I would have expected better analysis from Ralston than Laxalt is a sh**t candidate and Lombardo is somehow going to outperform him.. despite the data saying the contrary.
What data says that? Nevada is a relatively non-elastic state, particularly on the federal level. Meanwhile, Lombardo is running as a "common-sense conservative" who is appealing to voters on kitchen table issues. Most importantly, Gubernatorial races are much more elastic in general. For instance, the gap between margins in Nevada Senate races is less than 10% in my lifetime, while the Gubernatorial difference is literally close to 50%.
Including Emerson which has been fairly good in Nevada.
I mean I respect Ralston's opinion but his piece on the Senate just seems a complete hit piece on Laxalt's candidacy based on personal opinion, which I wouldn't have expected from him.
Probably a bias in that Lombardo on paper is a much stronger candidate than Laxalt is. Lombardo has won (nonpartisan) elections in the biggest and bluesy county in the state twice, whereas Laxalt has never performed very well, even in his narrow 2014 win. He still lost Clark and Washoe in both races. I think if Laxalt wins on Tuesday, it will be despite losing Clark and Washoe yet again.
