The Cost of a Veto.
NVGOP Saves Veto at the Cost of Trust.
I haven’t quite grasped how prognosticators of candidates and elections determine who is going to win. Some of their analyses make sense—sometimes. Then the votes are counted… Other times, these professionals spout the most bizarre observations, making me wonder if they’re having a mental episode.
Take Chuck Muth for example—the so-called Sage of Nevada politics (that’s my label for him). I enjoy reading his weekly musings and reflections, as they provide further insight into how the political machine operates (yes, I’m still learning). Some people despise Chuck; others hang on to his every word. Personally, I think he offers valuable information at times, and his insights should not be dismissed, mostly.
However, my eyebrow rose after reading his November 16th piece about the number of losses Republicans suffered from Tier 1 and Tier 2 candidates down-ballot. It was refreshing that he said the quiet part out loud: donors are directed toward specific candidates. “The donors who were directed to give to those campaigns did not get a very good return on investment. They should be furious.”
To correct Chuck, there is no such thing as a "poor return" on a loss. A loss is a loss—period. Donors lost their money. I suggest that Chuck avoid equating incongruent concepts such as donations with investments. That said, it begs the question: Who “directed” these donors to give? What cabal operates behind the scenes funneling money to “preferred” candidates? And how does one even become a preferred candidate?
Chuck mentioned that the Assembly Republican Caucus (ARC) played a role in selecting whom to back (the preferred candidates) and whom to leave out. He also noted that the ARC was slow to follow Governor Lombardo’s lead in endorsing preferred candidates, which hindered fundraising efforts and thus compounded the losses.
As far as I can tell, here’s where we (my Republican Party) currently stand with the results of the 2024 election:
5 races with no Republican candidate
6 Tier 1 races (preferred candidates with donor support)
4 Tier 2 races (preferred candidates without donor support)
13 races with no support (candidates left to fend for themselves (wilderness candidates))
22 races endorsed by The Keystone Corporation
14 Republican-held seats from the last election
1 seat flipped to Republican control
Between the Tier 1 and Tier 2 races, the Republican Party achieved a winning rate of just 10%. For new seats in the Assembly, the party’s success rate was a dismal 2.38%. Republicans retained 100% of their previously held seats but control only 35.71% of the Assembly overall.
Of the 22 races endorsed by The Keystone Corporation (which included all Republican incumbents and the single flipped seat), 68.18% of their endorsements resulted in victories (but incumbents are supposed to win, right).
Politically, Governor Lombardo keeps his veto power. Operationally, however, the numbers are grim. The party lacks a viable strategy to gain seats, which brings me to a critical moment: Friday, November 15th, between 5:00 and 5:30 p.m. on 101.5 FM. During The Steve Sanchez Show, with Pat Casale filling in for The Don, I heard Mike McDonald outline the plans implemented for the 2024 election.
As McDonald stated, a meeting took place at the offices of Red Rock Strategies (Ryan Erwin) involving himself, Jesse Law, Sigal Chattah, and Joe Lombardo (or a representative). The outcome? McDonald would focus exclusively on delivering a Trump win in Nevada, while Lombardo would oversee all Assembly and Senate races. This was reiterated by Pat Casale on The Kevin Wall Show the following Monday morning.
How many Assembly and Senate candidates knew that they would be cherry picked for support, or ignored, by the governor’s office before signing up to run? How many after? If what we now know is true 13 candidates were on the outside looking in. Still the question remains: Who is responsible for the down-ballot disaster? Chuck Muth offers that the blame does not lie with the candidates. I beg to differ in certain races, but I am 100% sure that blame does not lie with volunteers or those who donated their resources, time, and money (and I thank them all for their loyalty to the Republican Party). It leads me to ask which question is more pressing: Who is at fault or why it happened.
Perhaps a more troubling issue is for those 13 unsupported races. If you are a candidate, why even bother running if you are ignored by the party powerbrokers? Structurally, it appears the Republican Party is content to sacrifice primary winners to the gods of political frustration. For what? A single pickup. Even donors will run away from those results. The inevitable? Fewer competent Republicans will seek office because they do not want to waste the time or money (theirs and their donors), and we will face a permanent super-minority in Carson City, forever.
Suggestion to our powerbrokers (whomever they may be): Paradigm shift before 2026. Build up the party by building trust between the party and the candidates. Good luck.