The Cost of a Veto, Part II

Question Everything.

Nevada political thought leader Chuck Muth took time out of his busy schedule to warn his followers that thinking outside the box is wrong, especially if it’s his box.

I thank Chuck for trying to put me in my place. Predictably, he pulled out the same playbook he uses to discredit every other failed candidate: by smugly recounting their election loss, and by how many votes. Then, with an air of “see-I-told-you-so,” he concludes that when you don’t lose the Chuck Muth way, you’re not a credible loser—which, if you did lose his way, somehow makes you a winner (figure that out if you can).

Chuck’s comments were myopic. I didn’t just lose the Republican Senate Primary—I got creamed! The majority of the money I reported to the FEC was mostly my own. My money on my lines of credit, my cash, and a few additional small donors (who all lost with me and have all asked me to stay in the industry of politics). In addition, Chuck failed to scratch the surface and mention that in 2022 I ran for Senate as a Non-Partisan, spending ten thousand dollars of my own money (again) and receiving eight thousand hard earned votes. Neither of my campaigns had any impact on the 2022 or 2024 General Elections. What Chuck misses is that I immersed myself in the process, which is the best way to learn. Lest Chuck forgets, I attended his class, I still purchase his weekly electronic rag, heard him speak in Pahrump (the one where his choice of words is suspect), and watched him scold his own student at Red Rock Country Club while he tried to make a speech.

As far as I can tell Chuck makes zero attempts to know why anyone is motivated to run. He doesn’t inquire about education level, how well-rounded they may be, IQ, EQ, or anything else which directly contributes to Republican losses at the ballot box. Lastly, Chuck lives in the 1980s with Matthew Broderick. We will never get younger and more dynamic in the Republican party if we are stuck at Reagan. Trump is here and he has awakened the youth; we take advantage of that or die.

Adding more fuel to the fire of secret meetings, tiered candidates, and directed donors is the "15 counties" strategy. The day after the election (while votes were still being counted), Sigal Chattah was on The Kevin Wall Show, enthusiastically letting the universe know that 15 of the 17 counties were coming in for Sam Brown. To paraphrase: “Our rurales are coming in strong for us.” She was repeating a strategy where if the vote totals in Clark and Washoe Counties were close, the 15 rural counties making up the rest of the state would deliver a Republican win—because rural counties are red, right?

Not so fast, how red is red? This is the question that should have been asked after Adam Laxalt lost his Senate race. Laxalt lost by eight thousand votes. If he had gotten 72% of the vote in the rural counties, he would have won. He got 63%. That’s pinker than red. Sam Brown had the same issue, with only 68%. (This is simple math—if I weight the counties by population, it’s probably worse. Sam pulled 50/50 with Jackie Rosen in Carson County (not red)). Do we throw out that strategy? Do we try to win Clark County by going after the independent vote?

I had a conversation late in the 2024 primary with a Southern Nevada club figurehead who delivered a very blunt message: “We vote on name recognition only.” That republican primary strategy doesn’t work (as just proved). Is it the goal to put forth the most well-rounded and educated candidate to take on democrats like Jackie Rosen, or not? Name recognition brought us Jeff Gunter and Sam Brown, and we still lost when the 47^th president’s coattails could not have been longer. In the General Election, voters (including a lot of Republicans) looked at personality, the message, and chose “None of these Candidates.”

Many Republican voters rely solely on the party to put forth the best candidate. They don’t get involved—they just want to know who to vote for when they show up because they have lives to live. Most don’t vote in the primary because they expect the party to advance a winning candidate.

The mechanism for better republican candidates (federal seats and governor) must include a requirement for debates and town halls during the primary. Aggressive and adversarial debates—respectful yet challenging. These debates make candidates stronger and weed out those who rely on tired political tropes to sneak into the general election. Sam Brown hid in his basement until his debate with Jackie Rosen, where he laid an egg. He was unprepared, unfamiliar with the format, and struggled to think beyond his arranged notes. That was republican primary home cooking on display, and no one took a bite.