Shared research study link
Nebraska 2026 Independent Voter Appeal
Understand Nebraska voter openness to independent candidates and populist messaging vs party loyalty
Study Overview
Updated Jan 28, 2026
Research question: Measure Nebraska voters’ openness to an independent Senate candidate (Dan Osborn) and populist messaging versus party loyalty, and test reactions to his refusal to caucus.
Research group: Six Nebraska residents (ages ~30–65) from Omaha, Lincoln, and Kearney-retirees, a project manager, and a real-estate agent-providing 18 responses; one was an engaged non‑citizen.
What they said: Voters are open but cautious-Osborn’s Navy + union record signals authenticity and wins attention, his anti‑corporate/Social Security focus resonates, yet the biggest red flag is “won’t caucus,” which voters equate with lost committee power, weaker results, and spoiler risk.
Main insights: Independence only converts to votes if paired with a clear caucus/committee strategy, concrete kitchen‑table policy mechanics (Social Security, healthcare costs, housing, ag/energy, border), and funding transparency.
Operational credibility also requires a credible statewide ground game with low‑tech access for seniors (printed mailers, live phone line, town halls), a balance of labor credibility with small‑business reassurance, and demonstrated viability through polling and local validators.
Takeaways: Publish an explicit caucus/committee plan, release a Nebraska‑first 30‑60‑90 with budgets and milestones, launch a donor‑transparency/ethics pledge, stand up rural + senior‑focused field operations, and show a path to 50% with reputable polling and county targets.
Research group: Six Nebraska residents (ages ~30–65) from Omaha, Lincoln, and Kearney-retirees, a project manager, and a real-estate agent-providing 18 responses; one was an engaged non‑citizen.
What they said: Voters are open but cautious-Osborn’s Navy + union record signals authenticity and wins attention, his anti‑corporate/Social Security focus resonates, yet the biggest red flag is “won’t caucus,” which voters equate with lost committee power, weaker results, and spoiler risk.
Main insights: Independence only converts to votes if paired with a clear caucus/committee strategy, concrete kitchen‑table policy mechanics (Social Security, healthcare costs, housing, ag/energy, border), and funding transparency.
Operational credibility also requires a credible statewide ground game with low‑tech access for seniors (printed mailers, live phone line, town halls), a balance of labor credibility with small‑business reassurance, and demonstrated viability through polling and local validators.
Takeaways: Publish an explicit caucus/committee plan, release a Nebraska‑first 30‑60‑90 with budgets and milestones, launch a donor‑transparency/ethics pledge, stand up rural + senior‑focused field operations, and show a path to 50% with reputable polling and county targets.
Participant Snapshots
6 profiles
Eric Cordero
Lucas Anderson, 53, is an early-retired entrepreneur in Kearney, Nebraska. Married with $200k+ household income, practical and privacy‑minded; mentors locally, gardens, games, plays music, and photographs cranes; researches durable, transparent, subscriptio…
Debra Gutierrez
Debra Gutierrez, 52, married Bellevue, NE resident, regional client services manager in personal services. Works mostly from home, budgets carefully, rents for flexibility, values durability and clear ROI; enjoys gardening, dog walks, local sports, and comm…
Daniel Centurion
Daniel Centurion, 30, in Kearney, NE, is a separated co-parent and real estate sales/operations pro. Owns a modest home, earns $100k–$149k, budgets carefully, and favors durable, transparent, easy-to-use products. Enjoys photography, DIY, and time with one…
Chuck Portillo
Chuck Portillo, 55, is an early-retired former warehouse operations lead in Omaha, NE. Lives alone in an owned condo on a $50k–$74k budget. Practical, privacy-aware; favors durable, simple tools. Anchors free time in photography, films, and reading.
Joseph Kass
Joseph Kass is a 63-year-old Catholic university educator in Lincoln city, Nebraska. Married, childfree, bikes to work, owns his home, budgets carefully, values durability, public service, and clear information. Pragmatic, community-rooted, and planning a m…
Margaret Young
Margaret Young, 65, a disabled former school paraprofessional in Lincoln city, Nebraska, lives frugally on public benefits. Faith-centered, practical, and offline, she prioritizes clear costs, reliability, bus access, and trusted community recommendations.
Eric Cordero
Lucas Anderson, 53, is an early-retired entrepreneur in Kearney, Nebraska. Married with $200k+ household income, practical and privacy‑minded; mentors locally, gardens, games, plays music, and photographs cranes; researches durable, transparent, subscriptio…
Debra Gutierrez
Debra Gutierrez, 52, married Bellevue, NE resident, regional client services manager in personal services. Works mostly from home, budgets carefully, rents for flexibility, values durability and clear ROI; enjoys gardening, dog walks, local sports, and comm…
Daniel Centurion
Daniel Centurion, 30, in Kearney, NE, is a separated co-parent and real estate sales/operations pro. Owns a modest home, earns $100k–$149k, budgets carefully, and favors durable, transparent, easy-to-use products. Enjoys photography, DIY, and time with one…
Chuck Portillo
Chuck Portillo, 55, is an early-retired former warehouse operations lead in Omaha, NE. Lives alone in an owned condo on a $50k–$74k budget. Practical, privacy-aware; favors durable, simple tools. Anchors free time in photography, films, and reading.
Joseph Kass
Joseph Kass is a 63-year-old Catholic university educator in Lincoln city, Nebraska. Married, childfree, bikes to work, owns his home, budgets carefully, values durability, public service, and clear information. Pragmatic, community-rooted, and planning a m…
Margaret Young
Margaret Young, 65, a disabled former school paraprofessional in Lincoln city, Nebraska, lives frugally on public benefits. Faith-centered, practical, and offline, she prioritizes clear costs, reliability, bus access, and trusted community recommendations.
Overview
0 participants
Sex / Gender
Race / Ethnicity
Locale (Top)
Occupations (Top)
Demographic Overview
No agents selected
| Age bucket | Male count | Female count |
|---|
Participant locations
No agents selected
Participant Incomes
US benchmark scaled to group size
| Income bucket | Participants | US households |
|---|
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2022 ACS 1-year (Table B19001; >$200k evenly distributed for comparison)
Media Ingestion
Connections appear when personas follow many of the same sources, highlighting overlapping media diets.
Questions and Responses
3 questions
Response Summaries
3 questions
Word Cloud
Question Summary
Preparing summary…
Summary
Themes
| Theme | Count | Example Participant | Example Quote |
|---|
Outliers
| Agent | Snippet | Reason |
|---|
Analyzing correlations…
Generating correlations…
Taking longer than usual
Persona Correlations
Analyzing correlations…
Overview
Respondents show conditional openness to a Nebraska independent Senate bid anchored in Navy service + union leadership as authenticity cues, but that receptivity is fragile: nearly every demographic demands clear, specific governing mechanics (caucusing/committee access, staffing, first-year deliverables) and a credible path to win. Older and low-income voters prioritize Social Security/Medicare protections and low‑tech, in-person outreach; educated, mid-career, and higher-income respondents insist on operational plans and fiscal clarity. Concern about a spoiler outcome and requests for funding transparency are cross-cutting. Net: biography opens doors; pragmatic mechanics and demonstrable field capacity win hearts and votes.
Total responses: 18
Key Segments
| Segment | Attributes | Insight | Supporting Agents |
|---|---|---|---|
| Older retirees / senior voters (55+) | Retired, often fixed/low incomes, rely on Social Security/Medicare, prefer in-person and printed outreach | Highly receptive to authenticity signals (veteran + union) only when paired with explicit program protections for benefits and clear assurances about constituent services and committee access; risk-averse to any sign of a spoiler candidacy. | Margaret Young, Chuck Portillo, Joseph Kass |
| Educated, pragmatic professionals (50–65, graduate degrees / management) | Mid-to-high incomes, professional roles, focus on governance, process, and measurable outcomes | View independence as acceptable in principle but require detailed operational plans (caucus choice, committee targets, staffing, first-year deliverables) and evidence of policymaking capacity before offering active support. | Joseph Kass, Debra Gutierrez |
| Mid-age, small-city / rural professionals | Younger-to-mid adults in smaller Nebraska cities, tied to local economies (real estate, small business), focus on housing, healthcare, broadband, ag/energy | Respond positively to a military + union narrative when it translates into localized policy and county-level outreach; view independents as high-risk without a demonstrated rural ground game and coalition-building across county lines. | Daniel Centurion, Eric Cordero |
| Higher-income retirees / small-business owners | High household income, retired or business-owner background, fiscally attentive | Sympathetic to anti-establishment and worker-protection messages but demand fiscal specifics and reconciliation between pro-union positions and protections for local businesses; donor transparency and accountability are thresholds for trust. | Eric Cordero, Daniel Centurion |
| Low-income seniors and minority retirees | Older, limited disposable income, rely on public benefits, prefer low-tech contact | Strongly motivated by protection of benefits, prescription affordability, and local healthcare access; more likely to convert on union-backed, worker-centered narratives if the campaign delivers concrete program details and accessible local services. | Margaret Young |
| Cross-demographic signal: military + union credential resonance | Cuts across ages and locales | Navy service plus union leadership consistently increases perceived authenticity and trust, especially among working-class and retired voters - but that cue alone is insufficient without operational answers about governing and viability. | Daniel Centurion, Margaret Young, Chuck Portillo, Joseph Kass, Debra Gutierrez |
Shared Mindsets
| Trait | Signal | Agents |
|---|---|---|
| Demand for governing mechanics | Voters uniformly require concrete answers on caucusing strategy, committee access, staffing, and measurable first-year policy goals before committing support. | Joseph Kass, Debra Gutierrez, Eric Cordero, Margaret Young |
| Spoiler / viability concern | High anxiety that an independent could split the anti-incumbent vote and hand the seat to a least-preferred major-party candidate; many will withhold support absent a credible win plan. | Chuck Portillo, Margaret Young, Debra Gutierrez, Daniel Centurion |
| Trust signals: veteran + union | The combined veteran/union background functions as a strong authenticity cue - signals service, practical leadership, and worker solidarity - and increases openness across working-class and retired voters. | Daniel Centurion, Margaret Young, Chuck Portillo |
| Preference for local, tangible outreach | Older and lower-income respondents expect printed materials, answered phone lines, town halls, and visible in-person presence over a digital-only approach. | Margaret Young, Chuck Portillo, Debra Gutierrez |
| Funding transparency as a trust threshold | Clear donor lists and limits on dark money are repeatedly cited as necessary for credibility across income brackets. | Eric Cordero, Margaret Young, Chuck Portillo |
Divergences
| Segment | Contrast | Agents |
|---|---|---|
| Higher-income small-business owners vs. union-forward narrative | Supportive of worker messages in principle but insist the campaign demonstrate safeguards for small businesses and fiscal realism; skeptical of rhetoric that could be framed as hostile to local operators. | Eric Cordero, Daniel Centurion |
| Older retirees (low-tech outreach) vs. educated professionals (process details) | Seniors prioritize tangible local services and accessible outreach channels, while educated professionals prioritize technical governance details (committee slots, caucus choices) and policy metrics. | Margaret Young, Joseph Kass, Debra Gutierrez |
| General openness to veteran + union identity vs. universal rejection of vague independence | While the Navy‑vet + union story increases receptivity, nearly all respondents reject brand-only independence or ambiguous statements like 'won't caucus' unless paired with a credible plan for legislative influence and electoral viability. | Chuck Portillo, Margaret Young, Debra Gutierrez, Daniel Centurion, Joseph Kass |
| Younger/mid-age market-oriented professional (unexpectedly pro-union) vs. typical small-business expectations | At least one mid-age real-estate professional displays stronger-than-expected pro-union, working-class framing - a reminder that local economic context and fairness messaging can cut across occupational stereotypes. | Daniel Centurion |
Creating recommendations…
Generating recommendations…
Taking longer than usual
Recommendations & Next Steps
Preparing recommendations…
Overview
Nebraska voters are open but cautious about an independent like Dan Osborn. Biography (Navy + union) opens doors, but support is conditional on proving viability, a clear caucus/committee plan, funding transparency, a credible statewide ground game with low-tech outreach, and plain-English kitchen-table policy receipts. The path to conversion is operational credibility over rhetoric.
Action focus: 1) publish a clear organizing/caucus and committee leverage plan; 2) release a Nebraska-first 30-60-90 with budgets/timelines; 3) stand up a transparency microsite and ethics pledge; 4) build rural + senior-targeted field operations (printed mailers, answered phone line, town halls); 5) balance labor + small-business framing; 6) demonstrate viability with reputable polling and county targets.
Action focus: 1) publish a clear organizing/caucus and committee leverage plan; 2) release a Nebraska-first 30-60-90 with budgets/timelines; 3) stand up a transparency microsite and ethics pledge; 4) build rural + senior-targeted field operations (printed mailers, answered phone line, town halls); 5) balance labor + small-business framing; 6) demonstrate viability with reputable polling and county targets.
Quick Wins (next 2–4 weeks)
| # | Action | Why | Owner | Effort | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Publish organizing caucus + committee leverage plan | Refusal to caucus is the top red flag; voters want to know how Nebraska gets committee seats and clout. | Campaign Manager + Policy Director | Med | High |
| 2 | Launch donor transparency microsite | Trust hinges on no dark money and clear disclosures. | Finance Director + General Counsel | Low | High |
| 3 | Release 1-page senior-focused policy brief | Older voters want plain-English receipts on Social Security, Medicare, drug prices, and a local phone line. | Comms Director | Low | High |
| 4 | Announce 10-stop low-tech town hall tour | Signals real ground game beyond digital; meets demand for in-person Q&A statewide. | Field Director | Med | High |
| 5 | Viability memo with third-party poll | Mitigates spoiler risk by showing a path to 50% and county targets. | Data & Analytics Lead | Med | High |
| 6 | Business–Labor Compact statement | Preempts small-business wariness while reinforcing worker credibility. | Policy Director + Small Business Outreach Lead | Low | Med |
Initiatives (30–90 days)
| # | Initiative | Description | Owner | Timeline | Dependencies |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Committee Power Strategy | Define and publish an organizing caucus choice and target committees (e.g., Agriculture, Veterans’ Affairs, Commerce/Science, EPW). Create a plain-language explainer on how this yields appropriations, amendments, and constituent impact. | Policy Director | Draft in 2 weeks; public rollout by Day 21 | Advisor consultations (former Senate parliamentarians/chiefs of staff), Legal review of statements |
| 2 | Nebraska-First 30-60-90 Plan | Publish a kitchen-table agenda with budgets, timelines, and milestones: rural hospitals, drug prices, farm bill, Offutt/Bellevue flood control, broadband, housing (LIHTC/USDA RD). Include first three measurable goals and 12-month milestones. | Policy Director + Comms Director | 30 days to launch; quarterly updates | Issue experts on ag/health/infra, Design and print vendors |
| 3 | Transparency & Ethics Program | Stand up a real-time donor dashboard, ban corporate PAC money, adopt no stock trading pledge, publish conflicts policy and staff code of conduct, and quarterly independent compliance reviews. | Finance Director + General Counsel | Microsite live in 2 weeks; policy suite by Day 30 | Payment processor data feeds, External compliance auditor |
| 4 | Statewide Ground Game + Senior Access | Open regional hubs; recruit precinct captains across rural counties; deliver printed mailers; launch a live-answer hotline with 24h resolution target; weekly church-basement/senior-center events. | Field Director | Hubs in 45 days; precinct captain map by Day 60 | Volunteer recruitment pipeline, Call-center vendor/SLA tooling |
| 5 | Small Business + Labor Coalition | Form a Business Advisory Council and Labor Council; release a joint policy sheet: fair scheduling, apprenticeships, small-biz credit, reduced red tape, local procurement, worker safety. | Coalitions Director | Councils formed in 30 days; policy sheet by Day 45 | Endorsement outreach, Policy modeling of small-biz impacts |
| 6 | Viability & Spoiler Risk Mitigation | Monthly reputable polling; county-level vote goals; publish progress; aggressive earned media and long-form interviews; deploy persuadable-voter modeling to focus resources. | Data & Analytics Lead | Baseline poll in 2 weeks; monthly cadence | Polling vendor, Media booker/press relationships |
KPIs to Track
| # | KPI | Definition | Target | Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Viability Index | Two-way ballot share vs Ricketts (likely voters), plus net favorability. | Within 5 pts by Month 3; tied/lead by Month 5 | Monthly |
| 2 | Caucus/Committee Plan Awareness | % of likely voters who can accurately recall the organizing caucus + target committees. | 40% awareness in 60 days; 55% by 90 days | Biweekly tracking |
| 3 | Small-Dollar Share | Share of donations <$200 and in-state donor ratio. | ≥70% small-dollar; ≥60% in-state | Weekly |
| 4 | Field Coverage | Counties with active precinct captains and recurring events. | 70/93 counties in 90 days; 85/93 by 120 days | Weekly |
| 5 | Senior Engagement SLA | Hotline answer time and resolution rate; print mailer reach. | <60s answer; 90% resolved <24h; 150k mailers by 60 days | Weekly |
| 6 | Local Validators | Endorsements from respected local civic, veteran, ag, and small-business leaders. | 100 validators across 30 counties by 90 days | Monthly |
Risks & Mitigations
| # | Risk | Mitigation | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Persistent spoiler perception suppresses support. | Publish independent polling and county targets; show path to 50% and momentum; emphasize endorsements and broad coalition. | Comms Director + Data & Analytics Lead |
| 2 | Caucus ambiguity signals lost committee power. | State the organizing caucus choice; release a committee explainer and FAQs; reinforce in every town hall. | Policy Director |
| 3 | Union-forward brand alienates small-business owners. | Roll out the Business–Labor Compact and small-biz policy planks; elevate small-biz validators. | Coalitions Director |
| 4 | Ground game fails to reach rural and senior voters. | Resource rural hubs first, set weekly event quotas, mail printed briefs, and monitor hotline SLAs. | Field Director |
| 5 | Attacks on funding sources and outside influence. | Operate real-time donor transparency, refuse corporate PAC money, and conduct quarterly independent compliance reviews. | Finance Director + General Counsel |
| 6 | Overpromising on state/local levers (e.g., property taxes). | Clarify federal vs state roles; tie federal funding and incentives to local outcomes; publish realistic constraints. | Policy Director |
Timeline
0–30 days: Publish caucus/committee plan; launch transparency microsite; release senior one-pager; baseline poll; announce town hall tour.
30–60 days: Nebraska-First 30-60-90 plan live; open first regional hubs; form Business & Labor councils; deliver first printed mail drop; second poll + viability memo.
60–120 days: Expand precinct captains into rural counties; weekly town halls; validators program rollout; hotline SLA at steady state; monthly polling cadence.
120+ days: Intensify GOTV, optimize county resource allocation to hit vote targets; continuous earned media and long-form interviews; quarterly transparency and progress updates.
30–60 days: Nebraska-First 30-60-90 plan live; open first regional hubs; form Business & Labor councils; deliver first printed mail drop; second poll + viability memo.
60–120 days: Expand precinct captains into rural counties; weekly town halls; validators program rollout; hotline SLA at steady state; monthly polling cadence.
120+ days: Intensify GOTV, optimize county resource allocation to hit vote targets; continuous earned media and long-form interviews; quarterly transparency and progress updates.
Research Study Narrative
Nebraska 2026 Independent Voter Appeal: Executive Synthesis
Objective and context: Assess Nebraska voters’ openness to an independent Senate candidacy (Dan Osborn) and populist messaging versus party loyalty. Across three probes, voters were consistently open but cautious: biography (Navy veteran + union leader) unlocks attention, but support hinges on operational credibility-caucus/committee power, a credible win path, funding transparency, and plain‑English, kitchen‑table policy receipts.
What voters told us (cross-question learnings)
Authenticity resonates, viability decides. Osborn’s Navy and union credentials convey working-class credibility, especially with seniors and rural professionals. Yet refusal to caucus is a recurring red flag, read as lost committee access and diminished leverage for Nebraska. Respondents demand a governing mechanics plan, transparent money, and a visible ground game with low-tech access for seniors.
- “I’m open to it, but I get twitchy about the spoiler risk.” - Chuck Portillo
- “A union backbone makes my ears perk up… folks who have stood on a cold picket line usually understand grocery prices.” - Margaret Young
- “If you don’t hook into a caucus, you end up with no committee slots and no leverage.” - Chuck Portillo
- “Which committees will he realistically land… first three measurable goals with timelines?” - Debra Gutierrez
- “Transparent money: disclose top donors, no dark‑money PAC dance.” - Joseph Kass
Localized needs sharpen expectations: Offutt/Bellevue levees, base housing, rural hospitals, property taxes, roads and broadband were named as early deliverables (Debra Gutierrez). One respondent flagged democratic norms-accept election results-as a baseline (Daniel Centurion). Small-business owners are wary of union-forward rhetoric absent safeguards (Eric Cordero).
Persona correlations and nuances
- Older retirees (55+): Very receptive to veteran/union authenticity if paired with Social Security/Medicare protection and clear constituent services; risk‑averse to spoiler vibes (Margaret Young).
- Educated, pragmatic professionals: Independence acceptable only with a concrete caucus/committee strategy, staffing, and first-year milestones (Joseph Kass, Debra Gutierrez).
- Small-city/rural professionals: Support rises when independence translates into county‑level outreach and ag/energy focus; demand a real rural ground game (Daniel Centurion, Eric Cordero).
- Small-business owners: Open to accountability/populism but require fiscal clarity and protections for local operators; strong ask for donor transparency (Eric Cordero).
Implications and recommendations
Path to conversion is operational credibility over rhetoric:
- Publish a caucus + committee leverage plan explaining how Nebraska benefits in appropriations and oversight.
- Release a Nebraska‑first 30‑60‑90 with budgets, timelines, and three measurable early wins (e.g., rural hospitals, Offutt/Bellevue flood control, broadband).
- Stand up a donor transparency microsite, ban corporate PAC money, and adopt a no‑stock‑trading and conflicts policy.
- Build a senior‑first, low‑tech ground game: printed one‑pagers, a live‑answer hotline, town halls across rural counties.
- Balance labor + small business via a joint compact on fair work, apprenticeships, local procurement, and reduced red tape.
- Demonstrate viability with reputable polling and county targets to neutralize spoiler concerns.
Risks and mitigations
- Spoiler perception persists: Counter with third‑party polling, clear 50% path, validators, and county‑level targets.
- Caucus ambiguity: Declare an organizing caucus; publish a committee explainer and FAQs; reiterate at every town hall.
- Union‑forward backlash among small businesses: Launch a Business–Labor policy sheet and elevate small‑biz validators.
- Field gaps with seniors/rural voters: Resource regional hubs first; track hotline SLAs and mail reach.
- Funding attacks: Real‑time donor dashboard and quarterly independent compliance reviews.
Next steps and measurement
- 0–30 days: Publish caucus/committee plan; launch transparency site; release senior one‑pager; baseline poll; announce 10‑stop town hall tour.
- 30–60 days: Roll out Nebraska‑first 30‑60‑90; open first regional hubs; form Business & Labor councils; first print drop; viability memo.
- 60–120 days: Expand precinct captains; weekly town halls; hotline at steady state; monthly polling cadence.
- 120+ days: Intensify GOTV; optimize county allocation; quarterly transparency/progress updates.
- Viability Index: Two‑way ballot share vs. Ricketts and net fav; target within 5 pts by Month 3, tie/lead by Month 5.
- Caucus/committee awareness: 40% in 60 days; 55% by 90 days.
- Small‑dollar share: ≥70% donations under $200; ≥60% in‑state.
- Field coverage: Active precinct captains in 70/93 counties by 90 days; 85/93 by 120 days.
- Senior engagement SLA: Answer <60s; 90% resolved <24h; 150k mailers in 60 days.
Recommended Follow-up Questions
Updated Jan 28, 2026
-
How acceptable are each of the following caucus and committee strategies for an independent U.S. Senator from Nebraska? - Remain unaffiliated and do not caucus with either party - Caucus with a party only to obtain committee assignments - Caucus with the party that offers the most committee influence for Nebraska - Join issue-based caucuses (e.g., agriculture, veterans) while remaining independent - Form a bipartisan working group instead of formal caucusingmatrix Select a caucus posture that maximizes voter support while preserving perceived independence and legislative leverage.
-
What minimum chance of winning (0–100%) would you need to see in credible public polls before you would vote for an independent candidate?numeric Quantifies the polling threshold needed to neutralize spoiler concerns and set campaign benchmarks.
-
Rank your preferred ways to hear from a U.S. Senate candidate in Nebraska.rank Optimizes outreach investments and low‑tech access tactics for Nebraska voters.
-
Which of the following messages would most increase your likelihood to support an independent Senate candidate? Select the most convincing and least convincing in each set. - Ban stock trading by members of Congress - Refuse corporate PAC money and disclose all donors in real time - Protect Social Security without raising the retirement age - Lower healthcare costs by cracking down on hospital monopolies and PBMs - Put Nebraska first by working with any party to deliver results - Increase compet...maxdiff Prioritizes message planks most likely to shift support toward an independent over party loyalty.
-
Which signs would most convince you that an independent Senate candidate is viable? Select the most convincing and least convincing in each set. - Polls show the independent within 5 points of the lead - Qualified for the televised debates - Raised at least $1M from small-dollar donors in Nebraska - Opened staffed field offices across the state - Earned endorsements from respected Nebraska veterans leaders - Earned endorsements from farm and ranch organizations - Received a major Nebraska newspa...maxdiff Identifies proof points that build perceived viability to overcome default party loyalty.
-
For an independent Senate candidate, where would you place them on each scale? - Risky choice - Safe choice - Ineffective at delivering results - Effective at delivering results - Partisan - Bipartisan - Beholden to large donors - Independent from large donors - Values unlike mine - Shares my valuessemantic differential Profiles independent brand strengths and gaps to target in positioning versus major‑party candidates.
Randomize option order within MaxDiff and matrix lists. Use 5- or 7-point Likert anchors for matrix acceptability. For rank, allow ranking top 5 from a randomized list of channels.
Study Overview
Updated Jan 28, 2026
Research question: Measure Nebraska voters’ openness to an independent Senate candidate (Dan Osborn) and populist messaging versus party loyalty, and test reactions to his refusal to caucus.
Research group: Six Nebraska residents (ages ~30–65) from Omaha, Lincoln, and Kearney-retirees, a project manager, and a real-estate agent-providing 18 responses; one was an engaged non‑citizen.
What they said: Voters are open but cautious-Osborn’s Navy + union record signals authenticity and wins attention, his anti‑corporate/Social Security focus resonates, yet the biggest red flag is “won’t caucus,” which voters equate with lost committee power, weaker results, and spoiler risk.
Main insights: Independence only converts to votes if paired with a clear caucus/committee strategy, concrete kitchen‑table policy mechanics (Social Security, healthcare costs, housing, ag/energy, border), and funding transparency.
Operational credibility also requires a credible statewide ground game with low‑tech access for seniors (printed mailers, live phone line, town halls), a balance of labor credibility with small‑business reassurance, and demonstrated viability through polling and local validators.
Takeaways: Publish an explicit caucus/committee plan, release a Nebraska‑first 30‑60‑90 with budgets and milestones, launch a donor‑transparency/ethics pledge, stand up rural + senior‑focused field operations, and show a path to 50% with reputable polling and county targets.
Research group: Six Nebraska residents (ages ~30–65) from Omaha, Lincoln, and Kearney-retirees, a project manager, and a real-estate agent-providing 18 responses; one was an engaged non‑citizen.
What they said: Voters are open but cautious-Osborn’s Navy + union record signals authenticity and wins attention, his anti‑corporate/Social Security focus resonates, yet the biggest red flag is “won’t caucus,” which voters equate with lost committee power, weaker results, and spoiler risk.
Main insights: Independence only converts to votes if paired with a clear caucus/committee strategy, concrete kitchen‑table policy mechanics (Social Security, healthcare costs, housing, ag/energy, border), and funding transparency.
Operational credibility also requires a credible statewide ground game with low‑tech access for seniors (printed mailers, live phone line, town halls), a balance of labor credibility with small‑business reassurance, and demonstrated viability through polling and local validators.
Takeaways: Publish an explicit caucus/committee plan, release a Nebraska‑first 30‑60‑90 with budgets and milestones, launch a donor‑transparency/ethics pledge, stand up rural + senior‑focused field operations, and show a path to 50% with reputable polling and county targets.
Awaiting responses…
Usually takes — seconds
Taking longer than usual
Question
0 responses
Waiting…
| Name | Response | Info |
|---|