to what people hate about Democrats.
We gotta get away from the “issues” thing. People don’t hate Democrats because of issue positions. They hate Democrats because they see Democrats as weirdos, as people who are bringing about cultural changes that leave “working people” (meaning less educated, more religious) disoriented in a world that’s changing fast.
Ok yeah, “people” don’t like trans girls spiking volleyballs on “real” girls. But (a) Democrats aren’t “for” that anyway. And (b) that issue is merely symbolic. The image of a nonexistent 6-10 muscled dress-wearing dude dunking on a hapless girl is a symbol of a culture that feels weird and alien to Evangelical rurals: where the person making their coffee at Starbucks obviously used to be a boy, where mermaids are black people when everyone knows they’re white, where atheists are visible everywhere, where AI is doing schoolwork for their kids…and their little dopamine devices tell them it’s all brought to you by Democrats. Democrats are ushering in this alien world they can’t wrap their minds around.
Maybe a Democrat can sympathize with them about these things, but there’s not a government solution for the “problem” of black mermaids. It’s not a political issue.
People don’t vote on issues. They vote for who they like and who makes them feel comfortable, who seems like “my kind of person.” That’s it. Period. Democrats need to understand that first, and politicians just can’t get themselves to believe issues don’t matter.
If I support letting certain approved trans athletes play on girls’ soccer teams, but at the same time I can convince working people that I too feel alienated by a fast-changing world—and of course I share their religious views—I’ll win their vote, because the cultural affinity will trump the issue position every time. Yes, it’s easier if I oppose the trans athlete, but not because they care about that issue, but because my position on it tells them “this is a regular person like me, not a weirdo.”
It’s not the issues. It’s personality and culture. Now, do Democrats have enough people with the right traits? I doubt it. And I don’t know if I want to turn the party over to evangelicals who go around winking at racism and disparaging trans people as freaks. Because I’m afraid that’s what it takes.
The problem, once again, are the feckless Clinton Democrats. They stand for nothing or if they do they simply cannot speak to working people. Also, look back at your Chris Murphey interview and his wimpy view of dealing with Republicans. The Republicans are THE enemy! Treat them as such. They have been redistributing the earnings of the middle class with their tax cuts for the rich with the full support of those working class morons because of their success in arguing the lies that "taxation is theft" and that the Democrats are simply redistributing white people's earning to welfare blacks.
We need FDR progressives to replace the feckless Democrats. That will do it.
Osborn comes across as someone who doesn’t need to perform authenticity—he just is. That matters, especially in a climate where so many voters are sick of rehearsed talking points and corporate polish. He doesn’t hit every note I’d want from a progressive candidate, but he’s showing up in spaces a lot of Dems have abandoned. And that could make all the difference. I’ll be watching this one closely.
Osborn lost me when he said the democrats aren't concerned with small business owners and small farmers -- then was mute about republican policies that undermine everything rural/small town American. Hypocrisy and bias are not inspiring.
I's part of his "independence" from the political parties that he needs to tell people what they expect to hear in his part of the country. He will get nowhere in electoral politics if he suggests that Republicans do not care about small business and small farmers.
Telling people what they expect to hear is inconsistent with his authenticity schitck and no different from any other elected.
I thought Dan Osborn was thoughtful, authentic and concerned with improving middle and working class lives. I would be overjoyed if he beat Pete Rickets for Senate, even though he I don’t agree on everything. My fellow Democrats need to get over their self-defeating purity tests. Politics is the art of the possible.
Re: Democrats elected representatives vs Democrats- unless we recognize that we need to be representing people rather than polling and also be aspirational, we will lose. I feel more comfortable with an elected who acknowledges that we are not in 100% agreement, but will work to represent our area (and not my political donors) within a bigger tent. That explains why Osborne is running as independent as well as why some in the discussion think Bernie could have won.
I wish this interview could be reposted so the public can see it, missing the rant in the beginning. I just watched it, and I'm a couple days late as usual, but it seems like it would be really great for as many people as possible to see the Osborne interview.
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too
Imagine all the people
Livin' life in peace
You
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Impressive! Will be keeping an eye on Dan Osborn. Thank you, Tim!
There is a certain element of bothsidesism in Osborn's pitch, which is fine, but the more troubling issue to me is the suggestion I think Tim is implicitly endorsing that a populist like him can appeal to Trump voters without adopting the culture war positions that so obviously animate the base. For example, I just don't see how he gets very many of them if he uses immigration Ianguage similar to what he says in this interview. I guess he can have some appeal to independents, and maybe if there are enough MAGA Firebreathers who think Ricketts is a squish who don't vote for him (or stay home), Osborn could squeak in. Here's the real question, though: are the Dems in Nebraska going to run a candidate? If they do, I think Osborn is toast.
I expect that the Democrats will not run a candidate; they didn't the last time Osborn was running for Senate.