Listen to the article
Nebraska Republicans Target Independent Senate Candidate with Mobile Billboard Campaign During Biden Visit
When former President Joe Biden addresses Nebraska Democrats at a gala in Omaha Friday, attendees will be greeted by a series of provocative mobile billboards linking Independent Senate candidate Dan Osborn to controversial progressive figures within the Democratic Party.
The campaign to re-elect Republican Senator Pete Ricketts has deployed trucks with neon graphics portraying Osborn as a “fake Independent” and connecting him to New York City’s socialist mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani and controversial Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner.
“Nebraska Democrats’ brand is too toxic to run a candidate under the party label,” Ricketts campaign Communications Director Will Coup told Fox News Digital. “Even though Fake Dan Osborn doesn’t have a D next to his name, he still supports the party’s most far-left beliefs.”
Biden is headlining the Nebraska Democratic Party’s 2025 Ben Nelson Gala in downtown Omaha, with Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear and Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn also featured as speakers. The event takes place in what is considered a “blue dot” within the largely Republican-leaning state.
Nebraska is one of only two states that splits its electoral votes by congressional district, and Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, which includes Omaha, typically supports Democratic presidential candidates. While the district voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024, Republican Rep. Don Bacon nevertheless won re-election for his House seat in the same district.
Although Osborn is running as an Independent, Nebraska Democratic Party Chair Jane Kleeb has publicly confirmed the party’s support for his bid to unseat Ricketts, a two-term senator and former Nebraska governor. One of the mobile billboards directly quotes this support with the message: “Nebraska Democrats proudly support Dan Osborn.”
The Ricketts campaign is using the opportunity to highlight what they see as Osborn’s Democratic ties. “Osborn’s campaign is even staffed by the same people who ran Socialist Zohran Mamdani’s campaign in New York. A communist, a socialist, and a Fake Independent: that’s the best the Democratic Party has to offer,” Coup said.
Indeed, media strategist Morris Katz, 28, works for both Osborn and Mamdani, as reported by Vanity Fair. Katz also serves as the media strategist for Graham Platner, a controversial figure running for U.S. Senate in Maine next year. Between 2020 and 2021, Platner posted—and has since deleted—Reddit comments in which he called himself a “communist,” comments he recently dismissed as jokes.
Platner has faced calls to withdraw from his Senate race, particularly after a top campaign staffer resigned following backlash over photos revealing a tattoo resembling the Totenkopf symbol used by Hitler’s SS forces. One billboard features an image of Platner with “communist” written across his face, alongside “fake ‘Independent'” on Osborn and “socialist” on Mamdani, with text describing them as the “future of the Democratic Party.”
This marks Osborn’s second consecutive attempt to unseat a Republican incumbent in the U.S. Senate. Last year, the union leader mounted an unsuccessful campaign against Senator Deb Fischer. His current bid against Ricketts comes amid growing national attention on Independent candidates and their potential impact on tight Senate races.
The billboard campaign reflects the increasingly contentious nature of the 2026 Senate race in Nebraska and the Republican Party’s strategy of linking Democratic-supported candidates to progressive figures who may be unpopular with the state’s largely conservative electorate. With the Senate currently narrowly divided, both parties view every seat as crucial in the upcoming electoral cycle.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
18 Comments
Interesting political tactics. Connecting an independent candidate to controversial figures could sway some voters, but it’s important to focus on the candidates’ actual platforms and records rather than just partisan labeling.
You raise a fair point. Voters should look beyond the rhetoric and examine the candidates’ policy positions and qualifications.
It’s concerning to see political tactics that seem more focused on mudslinging than constructive dialogue. Voters want leaders who can work across the aisle, not just score cheap points.
Well said. Productive governance requires compromise and good-faith efforts, not just partisan grandstanding.
This highlights the polarized nature of US politics. While I understand the desire to differentiate candidates, these kinds of attacks can distract from real issues. Voters deserve an honest debate on the merits.
I agree. Campaigns should elevate the discourse and focus on substance over partisan theatrics.
I’m curious to see how this plays out. Attacking a candidate’s associations rather than their own positions seems like a risky strategy that could backfire. Voters generally want to hear substantive ideas, not just partisan jabs.
That’s a good observation. Effective campaigns need to articulate a clear vision, not just criticize opponents.
This feels like a classic case of guilt by association tactics. While the connections may technically be there, it’s important to evaluate each candidate’s individual platform and qualifications. Voters should think critically beyond surface-level labels.
Well said. Reducing complex political issues to simplistic caricatures does a disservice to the democratic process.
This feels like a classic case of guilt by association. While the connections may technically be there, it’s important to evaluate each candidate’s individual platform and qualifications. Voters should think critically beyond surface-level labels.
Absolutely. Reducing complex political issues to simplistic caricatures does a disservice to the democratic process.
This is a concerning tactic that could backfire. Voters typically respond better to candidates who focus on their own qualifications and ideas rather than trying to tear down opponents through guilt by association.
Well said. Campaigns built on fear and division tend to alienate more voters than they attract.
I’m always wary of political campaigns that rely heavily on negative attacks rather than positive visions. Voters deserve to hear substantive policy proposals, not just partisan mudslinging.
Agreed. Effective leadership requires the ability to build coalitions and find common ground, not just score ideological points.
While I understand the desire to draw distinctions, these kinds of attacks can easily veer into misinformation and character assassination. Voters deserve an honest, substantive debate on the issues.
Absolutely. Campaigns should elevate the discourse and give voters a clear sense of each candidate’s vision and values.