Picking up the pieces from election night

Hi,

It was a good night for almost every state that isn't Nebraska. Texas going blue is obviously the big headline but what about Kansas? Iowa?? South Carolina??? Maybe even Mississippi???? The last is actually my home state and I've long worried I would die and turn to dust before anyone seriously challenged the entrenched Republican power structure there.

Unfortunately, this newsletter doesn't really cover national politics. So let's talk about the somewhat less inspiring results in our state.

This isn't gonna be a deep dive into every race or a well-thought-out manifesto about what should happen next. It's way too soon for anything like that. Instead I've got a few quick observations, complaints, rants, and an attempt to stave off doomerism at the end.

Only paid subscribers can read the whole piece but if you want to help support the newsletter and also read my political commentary, you can get an annual subscription right now at a discount:

As a paid subscriber, you can also read my back catalog of hot takes from this election cycle. They've all aged like fine wine. (You don't have to trust me on this: Sign up today and dig up my worst ones. I dare you.)

You can also support me on Patreon and receive a complimentary paid subscription to the newsletter by doing so. Or leave a one-time tip. Everything helps!

1. Nebraska said 'fuck you' to trans kids

The most depressing result of the evening was the overwhelming success of Initiative 442, the so-called "Fairness for Girls" ballot measure which will enshrine discrimination against trans girls in the state constitution.

Per Nebraska Public Media's reporting:

Athletic teams or sports designated for "females, women, or girls" would "not be open to students of the male sex" under the amendment, though there is no similar language barring female students from sports designated as male.

The results were not close: 68% (over 490,000 Nebraskans) voted to approve it, which means it got support from independents and almost certainly some Democrats. It won by substantially higher margins than every statewide Republican candidate aside from auditor Mike Foley, who didn't have a serious challenger.

This is one of those results that's disappointing but not surprising. It's also not exclusively a Nebraska story. Just look at the results of similar ballot measures in Arizona, Colorado and Washington. I'm not sure most cis people grasp the extent to which this kind of anti-trans sentiment has been normalized over the past 4 or 5 years but we're continuing to reap the consequences of that shift. The vile propaganda falsely painting trans people as dangerous predators from far-right politicians and conservative media has been relentless. And it's not like the mainstream Democratic party has been incredible on the issue recently. (James Talarico in particular, for all his virtues as a candidate, was willing to sacrifice trans kids on the altar of political expediency.)

It's easy to say, 'Oh this ballot measure doesn't matter very much, there aren't many trans kids who play sports in Nebraska anyway.' But the political movements mobilizing to pass these kinds of laws aren't going to stop with kids. They never do. This will not be the last effort to restrict the rights of trans Nebraskans and it may take a long time to fix the harm already done.

2. The Osborn campaign crashed and burned way harder than I thought it could

I never believed very strongly that Dan Osborn would win and, as I've talked about at length in this newsletter, I was always lukewarm on his candidacy. But I did hope.

So much for that.

It's impossible to know for sure if Pete Ricketts was theoretically beatable, but he never struck me as someone with a passionate, devoted constituency. I do think the right candidate could've won the race or at least made things close, given the national mood.

But Osborn lost decisively: 43.6% to 50.4%. Three other candidates from functionally non-existent political parties made up the difference, though I don't think you can realistically call any of them spoilers. Ricketts won with a slight majority, so even if every single one of those other votes went to Osborn — which isn't likely — he still would've lost.

The margin here was basically identical to Osborn's previous loss to Deb Fischer in 2024, which is frankly embarrassing. He did outperform Lynne Walz in her bid for governor but not by much. What makes this especially bad is that the last Democratic candidate for governor back in 2022 lost their race by a staggering 23 points. Walz closed the gap to single digits, which isn't nothing. Yet Osborn didn't manage to make up any ground despite his apparent momentum.

I don't have a definitive explanation for this failure. Perhaps his branding as an independent means that he ultimately didn't benefit from the blue wave that lifted other candidates? All I can say for sure is that his attempt to appeal to MAGA voters with nationalist talking points about "border security" failed completely.

Personally, I see this entire cycle as a repudiation of the idea that ex-military, tough talking, ideologically "heterodox" candidates are good standard-bearers for left-wing politics. Clearly what the people want are hot Muslim epidemiologists and soft-spoken English teachers who get accused of being vegan. Let's try that next time.

3. The state Democratic Party blamed other people for their failures

You know how I just said Osborn wouldn't have won even if he'd gotten all the votes that went to other candidates (namely, the folks running on the Legal Marijuana Now, Nebraska Working People and America First tickets).

Well it seems like Precious McKesson, executive director of the Nebraska Democratic Party, didn't look at those numbers because she's blaming third parties for Osborn's loss and describing those candidates as spoilers.

According to a story from NPM:

Asked if there were any post-election regrets over not fielding a Democratic candidate for U.S. senate, McKesson said she stands by Osborn.

“I am disappointed that these third-party candidates,” McKesson said. “I call them spoiler candidates because that's what they were.”