Osborn was an industrial mechanic at the Omaha Kellogg’s plant for more than 15 years when he led a high-profile and successful strike there in 2021—so successful Kellogg’s later ousted him. Osborn has no college degree and served in the U.S. Navy. He has campaigned as a populist fighter for the working class, calling for a crackdown on corporate power. Though he calls himself “personally pro-life,” he is generally libertarian when it comes to social issues, and supports legal abortion rights. Osborn campaigned recently with Shawn Fain, the firebrand president of the United Autoworkers, who championed Osborn as “one of us.”

---

Osborn’s success also shows that traditional New Deal Democratic ideas—a higher minimum wage, taxes on the rich, support for labor, skepticism of corporate power—remain popular with independents and even some Republicans, while the Democratic Party’s coastal brand remains a drag worth upwards of 20 points or more.

Yeah, I understand the frustration around the usage of “populist”. Ryan Grim is associated with Counter Points, a companion show to Breaking Points, which bills itself as a “Populist, Anti-Establishment” news organization. He is primed to use the term “populist” in the positive sense, instead of as a pejorative, as a result.

From Osborn’s website, here is what he has to say about “the border”:

Legal immigration helped build this country and is critical to Nebraska’s economy. Illegal immigration creates a pool of cheap labor with no rights and is detrimental to every American worker.

As a Senator, I won’t just talk about securing the border: as an independent, I’ll be uniquely positioned to bring together a majority to get it done.

A labor focused message, but not one that reveals much about his opinions of the people crossing the border. His usage of “securing the border” does signal that he is in line with the current rhetoric and framing around the border that both Republicans and Democrats have adopted.

His website has this to say about abortion, under the section “Keep government out of our private lives”:

I do not support extreme national measures to ban abortion. While I respect the moral convictions of all Nebraskans, I believe in limited government and I do not believe the federal government is capable of resolving this issue. Under extreme federal bans, abortion will still happen. We need to focus on the root cause: on reducing unwanted pregnancies.

This is calculated wording. Firstly, he states, “I do not support extreme national measures to ban abortion” which leaves a lot of room for questions. Questions like: Do you support limited national restrictions on abortions? Do you support codifying Roe v. Wade into law? He also then states that: “I believe in limited government and I do not believe the federal government is capable of resolving this issue.” Again, this opens more questions: Do you support, then, leaving abortion access up to the states? The closing statement, being: “Under extreme federal bans, abortion will still happen. We need to focus on the root cause: on reducing unwanted pregnancies” I think is an attempt to answer those questions above. He seems to acknowledge that abortions happen regardless of the number of restrictions, and prevention of unwanted pregnancies is the only way to reduce abortions. Does this mean that he would be against some of the policies from the right attempting to limit access to birth control? It’s not exactly clear.

I don’t have time to really critique the totality of his platform or investigate what he’s saying in interviews compared to what he says on his site. I will say, he appears to be riding a very fine line to capture as many republicans and democrats disillusioned by the party. So we’ll see how he turns out. I’ll place him in the “critical support” category for now.