The critical 2026 Nebraska Senate race, which could help tip the balance of power in Washington, has become consumed by accusations that candidates are misrepresenting their party affiliations to rig the odds in their favor. In November, Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., who is finishing the term of retired Republican Sen. Ben Sasse, will seek a six-year term in the Senate.  The race’s outcome is rated “likely Republican” by Cook Political Report. But Ricketts’ most serious competition likely will not be from the Democratic Party. Instead, prominent Nebraska Democrats are backing independent candidate Dan Osborn, a former union leader, for the seat. This is similar to the Democrat strategy in 2024, when Osborn unsuccessfully challenged Republican Sen. Deb Fischer and lost by fewer than seven points. Democrats did not hold a primary at all, with party figures believing Osborn had the best chance of unseating the Republican incumbent. Ricketts has accused Osborn—whose website describes him as a “lifelong independent” in contrast to the “partisans who run Washington”—of being a Democrat in disguise. The race is already a complicated multifront battle, in which all sides accuse each other of masquerading as something they are not. Liberal Lawyers and Primary Plants? The Elias Law Group—a firm founded by Democrat election lawyer Marc Elias—has been paid for legal services by both Osborn’s campaign and the political action committee he founded. At the same time, the firm has provided counsel to Democrat candidate Cindy Burbank, who wants to give Osborn a “fair shot against” Ricketts. Burbank is open about her support for Osborn, despite seeking the Democrat nomination. She does not explicitly state on her website that she would drop out if nominated. Her website reads, “Dan Osborn is a good man, a working man, a strike leader, and someone we can trust. He deserves a fair shot against Ricketts. So vote for me—and I’ll make sure we send Billionaire Pete Ricketts PACKING!” Chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party Jane Kleeb is backing Burbank for the party’s nomination, who has already stated on her website her intention to give Osborn a “fair shot against Ricketts” and not split the vote. Kleeb herself has acknowledged she supports Osborn in the general election. “We are supporting Dan Osborn,” Kleeb wrote on X in July 2025.  “We believe a coalition of Dems, Indys, and Republicans can beat Ricketts.” The Elias Law Group has assisted Cindy Burbank in her efforts to stay on the ballot for the Democratic primary in 2026. Burbank’s bid for the Democrat nomination ran into trouble recently when Nebraska’s Secretary of State declared she could not be on the ballot, arguing she was not a good faith candidate. In Nebraska, candidates must certify in filing forms that they “will serve if elected.” Ultimately, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that Burbank must be certified as a candidate, overruling the secretary. The Elias Law Group served as Burbank’s counsel in this case, helping her to get back on the ballot. Osborn’s campaign has paid the Elias Law Group nearly $50,000 for legal services on four occasions between November 2025 and February 2026—demonstrating the firm’s professional connection to both Burbank and Osborn’s campaigns. The Working Class Heroes Fund—a political action committee founded by Osborn—also paid the Elias Law Group nearly $30,000 for legal services in 2025. Osborn himself has commented on the 2026 Democrat primary, urging Nebraskans not to support Burbank’s main opponent for the Democrat nomination, William Forbes, a pro-life pastor who has not indicated he will drop out of the race if he wins. Here are two things you ought to know about Nebraska’s upcoming primary:-Because I’m an Independent, I won’t appear on your primary ballot. I’ll be on your ballot in November. Please don’t waste your vote writing me in!-If you’re voting in the Democrat primary, please be wary… pic.twitter.com/NOSfnsmEtl— Dan Osborn (@osbornforne) April 21, 2026 “If you’re voting in the Democrat primary, please be wary that Ricketts has a GOP stooge planted in the race named William Forbes. Do NOT vote for Fake Forbes!” Osborn wrote on X, accusing Ricketts of attempting to “split the vote” in the general election. Ricketts deputy campaign manager, Max Oberg, told The Daily Signal in a statement, “The Ricketts campaign had no role in the Democratic primary.” Oberg added, “The only candidate in this race with a record of meddling in primaries and undermining the democratic process is Dan Osborn. Time and again, Osborn says one thing in public while doing the exact opposite behind closed doors.” Forbes rejects allegations of being a plant, telling The Daily Signal in a statement that he is “the only real Democrat in this race,” and that Burbank is serving the interests of Osborn. “Cindy Burbank is nothing more than Dan Osborn’s placeholder candidate—a patsy who already admitted she’d quit if she won just to hand him the ballot line,” Forbes told The Daily Signal. “I’m the only Democrat in this race willing to go straight at Trump, Ricketts, and the rigged system they built for their wealthy donors,” he added. A Marijuana Masquerade? The last time Osborn ran, he benefited from being the Republican incumbent’s sole competition. He may be able to benefit from a similar situation in 2026. On May 14, 2024, a day after primary day in Nebraska, Osborn announced he would not be seeking party endorsements—just days before a scheduled meeting in which the Democratic party was set to endorse him. Similarly, in 2024, the Nebraska Legal Marijuana NOW (LMN) Party did not have a candidate, as the winner of its primary, Kerry Eddy, withdrew from the race and endorsed Osborn. Eddy had promised this from the start of her campaign, saying on her website that she was running for the LMN nomination “to support an independent candidate, Dan Osborn. He has a real shot at beating pro-fascist, corporate shill Deb Fischer.” Eddy explicitly stated on the website her “intent [was] to bring Legal Marijuana NOW voters to Dan Osborn.” With no candidate officially representing LMN or the Democrats in 2024, Osborn was able to run as a third-party candidate without splitting the vote with other liberal candidates. In 2026, the LMN party is once again having a primary, and rumors and allegations of “plants” are back.  A candidate named Mike Marvin entered the primary for the party’s nomination in March 2026.  Formerly the director of a Nebraska public employees’ union, Marvin’s website says he will “work with other candidates in the race to make sure we have a united front against Pete Ricketts in November.” Burbank paid his $1,740 filing fee to be a candidate, the Nebraska Examiner reported, although Marvin has denied coordinating with Burbank. “I don’t even know Cindy Burbank,” Marvin told the publication. Burbank told the publication that she had witnessed election office staff refusing to accept Marvin’s filing payment due to it being “for ten dollars too much,” so she volunteered to pay his filing fee without coordinating with him. She said she has “never met” Marvin. “If Ricketts can throw his money around then so can I,” she said. Marvin is facing off against Earl Starkey for the LMN nomination. Starkey, who opposes Ricketts and Osborn, has accused Marvin of being a plant. The Daily Signal reached out to the Elias Law Group as well as the Burbank and Osborn campaigns for comment. Nebraska’s primary day is on May 12. Related PostsDem Accused of Violating Federal Law in Stunt to Aid Communist Regime With MexicoA top House Democrat is being accused of breaking federal law after she admitted to meeting with foreign ambassadors about getting oil to Cuba’s communist regime despite U.S. sanctions, defending the outreach as “literally our right and responsibility.” Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D‑Wash., made the remarks during a recent briefing in Seattle following a congressional delegation…Sen. Banks Poured Millions to Unseat Republicans Who Struck Down Redistricting EffortRepublican Sen. Jim Banks of Indiana directed $3 million from his 501(c)(4) organization, Hoosier Leadership for America, to primary challengers of GOP state senators who opposed a redistricting plan supported by President Donald Trump that could have netted the GOP two additional House seats. On Tuesday night, at least five of those seven senators were…Republican Derek Merrin to Face Kaptur in NovemberIt was primary day in Ohio on Tuesday, with results coming in for several key races that could affect the midterms—especially control of the U.S. House. Republican Derek Merrin is set to face Ohio Democrat U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur in November after winning Ohio’s 9th Congressional District last night. Kaptur has represented the district since…

America’s counterterror forces can no longer ignore the threat of extremism motivated by transgender ideology, and President Donald Trump’s new counterterrorism strategy rightly addresses this threat. The counterterrorism strategy, released Wednesday, outlines three major threats: narcoterrorists and transnational gangs; legacy Islamist terrorists; and violent left-wing extremists, including anarchists and anti-fascists. That third category includes transgender ideology-motivated extremists. According to the strategy, America’s counterterrorism efforts will “prioritize the rapid identification and neutralization of violent secular political groups whose ideology is anti-American, radically pro-transgender, and anarchist.” “Americans have witnessed the politically motivated killings of Christians and conservatives committed by violent left-wing extremists, including the assassination of Charlie Kirk by a radical who espoused extreme transgender ideologies,” the document adds. It remains unclear whether the FBI will accept the Oversight Project and The Heritage Foundation’s request to use its authority under 18 U.S. Code § 2331 to designate “transgender ideology-inspired violent extremism as domestic terrorism,” but this document may enable that move. The Trump administration deserves credit for taking this threat seriously, and also for pledging to address these threats “apolitically and founded upon reality-based threat assessments.” While the U.S. will examine left-wing extremism, the document pledges that America’s “counterterrorism powers will not be used to target our fellow Americans who simply disagree with us” in the way the previous administration did. Most people who identify as transgender likely do not pose a threat to their fellow Americans, but a growing list of attackers either identified as transgender or appear to be motivated by transgender ideology. Examples of Alleged Transgender-Motivated Violence Tyler Robinson, 22, who faces murder charges in the September killing of Charlie Kirk, reportedly lived with a boyfriend who identifies as transgender and allegedly told his boyfriend he shot Kirk on his behalf. In February, Jesse Van Rootselaar, an 18-year-old man who identified as a woman, shot and killed eight in British Columbia, Canada. Robin Westman, a 23-year-old man identifying as a woman, shot and killed two children at Annunciation Church in Minneapolis in August. Julia Grace Egler, 16, allegedly shot and killed her mother and her mother’s boyfriend following multiple disputes with her mother about her transgender identity and “misgendering.” Mia Bailey, a 30-year-old man who identifies as female, shot and killed his parents in June 2024. Audrey Elizabeth Hale, a 28-year-old woman who identified as male, shot and killed six on March 27, 2023, at a Presbyterian school in Nashville, Tennessee. On May 7, 2019, Maya “Alec” McKinney, a 16-year-old woman who identifies as male, and her 19-year-old fellow student, Devon Erickson, shot and killed one and injured eight at a school in Highlands Ranch, Colorado. In June 2024, a judge sentenced Alexia Willie, a man who identifies as a woman, after he confessed to threatening to rape girls in girls’ restrooms, carry out mass shootings at schools, and bomb churches. Where Does Transgender Violence Come From? To call the transgender movement radical would be an understatement. This movement not only encourages men and women to adopt a “gender identity” as the opposite sex and to alter their bodies to make them conform to this identity, but it also demands that society accept, and even celebrate, the delusion. Activist groups such as the Human Rights Campaign not only demand societal acceptance but also demonize dissent as a form of violence against people. HRC has described the deaths of people identifying as transgender as an “epidemic.” However, the Human Rights Campaign’s own data suggests that these people face a lower homicide risk than other groups, particularly men, women, black, white, and Hispanic people. This claim represents the fountainhead of a constant stream of hyperbolic transgender rhetoric. For instance, MSNBC columnist Katelyn Burns once described a move to restrict the Frankensteinian treatments of “gender-affirming care” as an act of genocide. The Department of Health and Human Services has concluded that there is little evidence for positive impacts from transgender medical interventions on minors, but it found many documented harms. A jury awarded a detransitioner $2 million, finding that the medical professionals who carried out sex-rejecting procedures on her were liable for medical malpractice. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons released a statement recommending against transgender surgery for minors under 19, leading other medical associations to follow suit. Supporters of these sex-rejecting procedures maintain—with a straight face—that people with gender dysphoria (the painful and persistent identification with the gender opposite one’s sex) cannot prevent themselves from committing suicide if they do not receive these interventions. They then use this argument to demonize any scrutiny of these interventions. Online influencers who identify as transgender have amassed huge followings, and members of their audiences may find themselves bombarded with exaggerated rhetoric about the “hate” of those who dare to disagree. In fact, the influential Southern Poverty Law Center repeatedly compares conservative Christians who disagree with transgender orthodoxy to the Ku Klux Klan. If you legitimately believe that there is an “epidemic” of murder against people like you, that opposition to your agenda is a form of “genocide,” and that Christians’ disagreement with transgender identity is fueling this, you might be tempted to lash out. The Trump administration is right to take this threat seriously, and I hope to hear more about its effort in the coming days.

Turning Point Action just showed the GOP, and the country, what they are capable of accomplishing in the midterms, and beyond. While President Donald Trump initiated the redistricting fight in Indiana, boots on the ground from TPAction volunteers delivered the removal of anti‑redistricting lawmakers from the state Senate. “We know what it takes to win,” Turning Point Action’s national enterprise director, Brett Galaszewski, told The Daily Signal. Turing Point Action is the political action arm of Turning Point USA, founded by Charlie Kirk who was murdered in 2025. It is a 501(c)(4) organization and exists to “equip and empower all generations to engage in grassroots activism and emerge as leaders in their communities,” according to the organization’s website. Trump has long credited Kirk to being a critical part of his 2024 victory. This is who started the fight in Indiana. pic.twitter.com/D4DCpcfrj9— Robert Kruse (@robert_kruse15) May 7, 2026 “There’s putting in the work to elect conservatives, knocking doors until your knuckles bleed, chasing votes, voter registration. But then arguably the more important of the two things is accountability. And if you don’t have that, you don’t have anything,” Galaszewski explained. “We needed to send that message of accountability, not just to Indiana but to the rest of the country, that the Overton Window is shifting. The conservative movement as we know it is changing, and it’s ‘adapt or die’ for a lot of these establishment Republicans who refuse to stand up for the president,” he continued. The Coalitions Galaszewski told The Daily Signal that they were part of a “massive coalition” on the ground in Indiana. “Really it was the Trump team that captained the ship here. I’ll give a ton of credit to James Blair and Matt Brasseaux and those you know that are in President Trump’s inner political circle to really help drive this and emphasize the importance of what an effort like this could do,” he said. Blair, who played a key role in Trump’s 2024 win, recently—and temporarily—moved from his position as White House deputy chief of staff to lead the president’s outside political operation. The super PAC MAGA Inc. reportedly has a war chest of more than $300 million that could be used in the midterms. Blair and MAGA Inc. have not yet announced the group’s spending plan for the midterm elections. Sen. Jim Banks, R‑Ind., and political activist Scott Presler, were also heavily involved in the get‑out‑the‑vote effort in the state. Banks went as far as to pour in $3 million from his 501(c)(4) organization, Hoosier Leadership for America, to support Trump‑endorsed primary challengers. Just wanted to take a moment to thank @TPAction for ALL of the work you did across Indiana for these wins tonight. Congratulations — you earned it!— ThePersistence (@ScottPresler) May 6, 2026 “When we joined the coalition, kind of toward the end of November, we were pleased to find out there was already a lot of infrastructure there. We took it upon ourselves to really be the boots‑on‑the‑ground component of that apparatus,” he continued. Galaszewski shared that they plan to “build permanent infrastructure” moving into November and 2028. “We know what it takes to win. We’re trained in what needs to be done, and so if we do need to replicate this, we’re able to drop in and help on a moment’s notice.” “We proved that there is a need and a want for Turning Point Action’s help and resources. So we’ll revel in the win right now … but we’ll put together a plan to help a lot of our candidates get over the hump again in November and look to 2028.” He explained that TPAction has a formula “we’re able to replicate that in any part of the country, and at any point in time.” Andy Biggs (AZ) Burt Jones (GA) Ken Paxton (TX) Tom Tiffany (WI) Mike Collins (GA) Joe Mitchell (IA) Michael Alfonso (WI) Dave Flippo (NV) Brandon Herrera (TX) Steve Toth (TX) Mark Lamb (AZ)Lots to get excited about!— Tyler Bowyer (@tylerbowyer) May 7, 2026 Indiana Turning Point Action made a commitment to Indiana just before the December redistricting vote that if the state Senate failed to pass the all‑red map, they would be part of a massive effort, working with the president’s team, to hold the Republicans who voted no accountable. Tuesday night, they all proved successful. “We either endorsed or were heavily involved in nine of the Senate primaries,” Galaszewski explained, “and we’ve won seven of them. We’re waiting on hopefully the eighth with Paula Copenhaver’s effort, as we find out more about the recount and provisional balloting.” JUST IN: 7 GRASSROOTS CANDIDATES WIN IN INDIANA, BEAT OUT "ESTABLISHMENT RINOS""This morning we got 7 out of 8…shot across the bow. A big, big moment in conservative politics." @AndrewKolvet @TPUSA @TPAction @bgalsWI pic.twitter.com/1qbUQmkhlZ— Real America's Voice (RAV) (@RealAmVoice) May 6, 2026 Newly elected Trump‑endorsed candidates who defeated their anti‑redistricting opponents include James “Jay” Starkey, Dr. Brian Schmutzler, Michelle Davis, Tracey Powell, Trevor De Vries, and Blake Fiechter. Paula Copenhaver, another Trump‑endorsed candidate, is still waiting to see if she defeated her anti‑redistricting opponent. As of Thursday afternoon, she trails incumbent Spencer Deery by only four votes. Turning Point Action says they are “ready to be mobilized” for the recount. Incumbent Greg Goode was the only candidate to beat his Trump‑endorsed opponent. Though Rep. Marlin Stutzman told The Daily Signal he was “not surprised” by his win. “But you know all the others, I mean, they were blowouts.”

President Donald Trump took decisive action last year to halt crime in Washington, and the results have been spectacular. President Trump's tough on crime policies have led to a DRASTIC decrease in crime in our nation's capital. pic.twitter.com/yyE44aD4OQ— The White House (@WhiteHouse) April 20, 2026 But that success now looks even more impressive considering recent reports that high-ranking members of the Metropolitan Police Department had been previously cooking the books to create the mirage that crime was lower than it was. The House Oversight Committee released a report in December uncovering that during their investigation of crime in the capital, they heard “testimonies from commanders that there are clear pressures placed on MPD personnel to lower the classifications of crime to present to the public the perception of low crime in the District.” The police commanders said, according to the committee, that “on numerous occasions, they were not only pressured, but also instructed, to lower crime classifications to lesser intermediate offenses in such a way that those offenses would not be included in the DCR reported to the public.” U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro said Friday in an interview with Fox News that her office conducted a review as well and found that 50 witnesses and more than 6,000 police reports backed up the claim that there was tampering with the crime stats. FOX NEWS ALERT: U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro reveals a HUGE PROBE into the "intentional downgrading" of crime statistics in the capital to make the District appear safer than it actually was.@JudgeJeanine tells Fox’s @GriffJenkins that her office interviewed over 50… pic.twitter.com/OWQH3GNlSq— TV News Now (@TVNewsNow) May 7, 2026 Former Police Chief Pamela Smith, who resigned at the end of 2025 citing a desire to spend more time with family, denied that she knew of any crime data manipulation. But MPD acted after Smith resigned. Their Internal Affairs Bureau conducted an investigation and decided to reprimand over a dozen senior staff members in connection to crime data manipulation. “We use crime statistics every day to help us with deployment across the city. I do have confidence in those numbers,” MPD Interim Chief Jeffery Carroll said on Wednesday. “We don’t want to minimize any crime. Obviously, we want to make sure crimes are appropriately classified. We’ll continue to work with that, making sure officers have the appropriate classification.” D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser said that for those who manipulated data “there are repercussions for that.” According to Fox 5, 13 senior MPD officials have been placed on administrative leave in connection with this scandal. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., said in a statement that he will continue to pursue this case. “Every single person who lives, works, or visits our nation’s capital deserves a safe city, yet it’s clear the American people were deliberately kept in the dark about the true crime rates in Washington,” he wrote. “Our work is not done. I expect to receive MPD’s internal report and all related documents to ensure crime data is reported accurately and that anyone responsible for manipulation is held accountable.” There’s a lot to unpack here. The crime stats revelation absolutely vindicates Trump, both his criticism of the crime reporting and his decision to intervene to protect D.C. residents. In August, Trump announced after the murder of two embassy staffers that the District of Columbia “has lost control of public order and safety in the city.” Crime in the city had become a “national disgrace,” he said, and therefore it was his “duty to our citizens and Federal workers to secure the safety and the peaceful functioning of our Nation, the Federal Government, and our city.” Trump called the stats showing lower crime in the city a “fraud” and called up the National Guard to help enforce the law and tackle the crime issue head on. Democrats and their media allies were apoplectic about this decision, of course. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Washington Democrat, said the move was a “historic assault on D.C. home rule.” To which I say: “Is that a bad thing?” Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md. called the move an act of “revenge.” In fairness to Democrats, I can see why they wouldn’t want residents to think that the crime issue can just be solved under new management. The New York Times also blasted Trump and reported that “Trump Misstates Washington Crime Data to Justify Takeover.” In their fact check of the president, the Times cited data from 2024 showing that crime was already going down. But as we’ve now learned, Trump was correct. Violent crime was still acute and in desperate need of addressing. Now crime reductions aren’t just happening on manipulated spreadsheets. Violent crime in the District really is plummeting across the board thanks to the National Guard, an aggressive U.S. attorney who wants to prosecute crimes, and a president who decided enough was enough. The leftists and unemployed deep state bureaucrats will surely go on hating the president, but a lot of lives have been saved because he prioritized genuine safety over the excuses and false assurances of D.C. leadership class.

The critical 2026 Nebraska Senate race, which could help tip the balance of power in Washington, has become consumed by accusations that candidates are misrepresenting their party affiliations to rig the odds in their favor. In November, Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., who is finishing the term of retired Republican Sen. Ben Sasse, will seek a six-year term in the Senate.  The race’s outcome is rated “likely Republican” by Cook Political Report. But Ricketts’ most serious competition likely will not be from the Democratic Party. Instead, prominent Nebraska Democrats are backing independent candidate Dan Osborn, a former union leader, for the seat. This is similar to the Democrat strategy in 2024, when Osborn unsuccessfully challenged Republican Sen. Deb Fischer and lost by fewer than seven points. Democrats did not hold a primary at all, with party figures believing Osborn had the best chance of unseating the Republican incumbent. Ricketts has accused Osborn—whose website describes him as a “lifelong independent” in contrast to the “partisans who run Washington”—of being a Democrat in disguise. The race is already a complicated multi-front battle, in which all sides accuse each other of masquerading as something they are not. Liberal Lawyers and Primary Plants? The Elias Law Group—a firm founded by Democrat election lawyer Marc Elias—has been paid for legal services by both Osborn’s campaign and the political action committee he founded. At the same time, the firm has provided counsel to Democrat candidate Cindy Burbank, who wants to give Osborn a “fair shot against” Ricketts. Burbank is open about her support for Osborn, despite seeking the Democrat nomination. She does not explicitly state on her website that she would drop out if nominated. Her website reads, “Dan Osborn is a good man, a working man, a strike leader, and someone we can trust. He deserves a fair shot against Ricketts. So vote for me—and I’ll make sure we send Billionaire Pete Ricketts PACKING!” Chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party Jane Kleeb is backing Burbank for the party’s nomination, who has already stated on her website her intention to give Osborn a “fair shot against Ricketts” and not split the vote. Kleeb herself has acknowledged she supports Osborn in the general election. “We are supporting Dan Osborn,” Kleeb wrote on X in July 2025.  “We believe a coalition of Dems, Indys, and Republicans can beat Ricketts.” The Elias Law Group has assisted Cindy Burbank in her efforts to stay on the ballot for the Democratic primary in 2026. Burbank’s bid for the Democrat nomination ran into trouble recently when Nebraska’s Secretary of State declared she could not be on the ballot, arguing she was not a good faith candidate. In Nebraska, candidates must certify in filing forms that they “will serve if elected.” Ultimately, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that Burbank must be certified as a candidate, overruling the secretary. The Elias Law Group served as Burbank’s counsel in this case, helping her to get back on the ballot. Osborn’s campaign has paid the Elias Law Group nearly $50,000 for legal services on four occasions between Nov. 2025 and Feb. 2026—demonstrating the firm’s professional connection to both Burbank and Osborn’s campaigns. The Working Class Heroes Fund—a political action committee founded by Osborn—also paid the Elias Law Group nearly $30,000 for legal services in 2025. Osborn himself has commented on the 2026 Democrat primary, urging Nebraskans not to support Burbank’s main opponent for the Democrat nomination, William Forbes, a pro-life pastor who has not indicated he will drop out of the race if he wins. Here are two things you ought to know about Nebraska’s upcoming primary:-Because I’m an Independent, I won’t appear on your primary ballot. I’ll be on your ballot in November. Please don’t waste your vote writing me in!-If you’re voting in the Democrat primary, please be wary… pic.twitter.com/NOSfnsmEtl— Dan Osborn (@osbornforne) April 21, 2026 “If you’re voting in the Democrat primary, please be wary that Ricketts has a GOP stooge planted in the race named William Forbes. Do NOT vote for Fake Forbes!” Osborn wrote on X, accusing Ricketts of attempting to “split the vote” in the general election. Ricketts deputy campaign manager Max Oberg told the Daily Signal in a statement, “The Ricketts campaign had no role in the Democratic primary.” Oberg added, “The only candidate in this race with a record of meddling in primaries and undermining the democratic process is Dan Osborn. Time and again, Osborn says one thing in public while doing the exact opposite behind closed doors.” Forbes rejects allegations of being a plant, telling The Daily Signal in a statement that he is “the only real Democrat in this race,” and that Burbank is serving the interests of Osborn. “Cindy Burbank is nothing more than Dan Osborn’s placeholder candidate—a patsy who already admitted she’d quit if she won just to hand him the ballot line,” Forbes told The Daily Signal. “I’m the only Democrat in this race willing to go straight at Trump, Ricketts, and the rigged system they built for their wealthy donors,” he added. A Marijuana Masquerade? The last time Osborn ran, he benefited from being the Republican incumbent’s sole competition. He may be able to benefit from a similar situation in 2026. On May 14, 2024, a day after primary day in Nebraska, Osborn announced he would not be seeking party endorsements—just days before a scheduled meeting in which the Democratic party was set to endorse him. Similarly, in 2024, the Nebraska Legal Marijuana NOW (LMN) Party did not have a candidate, as the winner of its primary, Kerry Eddy, withdrew from the race and endorsed Osborn. Eddy had promised this from the start of her campaign, saying on her website that she was running for the LMN nomination “to support an independent candidate, Dan Osborn. He has a real shot at beating pro-fascist, corporate shill Deb Fischer.” Eddy explicitly stated on the website her “intent [was] to bring Legal Marijuana NOW voters to Dan Osborn.” With no candidate officially representing LMN or the Democrats in 2024, Osborn was able to run as a third-party candidate without splitting the vote with other liberal candidates. In 2026, the LMN party is once again having a primary, and rumors and allegations of “plants” are back.  A candidate named Mike Marvin entered the primary for the party’s nomination in March 2026.  Formerly the director of a Nebraska public employees’ union, Marvin’s website says he will “work with other candidates in the race to make sure we have a united front against Pete Ricketts in November.” Burbank paid his $1,740 filing fee to be a candidate, the Nebraska Examiner reported, although Marvin has denied coordinating with Burbank. “I don’t even know Cindy Burbank,” Marvin told the publication. Burbank told the publication that she had witnessed election office staff refusing to accept Marvin’s filing payment due to it being “for ten dollars too much,” so she volunteered to pay his filing fee without coordinating with him. She said she has “never met” Marvin. “If Ricketts can throw his money around then so can I,” she said. Marvin is facing off against Earl Starkey for the LMN nomination. Starkey, who opposes Ricketts and Osborn, has accused Marvin of being a plant. The Daily Signal reached out to the Elias Law Group, as well as the Burbank and Osborn campaigns for comment. Nebraska’s Primary day is on May 12. Related PostsDem Accused of Violating Federal Law in Stunt to Aid Communist Regime With MexicoA top House Democrat is being accused of breaking federal law after she admitted to meeting with foreign ambassadors about getting oil to Cuba’s communist regime despite U.S. sanctions, defending the outreach as “literally our right and responsibility.” Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D‑Wash., made the remarks during a recent briefing in Seattle following a congressional delegation…Sen. Banks Poured Millions to Unseat Republicans Who Struck Down Redistricting EffortRepublican Sen. Jim Banks of Indiana directed $3 million from his 501(c)(4) organization, Hoosier Leadership for America, to primary challengers of GOP state senators who opposed a redistricting plan supported by President Donald Trump that could have netted the GOP two additional House seats. On Tuesday night, at least five of those seven senators were…Republican Derek Merrin to Face Kaptur in NovemberIt was primary day in Ohio on Tuesday, with results coming in for several key races that could affect the midterms—especially control of the U.S. House. Republican Derek Merrin is set to face Ohio Democrat U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur in November after winning Ohio’s 9th Congressional District last night. Kaptur has represented the district since…