Jon Ralston: the dems are in trouble in Nevada

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Nevada looks like it could be rough statewide if things get much worse, but (for now) we’re still on track to hold our three house seats. 

[soundchaser]

I mean, it's clear at this point that something's funky with the mail processing.

[ProgressiveModerate]

Ok I went in and looked at the data and I really don't think it's as bad as some are making it to be, but is also not great. The wild cards are the postal service, e-day turnout, and if these independents lean a certain way.

Yes, turnout in heavily Republican areas like Henderson is notably better than many of the strongest D precincts in downtown Vegas. But people are forgetting that Republican suburbs like Henderson ALWAYS have significantly higher turnout rates than the more Hispanic and Black parts of the city.

The area of Las Vegas that looks brutal for Dems is heavily Hispanic western parts of Las Vegas. Downtown and North Las Vegas seem pretty good all things considering.

One wild card is rapidly growing areas around Enterprise which has historically been lower turnout but has been getting better in recent cycles and seems to be doing pretty well in the early vote. The area is highly competative politically, and includes a mix of whites, asians, and hispanics.

If anything, Reno is what concerns me more rn.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I think Democrats are screwed in Nevada but not based on Ralston’s shoddy analysis. We cannot compare this year to 2020 or 2018. Nevada has the voting system of California now, where virtually all voters are mailed a ballot unless they “opt-out”, voters have until Tuesday to mail their ballot (can be received late) and there is automatic DMV voter registration. This means mail returns will match California’s pattern, where they are sent in a blizzard at the last minute but are not really tabulated until they are counted. We should expect the most Democratic slice of the VBM electorate to have their votes counted at the end. We have no great way of knowing how many mail-votes will be sent to be counted on Tuesday - that isn’t how Nevada’s system works now. You guys should stop tracking this stuff, waste of time!

Why Democrats are screwed anyways: many registered Democrats might mail-in a “F U” ballot for NOTA, unaffiliateds may break towards the GOP etc. Overall, I expected the electorate to be more GOP-friendly than 2020 but for CCM to lose by 3-4 or something like that, possibly much worse. If this happens, it will be because some registered Democrats are Republicans or otherwise frustrated now. We should see plenty of “WWC”, Hispanic and even Black defections. Only countervailing force is that some Hispanics who voted for Trump did that as a one time thing and are otherwise lean-D. Why will this happen? Nevada had weak labor market recovery + horrible inflation like rest of the country.

[citizenZ]

https://twitter.com/laralogan/status/1588199746975322112

Wow. Some hidden videos showing that the Dems think many Hispanics are anti-gay.

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://twitter.com/laralogan/status/1588199746975322112

Wow. Some hidden videos showing that the Dems think many Hispanics are anti-gay.

What just concerns me is all these volunteers and workers who just seem not very bright in our politics and seem like bad communicators towards others. The point is to build a broad coalition; every voter is one you want to try to win. I think the way many staffers on both sides talk down to voters of the opposing party is messed up and exposes a larger cultural problem.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

https://twitter.com/laralogan/status/1588199746975322112

Wow. Some hidden videos showing that the Dems think many Hispanics are anti-gay.

Woah, it is really offensive that a staffer said something that is extremely accurate and well known by literally all children of immigrants from Latin America!

Staffer is wrong that this will make Hispanics Republicans though. My Mom feels weird about gays and is “pro-life” but literally volunteered for Biden in 2020 and even made calls this year + voted for Bernie Sanders?

[citizenZ]

https://twitter.com/laralogan/status/1588199746975322112
Wow. Some hidden videos showing that the Dems think many Hispanics are anti-gay.

Woah, it is really offensive that a staffer said something that is extremely accurate and well known by literally all children of immigrants from Latin America!

He said it with such a mean-spirited tone, though. People don't like to be called names, especially by short, effeminate males.

[ProgressiveModerate]

https://twitter.com/laralogan/status/1588199746975322112
Wow. Some hidden videos showing that the Dems think many Hispanics are anti-gay.

Woah, it is really offensive that a staffer said something that is extremely accurate and well known by literally all children of immigrants from Latin America!

He said it with such a mean-spirited tone, though. People don't like to be called names, especially by short, effeminate males.

The best equivalent is when a lot of news outlets associated with the “liberal elite” attributed Trump’s 2016 win to selfish racist and dumb white working class voters. I think that really sealed the nail in the coffin for a lot of these voters being gone for Dems. Also, when Republicans talk down about cities and the people who live in them, often referencing minorities, that makes me frustrated and is part of the reason why they tend to do so poorly in urban areas. There also seems to be a general resentment of young college educated people by Rs.

Even if some of these things may be true in your mind, best to keep them to yourself.

If you want to build a broad coalition, you have to make everyone feel included and meet people where they’re at. It doesn’t mean you have to sacrifice your values though. Even though I think he’ll lose, I think someone like Tim Ryan (and Sherrod Brown) have done a good job at meeting voters where they’re at and trying to connect and even embrace them, not look down on them.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

https://twitter.com/laralogan/status/1588199746975322112
Wow. Some hidden videos showing that the Dems think many Hispanics are anti-gay.

Woah, it is really offensive that a staffer said something that is extremely accurate and well known by literally all children of immigrants from Latin America!

He said it with such a mean-spirited tone, though. People don't like to be called names, especially by short, effeminate males.

Gudiño is a Spanish surname, the guy looks Hispanic to me. Only Hispanic Democrats are going to be this cavalier, whites are going to be afraid of seeming “racist” and won’t grasp extent of Hispanic social conservatism.

Boring! Please stop spamming the forum with stupid posts.

[ctherainbow]

https://twitter.com/laralogan/status/1588199746975322112
Wow. Some hidden videos showing that the Dems think many Hispanics are anti-gay.

… many Hispanic people ARE anti-gay, though?  Was this supposed to be a “gotcha”?  It’s literally just a statement of fact.

As a queer person, I have suffered far more abuse by people of color than from others, which is sad, because we’re on the same side of the class struggle.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Put the troll on ignore.

[Aurelius]

DeadFlagBlues is obviously correct here - many Hispanics, especially recent immigrants, are much more homophobic than the typical American. I can't stand when people from any political camp try to make a big scandal out of people saying things like this. The real fallout, if any, from this video, will be that most people cannot stand effeminate men with those sort of mannerisms, and will be more inclined to dislike whatever things that guy is associated with, in this case the campaign he's working for.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Lol, no we're not stop Dooming until PROJECTION are MADE, they said Fetterman was in big trouble and he wasn't

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

They were never not in trouble in NV this cycle.

Lol you have Dr Oz winning and he is losing Biggly I'm PA MARIST POLL, you have Evers losing and Evers is winning 47/45

[Holmes]

Um, machismo is a real thing though. Like at least try to have a basic understanding of something before being all “lol gotcha.”

[EastwoodS]

And I thought Ralston was viewed as the "Oracle of Nevada", yet it seems like there are still those insistent that Democrats will sweep Nevada next week, in spite of his warnings. They seem almost as confident about their prospects across the board as they were in 2018.

Can you please give it a rest? This whole schtick is very haughty, not to mention unnecessary; in this thread there are now 5 posts which emphasize R's chances compared to 3 that emphasize D's chances. Just say that you think Republicans are favored in Nevada; the fact that you think people who disagree with you are wrong is implied by the very fact that you disagree with them.

Of course I disagree with them, and as I said, I'm not conceding my ground as I've done before. There is a large segment of posters on this forum who believe that we are in for a decisive Democratic wave next week, and think Republicans are set to lose every or almost every competitive race. They're not going to allow some pundit or some pollster to deter them from that, even if they relied on said pundit and said pollster in the past.

OK. Who cares? Either they're right or they're wrong, and we'll see which one soon enough. However, gloating about how much smarter you are than them before the election is even held contributes no insights. At least if it was a week from today and we all saw that a red wave had just occurred, we could perhaps conclude that your method of analysis is superior to those you're criticizing, but for all we know now they could be right; I don't think they are, but I certainly can't begin to evaluate where they went wrong without results. You're definitely not the only offender here, but that's part of the problem; every thread on this board is full to bursting with premature derision to the point that it's crowding out actual analysis.

That's what I'm pushing against. You are all concerned when someone comes on here and presents an optimistic prediction for Republicans, but when they do it for Democrats, I don't hear the same kinds of complaints. Most people on here would be losing themselves if Ralston had said the exact opposite thing about Nevada, and most people would be losing themselves if the early data was unquestionably and undeniably good for Democrats.

The problem with people here is that they allow their bias to dictate how they perceive everything, whether it's how "legitimate" a pollster is when they show results they don't like, or if anecdotal data is posted that doesn't match "what they feel" or "believe" to be the reality. I'm tired of being given a sanctimonious lecture when no one's doing that for those who they think are correct.

SPEAK FACTS KING. CALL OUT THESE INSUFFERABLE IRREDEEMABLE HACKS

[DaleCooper]

Wow. Some hidden videos showing that the Dems think many Hispanics are anti-gay.

Woah, it is really offensive that a staffer said something that is extremely accurate and well known by literally all children of immigrants from Latin America!

He said it with such a mean-spirited tone, though. People don't like to be called names, especially by short, effeminate males.

The best equivalent is when a lot of news outlets associated with the “liberal elite” attributed Trump’s 2016 win to selfish racist and dumb white working class voters. I think that really sealed the nail in the coffin for a lot of these voters being gone for Dems. Also, when Republicans talk down about cities and the people who live in them, often referencing minorities, that makes me frustrated and is part of the reason why they tend to do so poorly in urban areas. There also seems to be a general resentment of young college educated people by Rs.

Even if some of these things may be true in your mind, best to keep them to yourself.

If you want to build a broad coalition, you have to make everyone feel included and meet people where they’re at. It doesn’t mean you have to sacrifice your values though. Even though I think he’ll lose, I think someone like Tim Ryan (and Sherrod Brown) have done a good job at meeting voters where they’re at and trying to connect and even embrace them, not look down on them.

They completely re-wrote history on Obama's election too. If you ask these snobby liberals in the media or even in the Democratic Party itself why Obama won in 2008 or 2012, they'd tell you it's because all the minorities in the country teamed up with all the college-educated liberal whites to get him elected and reelected. They pretend that his appeal to the working class never existed. They boiled it all down to a socially progressive thing, rather than a class thing, which it at least partially was. I think they similarly misunderstood Biden's victory too, which I view as a majority of the country rejecting division and insanity in favor of what they hoped would be a return to normalcy and stability. Instead, I suspect Democrats see it again as liberal college-educated whites leading a coalition of minorities to stop white supremacy or whatever it is that they wish was the winning issue of their campaign.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Wow. Some hidden videos showing that the Dems think many Hispanics are anti-gay.

Woah, it is really offensive that a staffer said something that is extremely accurate and well known by literally all children of immigrants from Latin America!

He said it with such a mean-spirited tone, though. People don't like to be called names, especially by short, effeminate males.

The best equivalent is when a lot of news outlets associated with the “liberal elite” attributed Trump’s 2016 win to selfish racist and dumb white working class voters. I think that really sealed the nail in the coffin for a lot of these voters being gone for Dems. Also, when Republicans talk down about cities and the people who live in them, often referencing minorities, that makes me frustrated and is part of the reason why they tend to do so poorly in urban areas. There also seems to be a general resentment of young college educated people by Rs.

Even if some of these things may be true in your mind, best to keep them to yourself.

If you want to build a broad coalition, you have to make everyone feel included and meet people where they’re at. It doesn’t mean you have to sacrifice your values though. Even though I think he’ll lose, I think someone like Tim Ryan (and Sherrod Brown) have done a good job at meeting voters where they’re at and trying to connect and even embrace them, not look down on them.

They completely re-wrote history on Obama's election too. If you ask these snobby liberals in the media or even in the Democratic Party itself why Obama won in 2008 or 2012, they'd tell you it's because all the minorities in the country teamed up with all the college-educated liberal whites to get him elected and reelected. They pretend that his appeal to the working class never existed. They boiled it all down to a socially progressive thing, rather than a class thing, which it at least partially was. I think they similarly misunderstood Biden's victory too, which I view as a majority of the country rejecting division and insanity in favor of what they hoped would be a return to normalcy and stability. Instead, I suspect Democrats see it again as liberal college-educated whites leading a coalition of minorities to stop white supremacy or whatever it is that they wish was the winning issue of their campaign.

Yep. People need to understand that if Obama got Hillary-level margins in the rurals he would have lost by a lot. For all of Trump's hatred of Obama many of his key demographics (uneducated Whites, etc) have a positive opinion of or voted for Obama.

[Annatar]

I think focusing on the relative partisan turnout is the wrong thing, if you look at the 2018 midterms, the house vote adjusted for uncontested seats was D+7, Clinton won by D+2, a shift of 5%, the whole change was basically independents who were 30% of voters going from R+4 to D+12.

In Nevada, Biden won mainly because he won independents by 6%, if they vote Republican by say 5%, and partisan turnout is what it was in the 2020 exit polls, Republicans will win statewide. This is why comparisons to 2020 are flawed, even if Dems got close to 2020 numbers in the Clark early vote lead, they would still lose the state.

This is also true in other states, because independents are voting much more Republican this year then 2020, just matching 2020 relative partisan turnout is not enough, Dems need to do better, my own view is Dems won't even match 2020 and the electorate itself will be more Republican, maybe a R+1 or R+2 electorate in party ID and independents will vote Republican by large margins.

[Devils30]

I think focusing on the relative partisan turnout is the wrong thing, if you look at the 2018 midterms, the house vote adjusted for uncontested seats was D+7, Clinton won by D+2, a shift of 5%, the whole change was basically independents who were 30% of voters going from R+4 to D+12.

In Nevada, Biden won mainly because he won independents by 6%, if they vote Republican by say 5%, and partisan turnout is what it was in the 2020 exit polls, Republicans will win statewide. This is why comparisons to 2020 are flawed, even if Dems got close to 2020 numbers in the Clark early vote lead, they would still lose the state.

This is also true in other states, because independents are voting much more Republican this year then 2020, just matching 2020 relative partisan turnout is not enough, Dems need to do better, my own view is Dems won't even match 2020 and the electorate itself will be more Republican, maybe a R+1 or R+2 electorate in party ID and independents will vote Republican by large margins.

It is weird how the mail slowed down this week, I would be weary of drawing conclusions because it usually increases right before e-day.

And indies are still a wildcard, it is entirely possible Laxalt will only win this group by 0-4% and narrowly come up short. Indies under 45 in NV might not be a terrible group for Dems.

[here2view]

Lean R, Democrats path runs through Pennsylvania and holding all incumbent seats.

[It’s so Joever]

Ralston basically is arguing this is a reverse 2018. Not a 2014 level apocalypse but still not good for Ds.

[Calthrina950]

And I thought Ralston was viewed as the "Oracle of Nevada", yet it seems like there are still those insistent that Democrats will sweep Nevada next week, in spite of his warnings. They seem almost as confident about their prospects across the board as they were in 2018.

Can you please give it a rest? This whole schtick is very haughty, not to mention unnecessary; in this thread there are now 5 posts which emphasize R's chances compared to 3 that emphasize D's chances. Just say that you think Republicans are favored in Nevada; the fact that you think people who disagree with you are wrong is implied by the very fact that you disagree with them.

Of course I disagree with them, and as I said, I'm not conceding my ground as I've done before. There is a large segment of posters on this forum who believe that we are in for a decisive Democratic wave next week, and think Republicans are set to lose every or almost every competitive race. They're not going to allow some pundit or some pollster to deter them from that, even if they relied on said pundit and said pollster in the past.

OK. Who cares? Either they're right or they're wrong, and we'll see which one soon enough. However, gloating about how much smarter you are than them before the election is even held contributes no insights. At least if it was a week from today and we all saw that a red wave had just occurred, we could perhaps conclude that your method of analysis is superior to those you're criticizing, but for all we know now they could be right; I don't think they are, but I certainly can't begin to evaluate where they went wrong without results. You're definitely not the only offender here, but that's part of the problem; every thread on this board is full to bursting with premature derision to the point that it's crowding out actual analysis.

That's what I'm pushing against. You are all concerned when someone comes on here and presents an optimistic prediction for Republicans, but when they do it for Democrats, I don't hear the same kinds of complaints. Most people on here would be losing themselves if Ralston had said the exact opposite thing about Nevada, and most people would be losing themselves if the early data was unquestionably and undeniably good for Democrats.

The problem with people here is that they allow their bias to dictate how they perceive everything, whether it's how "legitimate" a pollster is when they show results they don't like, or if anecdotal data is posted that doesn't match "what they feel" or "believe" to be the reality. I'm tired of being given a sanctimonious lecture when no one's doing that for those who they think are correct.

You want an unscanctimonious post? Okay.

Let me put it this way. I agree with your post. I agree with the whole bias argument you make and the double standard point. My entire forum posting history for the past year has been talking about how Atlas is a hive mind and full of Dem optimists who aren’t grounded in reality. And yet even I am tempted to switch to a wbrocks level D hack when I read you arguing here. I don’t know why, but for all the talk about sanctimony, you seem like the sanctimonious one here. Take this how you want, but you aren’t helping your case.

Sanctimony ought to be met with sanctimony. I'm merely dealing out the medicine that many posters routinely deal out here, and in ways that are excessively hackish and irritating to read. They don't like when I do it, but they cheer each other on for doing the same. It is absolute hypocrisy on their part. I understand now why ElectionsGuy and other posters have gotten fed up with this place. I don't encounter this level of hackishness elsewhere but on this forum.

[It’s so Joever]

And I thought Ralston was viewed as the "Oracle of Nevada", yet it seems like there are still those insistent that Democrats will sweep Nevada next week, in spite of his warnings. They seem almost as confident about their prospects across the board as they were in 2018.

Can you please give it a rest? This whole schtick is very haughty, not to mention unnecessary; in this thread there are now 5 posts which emphasize R's chances compared to 3 that emphasize D's chances. Just say that you think Republicans are favored in Nevada; the fact that you think people who disagree with you are wrong is implied by the very fact that you disagree with them.

Of course I disagree with them, and as I said, I'm not conceding my ground as I've done before. There is a large segment of posters on this forum who believe that we are in for a decisive Democratic wave next week, and think Republicans are set to lose every or almost every competitive race. They're not going to allow some pundit or some pollster to deter them from that, even if they relied on said pundit and said pollster in the past.

OK. Who cares? Either they're right or they're wrong, and we'll see which one soon enough. However, gloating about how much smarter you are than them before the election is even held contributes no insights. At least if it was a week from today and we all saw that a red wave had just occurred, we could perhaps conclude that your method of analysis is superior to those you're criticizing, but for all we know now they could be right; I don't think they are, but I certainly can't begin to evaluate where they went wrong without results. You're definitely not the only offender here, but that's part of the problem; every thread on this board is full to bursting with premature derision to the point that it's crowding out actual analysis.

That's what I'm pushing against. You are all concerned when someone comes on here and presents an optimistic prediction for Republicans, but when they do it for Democrats, I don't hear the same kinds of complaints. Most people on here would be losing themselves if Ralston had said the exact opposite thing about Nevada, and most people would be losing themselves if the early data was unquestionably and undeniably good for Democrats.

The problem with people here is that they allow their bias to dictate how they perceive everything, whether it's how "legitimate" a pollster is when they show results they don't like, or if anecdotal data is posted that doesn't match "what they feel" or "believe" to be the reality. I'm tired of being given a sanctimonious lecture when no one's doing that for those who they think are correct.

You want an unscanctimonious post? Okay.

Let me put it this way. I agree with your post. I agree with the whole bias argument you make and the double standard point. My entire forum posting history for the past year has been talking about how Atlas is a hive mind and full of Dem optimists who aren’t grounded in reality. And yet even I am tempted to switch to a wbrocks level D hack when I read you arguing here. I don’t know why, but for all the talk about sanctimony, you seem like the sanctimonious one here. Take this how you want, but you aren’t helping your case.

Sanctimony ought to be met with sanctimony. I'm merely dealing out the medicine that many posters routinely deal out here, and in ways that are excessively hackish and irritating to read. They don't like when I do it, but they cheer each other on for doing the same. It is absolute hypocrisy on their part. I understand now why ElectionsGuy and other posters have gotten fed up with this place. I don't encounter this level of hackishness elsewhere but on this forum.

Okay so here is the thing, if you go on the attack you gotta expect to be attacked back. That’s how it works on here, and maybe I’m wrong but it seems like you want to be able to act high and mighty without being attacked back. Maybe not but those are the vibes I’m getting.
And yknow what lets enjoy mocking the posters who made such hacking decisions as the results come in, soon we will have our laugh, and he who laughs have the last laugh.