Who the Hell Is Cornhusker Majority?

And why did a brand-new political group suddenly show up with millions of dollars to tell Nebraskans that Dan Osborn isn’t really Dan Osborn?

By Christopher Moore

I got something interesting in the mail this week.
A cereal box.

Not an actual cereal box, obviously. Political junk mail designed to look like one.

Big blue background. Dan Osborn’s face sticking out of a bowl of cereal. Giant yellow letters screaming:

DAN OSBORN — DEMOCRAT.

Then:

“Same Democrat ingredients. Different box.”

Apparently somebody spent actual money designing this.

And because I’m apparently incapable of throwing political propaganda directly into the trash like a normal human being, I started reading the fine print.

That led me down a rabbit hole.

Because the organization paying for this stuff calls itself Cornhusker Majority.

Sounds Nebraska as hell.

Probably a bunch of farmers sitting around a VFW hall drinking coffee and worrying about the direction of the state, right?

Well…

Not exactly.

And this story gets considerably more interesting once you stop looking at the giant scary words and start reading the ingredients.

First: Who the hell is Cornhusker Majority?

Cornhusker Majority appears to be brand new.

Axios reported on September 15 that the Republican super PAC had apparently been created only the previous week and immediately jumped into Nebraska’s Senate race with an initial $1.4 million advertising buy supporting Republican Senator Pete Ricketts.

Axios found something else interesting.

Cornhusker Majority’s website used the same Google Analytics code associated with other entities connected to the Senate Leadership Fund, the enormous national Republican super PAC devoted to electing Republicans to the Senate.

The Senate Leadership Fund did not respond to Axios’ request for comment, so let’s be precise:
That establishes a digital connection, not proof that SLF secretly owns or controls Cornhusker Majority.

But that’s one hell of a coincidence for a brand-new organization with “Cornhusker” in its name.

The initial advertising offensive reportedly grew to about $3.8 million. FCC political files show Cornhusker Majority purchasing advertising across Nebraska television markets.

So think about this for a second.

An organization apparently created in September suddenly shows up in Nebraska carrying millions of dollars and immediately begins explaining to Nebraska voters who Dan Osborn really is.

That’s worth examining.

Especially when the primary message isn’t:

Pete Ricketts has better ideas.

It isn’t:

Here’s what Ricketts accomplished.

It isn’t even:

Here’s where Osborn’s policies are wrong.

The message is much simpler.
Dan Osborn is secretly a Democrat.

That’s the product they’re selling.

So let’s read the fucking ingredients.

Ingredient #1: “Dan Osborn is a Democrat.”

This is the foundation underneath almost everything else.

There’s just one fairly inconvenient problem.

According to the Federal Election Commission, Dan Osborn’s political party is:

INDEPENDENT.

Not Democrat.

Independent.

His current FEC filing identifies him that way.

Now, that doesn’t settle the larger argument.

There are absolutely facts Republicans can point to.

Nebraska Democratic Party chair Jane Kleeb endorsed Osborn. Democratic-aligned organizations have spent millions supporting him. Democratic donors have contributed to him. He raises money through ActBlue. In 2024, Democratic-aligned Senate Majority PAC money supported outside efforts helping his campaign.

Those are facts.

Here’s another one that shouldn’t be hidden because it makes Osborn uncomfortable.

At a town hall, Osborn reportedly said that if his independent strategy didn’t work, there was only one party he would consider caucusing with.

When asked which one, he reportedly answered:

“Not Pete Ricketts’ party.”

That’s relevant.

Put it on the table.

But put the rest of the table there too.

Osborn has repeatedly pledged that if elected he will not caucus with either party and has proposed creating an independent caucus.

His FEC registration says Independent.

And his 2025–26 campaign finance summary through June 30 contains another interesting number:

Party committee contributions: $0.

Total receipts were approximately $5.75 million.

About $5.54 million came from individual contributions.

So is Osborn supported by Democrats?

Absolutely.

Does that fact magically convert his FEC registration to Democrat?

No.

Those are two different statements.

And apparently we have reached the point in American politics where that distinction needs to be explained.

Ingredient #2: “ActBlue proves he’s funded by national Democrats.”

My cereal box says:

“25% of Osborn’s campaign funding comes from ActBlue and national Democrat donors.”

This is where political advertising gets clever.

ActBlue is heavily associated with Democratic fundraising.

But ActBlue processing a contribution isn’t the same thing as the Democratic Party making the contribution.

If an individual gives $25 through ActBlue, the source of that contribution is still the individual.

That’s why the FEC separates individual contributions, PAC contributions and party committee contributions.

And again, Osborn’s current FEC summary says:

$0 in party committee contributions.

That doesn’t erase the Democratic money around Osborn.

Quite the opposite.

Outside organizations supportive of Osborn have received substantial Democratic-aligned funding, particularly during the 2024 election.

Tell people that.

But words mean things.

Individual donor.

PAC.

Super PAC.

Party committee.

Fundraising processor.

Independent expenditure.

Those aren’t six different spellings of Democrat.

They’re six different things.

Ingredient #3: “National Democrats spent nearly $10 million helping Osborn.”

Cornhusker Majority’s television campaign goes even harder here.

Its opening ad reportedly says:

“National Democrats got caught spending nearly $10 million to help elect Osborn after they tried to hide it.”

There’s real meat underneath this claim.

Democratic-aligned organizations spent substantial money supporting Osborn in 2024.

In fact, pro-Osborn outside spending was enormous. Reporting compiled by The Downballot puts total pro-Osborn outside spending in the 2024 race at more than $20 million, with Democratic organizations helping finance the principal pro-Osborn super PAC.

That’s worth knowing.

But again:

Outside spending supporting a candidate is not money given to the candidate.

The FEC itself makes that distinction explicit on Osborn’s candidate page:

“None of the funds are directly given to or spent by the candidate.”

And this distinction becomes especially hilarious when the organization complaining about outside money influencing Nebraska politics is…

an outside super PAC spending millions of dollars influencing Nebraska politics.

Come on.

If outside money supporting Osborn proves something sinister, then outside money supporting Ricketts deserves exactly the same microscope.

Pick a principle.

I’ll happily use it on everybody.

Ingredient #4: “The Democrats cleared the field for him.”

This one also contains real facts.

Nebraska Democratic leaders chose to support Osborn rather than recruit the kind of conventional Democratic challenger you’d normally expect.

There was nevertheless a Democratic primary in 2026, which Cindy Burbank won.

The Nebraska Examiner reported at the time that state Democratic chair Jane Kleeb had endorsed Osborn.

So Republicans are perfectly justified in telling voters that Democratic leaders see Osborn as preferable to Ricketts.

That’s demonstrably true.

But that tells us what Democrats think about Osborn.

It doesn’t automatically tell us what Osborn is.

If Republicans endorse an independent mayor, that doesn’t magically change the mayor’s voter registration.

If the NRA endorses a Democrat, the Democrat doesn’t become a Republican.

If a union endorses a Republican, he doesn’t wake up the following morning as a Democrat.

Political support and political identity are not synonyms.

This isn’t complicated.

Ingredient #5: Immigration

This is where the “secret Democrat” storyline starts running into some inconvenient evidence.

At the Nebraska State Fair debate right here in Grand Island, Osborn said former President Joe Biden had failed on the border.

He also said he agrees with the basic mission of ICE… keeping communities safe… while criticizing aspects of current ICE funding and enforcement and advocating greater training, accountability and body cameras.

Ricketts countered that Osborn supports a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and accused him of misrepresenting his immigration positions.

So here’s the actual situation:

Osborn has supported immigration reform and a pathway to legal status or citizenship in some circumstances.

He has criticized ICE tactics.

He has also criticized the Biden administration’s handling of the border.

Those positions can coexist.

People are allowed to have political beliefs that don’t arrive in a fucking party-issued Happy Meal.

That’s actually what being independent is supposed to mean.

You can believe Biden screwed up the border and believe Trump’s immigration policies go too far.

You can support Border Patrol and believe federal agents should wear body cameras.

You can support removing dangerous people and believe someone who has worked here for twenty years deserves a legal process.

Ask me how I know!

You don’t have to buy the entire Republican package or the entire Democratic package.

That shouldn’t be revolutionary.

Ingredient #6: “Amnesty & benefits for illegal immigrants.”

Now back to my cereal box.

Cornhusker Majority says Osborn supports:

“amnesty for illegal immigrants and extending Social Security benefits to them.”

There’s a factual foundation underneath this one too.

Osborn has supported creating a legal pathway for some undocumented people already living here.

He has also discussed bringing undocumented workers into the Social Security system.

Calling the first policy “amnesty” is political framing.

There’s a legitimate policy argument underneath it.

Have that argument.

What annoys the hell out of me is replacing the argument with the scariest noun available.

Explain exactly who qualifies.

Explain whether they get citizenship.

Explain whether they go to the back of the line.

Explain what taxes they pay.

Explain what benefits they become eligible for.

Then let people decide whether they agree.

That’s how adults discuss public policy.

Ingredient #7: “Men in women’s spaces.”

This is the other giant culture-war button on the mailer.

Cornhusker Majority claims Osborn supports:

“men identifying as women in women’s domestic violence shelters, locker rooms, and bathrooms.”

Its citation is:

“Osborn, 9/24/24.”

That’s it.

I went looking for the underlying source.

I could not independently locate primary-source material establishing that entire three-part characterization exactly as the mailer presents it.

That doesn’t prove the claim is false.

It means the citation printed on the advertisement isn’t sufficient for me to independently verify the characterization.

And that’s exactly how I’m going to treat political advertising from either party.

Show me the tape.

Show me the transcript.

Show me the questionnaire.

Show me the legislation.

Then we’ll talk.

I don’t care whose face is on the cereal box.

Meanwhile, Pete Ricketts has a pretty interesting political story himself.

There’s another character in this election who somehow disappears behind all the giant DEMOCRAT DAN lettering.

Pete Ricketts.

Ricketts originally became a United States senator because Governor Jim Pillen appointed him in January 2023 after Ben Sasse resigned.

That matters.

But facts matter more than my narrative, so here’s the rest:

Ricketts was subsequently elected by Nebraska voters in the 2024 special election.

Both things are true.

He entered the Senate through appointment.

Then Nebraska elected him.

Anyone telling you only one half of that story is doing exactly what I’m accusing political advertising of doing.

And I’m not playing that game.

Then there’s Jim Pillen.

This becomes particularly relevant when immigration is one of the weapons being used against Osborn.

Recent reporting has documented undocumented workers having worked at Pillen Family Farms over a period of years.

Pillen Family Farms has said it never knowingly hired undocumented workers, and the evidence reported publicly does not establish that Jim Pillen personally knew the immigration status of individual employees.

Again:

Both facts belong in the story.

No bullshit required.

Because Nebraska agriculture has a very real labor problem.

Nebraska politicians can have whatever immigration position they want.

But if we’re going to turn immigration into a moral purity test for political candidates, then the economic system that relies heavily on immigrant labor deserves to be examined too.

Especially when politicians connected to that system are participating in the debate.

And now Donald Trump enters the picture.

Yesterday, September 18, President Trump publicly endorsed Pete Ricketts for reelection, giving him his:

“Complete and Total Endorsement.”

That’s also relevant.

Ricketts is not pretending to be independent.

He’s a Republican senator.

He’s endorsed by the Republican president.

National Republican organizations want him reelected.

Nothing inherently scandalous about any of that.

But here’s where my bullshit detector starts screaming.

You cannot simultaneously argue that national political organizations supporting Osborn prove he’s some kind of Washington creation…

while national political organizations pour millions into Nebraska to support Ricketts…

and pretend those are fundamentally different phenomena.

Either outside political influence matters or it doesn’t.

Follow the money all the way around.

Here’s another fact that doesn’t conveniently belong to either team’s narrative.

At the State Fair debate, Nebraska Public Media reported that about 37% of Ricketts’ campaign dollars came from Nebraskans, compared with approximately 17% of Osborn’s.

Ricketts’ campaign had about $6.9 million cash on hand at the end of June; Osborn had approximately $2.4 million.

And Axios reports Ricketts has personally contributed $5.3 million to his campaign.

Meanwhile, outside groups supportive of both candidates have spent millions.

Good.

Put every fucking dollar on the table.

Where did it come from?

Who spent it?

Was it donated directly to the campaign?

Was it an independent expenditure?

Was it a party committee?

Was it an individual donor?

Was it a billionaire?

Was it a union?

Was it a corporation?

Was it a super PAC?

Don’t give me the scary version when it’s your opponent’s money and the sanitized version when it’s yours.

Which brings us back to Cornhusker Majority.

Here’s what bothers me most about this whole thing.

Not that somebody criticized Dan Osborn.

Criticize the hell out of him.

He’s applying for one of the most powerful jobs in the United States.

He should be scrutinized.

Dig through his finances.

Dig through his policies.

Dig through his old interviews.

Dig through his campaign spending.

And yes… dig through that recently surfaced recording in which he crudely characterized some Trump supporters. He acknowledged that the voice sounded like his and apologized to people offended by it. That belongs in evaluating his record too.

Nobody gets a fucking exemption.

But apply the same standard to Pete Ricketts.

And Jim Pillen.

And Donald Trump.

And the Democratic Party.

And the Republican Party.

And the super PACs spending millions of dollars trying to tell Nebraska what Nebraska thinks.

Because something about this should bother people regardless of party.

A political organization apparently created weeks before an election shows up carrying millions of dollars, adopts the name Cornhusker Majority, and immediately begins flooding Nebraska with advertisements defining one of Nebraska’s candidates for us.

Maybe every claim they make ultimately checks out.

Fine.

Then show the evidence.

Maybe some are half true.

Show that too.

Maybe Osborn’s positions are unacceptable to you.

Then don’t vote for him.

Maybe Ricketts’ positions are exactly what you want.

Then vote for him.

That’s democracy.

What shouldn’t substitute for democracy is national political machinery reducing an entire Senate race to:

RED TEAM GOOD.

BLUE TEAM BAD.

INDEPENDENT ACTUALLY BLUE TEAM.

That’s not an argument.

That’s branding… and outright lying.

Nebraska does not belong to Washington.

This is the part I care about.

Nebraska is one of the most politically interesting states in America precisely because we’ve occasionally refused to do things exactly like everyone else.

We have a unicameral legislature.

We officially elect our state legislators without party labels on the ballot.

We split electoral votes by congressional district.
And we have a massive population of voters who don’t belong to either major party.

Yet every election, the national political machines arrive and try to cram everything back into the same binary box.

Republican.

Democrat.

Red.

Blue.

Us.

Them.

And apparently now:

cereal.

Dan Osborn doesn’t need to be secretly anything.
His positions are public.

Pete Ricketts’ positions are public.

Their money is increasingly public.

Their supporters are public.

Their records are public.

So evaluate the actual men.

If Osborn says something stupid, hammer him for what he actually said.

If his immigration policy sucks, explain why it sucks.

If his economic proposals don’t add up, do the math.

If his independence is bullshit, produce evidence demonstrating actual party control rather than simply pointing out that Democrats prefer him to a Republican.

And apply precisely the same standard to Ricketts.

That’s the part political advertising desperately hopes we won’t do.

Because researching candidates is difficult.
Fear is easy.

DEMOCRAT fits on a cereal box.

Nuance doesn’t.

I don’t need Cornhusker Majority to tell me who Dan Osborn is.

I don’t need the Nebraska Democratic Party to tell me either.

I don’t need Donald Trump telling me who Pete Ricketts is.

And I sure as hell don’t need another super PAC spending millions of dollars explaining Nebraska to Nebraska.

Give me the records.

Give me the votes.

Give me the policies.

Give me the money.

Give me the complete quotes instead of twelve-second clips.

Give me the uncomfortable facts about both candidates.

Then move aside.

Because whatever else happens in this election, there’s one principle that shouldn’t be Republican, Democratic or Independent:

**Nebraska’s senator should be chosen by Nebraskans who know exactly what they’re voting for… not by whichever national political machine can afford the biggest fucking cereal box.**

Implying Nebraskans get our information from cereal boxes is an insult to our intelligence anyway.

So from the bottom of my heart:

🖕🫵Cornhusker Majority

-The Gun Loving Hippie Dad… Who Fixes Stuff

Oh… and there’s this:

Deep dive fact check this

This mailer is a mix of verifiable facts, partisan framing, and at least two claims that are materially misleading or unsupported as written. The biggest problem is that it blurs **using Democratic-aligned fundraising infrastructure** with being “funded by National Democrats,” and it converts Osborn’s immigration remarks into a claim that he favors Social Security benefits for people who remain unlawfully present.

## Bottom line

| Mailer claim | Verdict | Why |
|—|—|—|
| “Dan Osborn” is a Democrat | **Misleading** | Osborn ran as an independent and Douglas County told KETV he had been registered nonpartisan since first registering in Nebraska in 2004. Democratic groups, donors, and state-party leaders have supported him politically, but that is not the same thing as proving he is formally a Democrat. [1] |
| “25% of Osborn’s campaign funding comes from ActBlue and national Democrat donors” | **Unsupported / misleading** | ActBlue is a payment-processing and fundraising platform, not itself a donor. The FEC reports Osborn’s 2024 committee received $5.68 million in contributions, of which $5.54 million was from individuals; it reports $0 in party-committee contributions. A platform processing donations cannot accurately be described as “campaign funding from ActBlue.” [2] |
| “Backs men in women’s spaces” | **Unproven from cited evidence** | The mailer cites “Osborn, 9/24/24,” but provides no quote, link, event, recording, or document. I could not independently locate a reliable 2024 source establishing that he endorsed unrestricted access by trans women to women’s domestic-violence shelters, locker rooms, and bathrooms. That is a much more specific claim than general support for transgender rights. |
| “Supports amnesty for illegal immigrants” | **Partly accurate, but loaded** | Osborn has said undocumented immigrants who have long lived in the United States should have “a clear path” to legal status or citizenship. Opponents call that “amnesty”; supporters generally call it legalization or a pathway to citizenship. Whether it is “amnesty” is political terminology, not a neutral factual description. [1] |
| “Supports extending Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants” | **Misleading / disputed** | In the Semafor quote cited by opponents, Osborn said people here illegally should “get into Social Security already.” But he later said he meant they should become documented/legal and receive a Social Security card, and expressly said he does not support noncitizens receiving Social Security benefits. The flier leaves out the legal-status condition and the subsequent clarification. [1] |
| “Front label says: Independent” | **Accurate** | His federal candidacy is listed as Independent in FEC records. [2] |

## Funding claim

The mailer’s first box is worded to create a stronger impression than the publicly available campaign-finance record supports.

### What the records show

For Osborn’s 2024 Senate committee, the FEC reports:

– Total receipts: $5,751,950.79.
– Total contributions: $5,681,775.54.
– Individual contributions: $5,541,908.04.
– Party-committee contributions: **$0.00**.
– Other committee contributions: $139,867.50.[2]

That means the claim “25% … comes from ActBlue and national Democrat donors” needs to distinguish three different things that the mailer rolls together:

1. **ActBlue use.** 
   ActBlue is chiefly an online contribution-processing platform used heavily by Democratic and progressive candidates and causes, though it can process contributions to qualifying independent candidates as well. Money routed through ActBlue generally comes from the individual contributor, not from ActBlue itself.

2. **Individual donors who are Democrats.** 
   An individual can be politically Democratic, progressive, or from out of state. But a donor’s political preference does not turn a contribution into money “from National Democrats” in the technical campaign-finance sense.

3. **Democratic Party committees.** 
   The FEC figure for direct party-committee money to his 2024 committee is zero. That directly undercuts a reader’s likely interpretation that one-quarter of his own campaign account was financed by official national Democratic Party committees.[2]

The mailer may be gesturing at ActBlue-originated donations plus donations from nationally Democratic-leaning individuals or organizations. But without a calculation, donor list, reporting period, and a precise definition of “national Democrat donors,” “25%” is not independently auditable from the flier.

There is a fair political criticism available here: Osborn’s campaign has benefited from support among Democratic-aligned donors and from Democratic-friendly fundraising networks, while he presents himself as independent. That is different from saying ActBlue itself funded him or that official national Democratic Party money constituted 25% of his campaign funding.

## Women’s-spaces claim

This is the weakest fact-checked box because the flier does not provide enough sourcing to verify it.

The statement is not merely that Osborn supports transgender people generally. It asserts that he supports people born male identifying as women entering:

– Women’s domestic-violence shelters.
– Women’s locker rooms.
– Women’s bathrooms.

Those are distinct policy questions. A candidate could hold one position involving sports, nondiscrimination law, gender identity documents, public facilities, or shelter placement without supporting every policy the mailer groups together.

The sole citation reads “Source: Osborn, 9/24/24.” That is inadequate for a claim this consequential. There is no identifiable interview title, video, public meeting, transcript, social-media post, or campaign policy page in the citation. Based on the accessible reporting I found, I would classify the claim as **not verified**, rather than true or false.

That does not prove Osborn holds the opposite view. It means the mailer has not given voters enough evidence to substantiate the precise allegation.

There is also evidence of at least some nuance or evolution in Osborn’s public posture on sex-segregated sports. In a 2026 radio exchange reported by Plains Sentinel, he answered “No” when asked about boys on girls’ teams, while also saying restrictions should be rooted in fairness rather than hostility. That later position does not resolve the mailer’s 2024 claim about facilities and shelters, but it shows why broad “same radical ideas” language is a poor substitute for issue-specific sourcing.[3]

## Immigration and Social Security

This box relies on a real quote but presents it in a way that removes the central qualification.

### What Osborn said

Asked what he wanted to do about people in the country illegally, Osborn said:

> “We need some meaningful immigration reform. These people are our friends. They’re our neighbors. A lot of them have been here 30 years or more, and I think it’s time they get into Social Security already.”

In the same response, he called for immigrant labor to fill Nebraska jobs, more immigration lawyers and judges, a streamlined process, vetting, and not allowing dangerous people in “willy-nilly.”[1]

### His clarification

Osborn later denied that he supports Social Security benefits for people who are still noncitizens or unlawfully present. He said he meant that undocumented workers should have a clear process to become documented or obtain legal status, then receive a Social Security card:

> “I have said that I think they should have a social security card, meaning that they should be legal immigrants… there should be a clear path for them to become documented or become legal status.”[1]

So two things can be true at once:

– Osborn **does support** a pathway by which some undocumented immigrants could gain lawful status and eventually access the ordinary Social Security system.
– The mailer’s unqualified claim that he favors “extending Social Security benefits to” illegal immigrants is **misleading**, because it implies benefits while they remain unlawfully present and omits his stated legalization condition.

Calling a pathway to legal status “amnesty” is a conventional political attack line, but it is not a neutral description. “Amnesty” typically implies a broad forgiveness program without sufficient enforcement or conditions; Osborn’s statement also included vetting and a formal legal-status process. Whether that proposal is good policy is a separate political judgment.

## Overall assessment

The piece is designed as campaign rhetoric, not a careful voter guide. Its central visual message—“Independent on the box, Democrat inside”—is an **opinion/inference** based on Osborn’s funding channels, endorsements, allies, and policy overlap with Democrats. It is not a fact that can be established merely by calling him a Democrat.

My overall grading:

– **Independent label:** Accurate.
– **Democratic financial and political ties:** Real, but substantially overstated and imprecisely described.
– **“25%” funding figure:** Needs documentation; the wording is misleading because ActBlue is a processor, not a donor, and the FEC reports no direct party-committee contributions to his 2024 campaign committee.[2]
– **Women’s spaces allegation:** Insufficiently sourced; cannot be responsibly verified from the citation printed.
– **Path to citizenship/legalization:** Supported by Osborn’s own statements.[1]
– **Benefits for people illegally present:** Misleading without the legal-status qualification Osborn gave.[1]

A more factually defensible version of the mailer’s case would say: *“Osborn runs as an independent but has received support from Democratic-aligned donors and organizations; he supports a pathway to legal status or citizenship for certain undocumented immigrants, and has made statements suggesting those who legalize should enter Social Security.”* That is still politically critical, but it avoids presenting contested or incomplete claims as settled fact.

Citations:
[1] Dan Osborn campaign sends cease and desist letter to … https://www.ketv.com/article/dan-osborn-campaign-sends-cease-and-desist-letter-to-deb-fischer-campaign-super-pac/62457776
[2] OSBORN, DAN – Candidate overview https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/S4NE00207/
[3] Leaked Audio Reveals Osborn Wants to Avoid Transgender Sports … https://plains-sentinel.com/p/leaked-audio-reveals-osborn-wants
[4] 1000014526.jpg https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/attachments/images/78771334/b5096798-e23b-4ddf-bf2d-8e68ce841e7b/1000014526.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIA2F3EMEYEQPXVTYLG&Signature=djfAAXQVvqWvxApMuILnp7LJA1c%3D&x-amz-security-token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEJz%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJGMEQCIH0w7nn5tnmWBfkc7KUOz76mU5qhxYWPrdSPoteinGjGAiAUMGFB6jokszbX3q63FRPR3jxDppTVUrPr9qt6yjnbPirzBAhlEAEaDDY5OTc1MzMwOTcwNSIM5emJQdh6ee64CRu8KtAE2QkuZdLDy2L3mt%2BAo8XFsvHNK5mU%2BMUZfWX3M6fXJnMQEJQy4twKH%2Fisd0kskjxALR7RhrBwuXBHoOXTvryvTCUq5xTFRY6D0IgKvlzgxiNz447F%2FpjjLdpZLX5Q3RZ0JXC1YzHXl6HO%2B1n5FDsErx1U652QzxPWwkt%2FJgGZLbp4EDIClJl5h1B8WMOtbmS8%2BPgTRDg0%2BfjxYzreq57jBZfLhLuPTB4wDqdfrXnAhV8Zc2wtM2JlqMMQ6G4tv%2F7vZ2xpOZnHQq2TvMbqUW48wKPVjqAoUhoOMMqXw66zSXk1vqr4oIdd85Wa0Ip14yL1uRecqsCFSFKn8ozh%2B4QQvDsWiIHb7msbllnQMxQlR%2BtRvf24Rl3v0oW0gLeIADVe4XCnG6czoznzzGOzDpKTX5hczjN%2BWSMs9cpwogN3j9s78HYOTi2SEfodDmd4ILty1Nz7dQ3vsZStViEGNnvtu%2Fbugl2pkP4H%2FvrCqxluHVXabEPxb4ww3OXSIWP6SQzNDRr7tv%2BBeY3i8FPTIJR8NM27MGkgizaTSSQ%2FnIHLIroF25Yg2SDD2YBnAbuWg2qlVeYDqZWQ2F%2BErG1L3B48%2BZm3JVDFKZlv%2FfxLpeaaDvVrGAhwFPM6PW%2F3sMCUtnl9xQS82AFgOQ93qvf4sq%2Bv1D5vsDUwWDcrhVq7%2BfEOeZyUvmI8%2FHLluMhnSyn2yzK0ABpzy7qc95VY7DMrTHWXQ1jhMZIVVvZZ5reJKnSEBwbkXPebbeZVt4OPgr6vodnvXricWflovAM%2B6vBRGQx0EzDj1LvVBjqZAcITgfjsU9tFaGxe9iP3KjCdHdYSrfp0VUTpLOM6wVwU9F2jOmfMg8Opw9%2BgKbUtnHPDZp3Rrff4q%2BXDfFZTVCRzeskx%2FeFf4O3TCa8mLSd3YyNUps%2F6yEbtWrv4AFciljONrw1wKfV3JrR6r1%2B0tHJQkPftx%2Bw5XJxuzkdNAhlAyY%2BE6T0HzyCHPgirGHjO6FS%2FTaLVsMjexg%3D%3D&Expires=1789849351
[5] Vendor/Recipient Profile: Dan Osborn for Senate https://www.opensecrets.org/campaign-expenditures/vendor?cycle=2024&vendor=Dan+Osborn+for+Senate
[6] Dan Osborn https://ballotpedia.org/Dan_Osborn
[7] U.S. Senate candidate Dan Osborn faces another election … https://nebraskapublicmedia.org/es/news/news-articles/us-senate-candidate-dan-osborn-faces-another-election-spending-complaint/
[8] Here’s How Republicans Are Running Campaigns Against Independent Candidates https://www.notus.org/campaigns/republican-independent-candidates-midterm-elections?ref=ivn.us
[9] Dan Osborn — Donate via ActBlue https://secure.actblue.com/donate/duforosborn26
[10] Win It Back PAC Launches $2 Million NE-SEN Campaign https://www.clubforgrowth.org/icymi-win-it-back-pac-launches-2-million-ne-sen-campaign/
[11] Osborn denies support for boys playing girls sports | News https://www.norfolkneradio.com/news/osborn-denies-support-for-boys-playing-girls-sports/article_cdad450b-d9ca-4a56-8250-ef17e82c118e.html
[12] Dem-tied Senate hopeful has funneled nearly $400k to his … https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-hopeful-deep-dem-ties-has-paid-family-over-350k-from-his-campaign-coffers
[13] ‘Independent’ Dan Osborn Raises $9K in Fundraiser Promoted by Far-Left Forum that Cheered Charlie Kirk’s Murder https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2026/08/28/independent-dan-osborn-raises-9k-in-fundraiser-promoted-by-far-left-forum-that-cheered-charlie-kirks-murder/
[14] A Tight Nebraska Race: The Millionaire Versus The … https://legis1.com/news/nebraska-2026-senate-race-tight-the-millionaire
[15] Dan Osborn Independent Senate Candidate Linked to Extremist Progressive Forum https://us.headtopics.com/news/dan-osborn-independent-senate-candidate-linked-to-extremist-87153684
[16] 🚨 46 DAYS TO GO. Nearly $1.4M raised so far. Donate to dozens of Democrats at once TODAY! https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2026/9/18/800099856/community/%F0%9F%9A%A8-46-days-to-go-nearly-1-4m-raised-so-far-donate-to-dozens-of-democrats-at-once-today/
[17] Dan Osborn supports amnesty and a path to citizenship for … https://battleground.nrsc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/NE-Microsite_Immigration.pdf
[21] Senate candidate Dan Osborn apologizes after leaked … https://www.yahoo.com/news/videos/senate-candidate-dan-osborn-apologizes-210612354.html
[22] Dan Osborn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Osborn
[23] Dan Osborn staffers infiltrated rival political party, tried to … https://www.1011now.com/video/2026/08/22/dan-osborn-staffers-infiltrated-rival-political-party-tried-dissolve-it/
[25] Dan Osborn picks up endorsement of Nebraska’s largest … https://nebraskaexaminer.com/briefs/dan-osborn-picks-up-endorsement-of-nebraskas-largest-teachers-union/
[26] Dan Osborn on “boys in girls sports” : r/Nebraska https://www.reddit.com/r/Nebraska/comments/1vlf2jk/dan_osborn_on_boys_in_girls_sports/
[27] Second Nebraska bill focused on transgender athletes is … https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2025/01/22/second-nebraska-bill-focused-on-transgender-athletes-is-based-on-nsaa-participation-policy/
[28] Case studies of how Democrats lie to voters: Osborn in Nebraska & Dembo in Kentucky https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/sep/10/case-studies-democrats-lie-voters-osborn-nebraska-dembo-kentucky/
[29] Undercover Audio Reveals Fake Independent Dan Osborn Is Hiding His True Radical Beliefs From Voters https://townhall.com/author/print/2682134
[30] Dan Osborn on “boys in girls sports” : r/Omaha https://www.reddit.com/r/Omaha/comments/1vlhr81/dan_osborn_on_boys_in_girls_sports/
[31] New Leaked Audio Shows How Dan Osborn Really Feels About Nebraska Voters https://townhall.com/news/amy-curtis/2026/09/17/dan-osborn-audio-n2683139
[32] Republicans Assumed a Nebraska Senate Seat Was Safe. … https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/opinion/nebraska-senate-dan-osborn.html
[33] Hitting Trump’s wall in Nebraska https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2026/09/08/hitting-trumps-wall-in-nebraska-01067165
[34] Exclusive: Navy Veteran Dan Osborn Hopeful Nebraskans … https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/exclusive-navy-veteran-dan-osborn-090013315.html
[35] 2024 Nebraska Senate Voters Guide https://guides.vote/guide/2024-nebraska-senate-voters-guide/
[36] Dan Osborn endorsed by NE Democratic Party for 2026 … https://nebraska.tv/news/local/dan-osborn-endorsed-by-ne-democratic-party-for-2026-senate-race
[37] Dan Osborn staffers infiltrated rival political party, tried to … https://flatwaterfreepress.org/dan-osborn-staffers-infiltrated-rival-political-party-tried-to-dissolve-it/
[38] Dan Osborn | Independent for U.S. Senate https://www.osbornforsenate.com/
[39] In Nebraska, independent Senate candidate gives Democrats hope https://www.newsbreak.com/news/4879427121364-in-nebraska-independent-senate-candidate-gives-democrats-hope
[40] New Leaked Audio Shows How Dan Osborn Really Feels About Nebraska Voters https://townhall.com/author/print/2683139
[41] ‘Paycheck populism’: Dan Osborn’s pitch for US Senate https://couriernebraska.com/news/elections/paycheck-populism-dan-osborn/
[42] Nebraska’s Fake ‘Independent’ Caught on Tape Admitting He Can … https://www.conservativenewszone.com/articles/nebraskas-fake-independent-caught-on-tape-admitting-he-cant-say-what-he-really-b/

https://thegunlovinghippiedadwhofixesstuff.blog/the-backyard-bulletin/

Rants, repairs, and realness