Why Jim Pillen Won in Nebraska

T he state of Nebraska is right in the middle of what the Washington Beltway media class often calls “Flyover Country.” So our politics don’t get a lot of national coverage outside of presidential years, when Democrats have a chance to win an Electoral College vote from Omaha. We don’t mind a lack of coverage (we prefer it, even). But we do disdain biased coverage, and the coverage of Nebraska’s primaries last week has grossly missed the mark. More than anything else, the Washington Beltway class needs to learn one important lesson: Not every election is a referendum on Donald Trump.

Last Tuesday, University of Nebraska Regent and former Husker football player Jim Pillen won a bitterly contested Republican gubernatorial primary, defeating Donald Trump–backed candidate Charles W. Herbster, state senator Brett Lindstrom, and six other candidates with 34 percent of the vote, handing the former president his first primary defeat of this cycle. Pillen, a hog farmer endorsed and heavily supported by incumbent conservative governor Pete Ricketts, won a majority of Nebraska’s counties and two of the state’s three congressional districts despite a late Trump visit to the state to rally for Herbster.

Yet what was the narrative out of the Beltway media class? That Donald Trump, whose name appeared nowhere on the ballot, lost: Donald Trump “takes a blow.” “Donald Trump gets knocked down.”

That narrative fails to explain why Jim Pillen won. In order to understand why, you have to understand Nebraska.

Nebraska might be a red state, but we have a long tradition of “prairie populism” going back to William Jennings Bryan’s “Cross of Gold” speech. We are fiercely independent thinkers who like to make up our own minds. Candidates and elected leaders are expected to show up, to engage the grassroots across the state, and to answer two fundamental questions in the minds of voters: Do we like you and do we trust you? (This is especially true in Nebraska’s massive third congressional district.) Candidates who have done that have succeeded not only in Republican primaries (Deb Fischer in 2012, Ben Sasse and Pete Ricketts in 2014), but also in general elections (Bob Kerrey, Chuck Hagel, Ben Nelson come to mind).

Jim Pillen checked a lot of boxes that would help Nebraskans like him — ag producer and job creator, Husker football player, family man, and community leader — but the other leading candidates had many similar positives. Brett Lindstrom was a family man and former Husker football player who had direct knowledge of state government as a state senator from Omaha, representing a fresh young voice in the race. Charles Herbster, a wealthy agribusinessman who briefly ran for the seat eight years ago, was an ag producer, an active GOP donor, and a community leader in southeast Nebraska.

Each of the top three candidates for governor had a story to tell on the likeability question. But Jim Pillen won the race by being the most trusted candidate.

Though he had the support of most of the state’s Republican establishment, including Governor Ricketts, Pillen prioritized grassroots events over showy media appearances. An analysis by Aaron Sanderford of the Nebraska Examiner found that Pillen made over 400 in-person appearances and visited all of Nebraska’s 93 counties, focusing on small-groups anywhere that would have him. In doing so, he earned the endorsement of the 56,000 member-strong Nebraska Farm Bureau, which then hosted him for 30 more townhalls. He refused to debate his opponents (enduring withering criticism for doing so), instead hosting telephone townhalls at the same time.

The other candidates, on the other hand, trailed Pillen in time spent on the road. Lindstrom’s schedule was hampered by his job’s responsibilities in Lincoln during the spring legislative session, and Herbster never attended a campaign event in at least a third of Nebraska’s counties.

One final difference between Pillen and Herbster was on messaging. While both Pillen and Herbster campaigned as strong conservatives, Pillen emphasized state issues while Herbster emphasized national ones. At each campaign stop, Pillen handed out his 20-page “Pillen Playbook” policy book, which had details on everything from tax cuts and rural broadband to expanding workforce housing. He was not anti-Trump, but built his campaign around Nebraskans instead of national voices. Meanwhile, Herbster emphasized national issues like illegal immigration and opposing Biden, repeating Trump’s claims that the 2020 election was rigged and talking up his high-profile endorsers like Trump and South Dakota governor Kristi Noem at every turn. This messaging strategy gave the impression that Herbster believed the Trump connection/endorsement was all he needed to win.

Herbster’s messaging couldn’t build him support outside of the Trump base. Ethical concerns (amplified by Ricketts) dogged him as well. He paid his property taxes late nearly 600 times over more than two decades, faced questions about whether his primary residence was in Nebraska or in Missouri, and endured ads attacking his decision to headquarter his Conklin business out of state. His first pick for lieutenant governor dropped out and entered the race against him, calling him “unfit” to hold the job (she finished fourth). Herbster also spent the last month of the campaign defending himself against groping allegations from eight women, including state senator Julie Slama, one of the most conservative Republicans in the legislature. These allegations led 13 female senators (including Slama) to call on him to drop out of the race. (Herbster denied the allegations, calling them a political hit job by Ricketts/Pillen, then ran an ad attacking Slama.)

Outside-group spending played a part in this race as well, particularly in neutralizing Lindstrom’s candidacy. After Lindstrom surged to a statistical three-way tie for the lead (largely because voters were tired of the sniping between Pillen and Herbster), Ricketts funded $1.7 million in ads attacking Lindstrom’s votes to end the death penalty, raise the gas tax, and more. Because Lindstrom did not have the resources to fight back, those ideological questions hurt him; some voters decided Lindstrom was not conservative enough for them, while many late-deciders who largely intended to vote against Charles Herbster decided Pillen was likelier to defeat Herbster and voted accordingly.

Lindstrom benefited from about 8,000 Democrats and independents who registered as Republicans to vote in the primary, who largely voted for him. But this was not enough to overcome a massive deficit in rural areas outside of Omaha and Lincoln. Lindstrom won Omaha’s second congressional district by double digits but lost heavily in the sprawling, rural third district that provided 47 percent of the total vote. Meanwhile, Pillen built a broader coalition of support, winning two of the state’s three congressional districts and effectively tying Herbster in the second district.

Ultimately, Jim Pillen didn’t win the GOP primary for governor because Nebraskans suddenly dislike Donald Trump. Jim Pillen won because voters (specifically late-deciding voters) decided that they liked and trusted him more than either Herbster or Lindstrom. The man who once sealed Nebraska’s 1978 victory over Oklahoma by recovering a Billy Sims fumble sealed his victory in the primaries by prioritizing grassroots organization and state issues over large rallies and national issues. Pillen was more conservative than Lindstrom and faced fewer ethical questions than Herbster. But this victory was about more than ideology. His victory represents a victory for the Prairie Populist ideal of retail politicking, grassroots support, and state-focused campaigns.

Will the Beltway media class learn its lesson? This story won’t fill Sunday-show panel discussions, so it’s doubtful. But candidates might.