Ralston: "almost complete final turnout figures in NV, and they are eye-opening."

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/1602785456554266624?t=gbK8bKAMMrhjZoKh...

[Pollster]

Essentially tells the same story we saw in the majority of the country - Republicans turned out their base but catastrophically failed to close with swing voters, who voted for Democrats by near-base margins even as the actual Democratic base lagged in turnout.

Laxalt being a strong recruit will probably go down as one of the clearest examples of shifting of the overton window in recent political memory. Lombardo, on the other hand, has a real shot at national stardom if he plays his cards right.

[MT Treasurer]

Essentially tells the same story we saw in the majority of the country - Republicans turned out their base but catastrophically failed to close with swing voters, who voted for Democrats by near-base margins even as the actual Democratic base lagged in turnout.

Laxalt being a strong recruit will probably go down as one of the clearest examples of shifting of the overton window in recent political memory. Lombardo, on the other hand, has a real shot at national stardom if he plays his cards right.

Did they, though? How do you square this with Ralston noting that poor rural turnout killed Laxalt?

[Pollster]

Essentially tells the same story we saw in the majority of the country - Republicans turned out their base but catastrophically failed to close with swing voters, who voted for Democrats by near-base margins even as the actual Democratic base lagged in turnout.

Laxalt being a strong recruit will probably go down as one of the clearest examples of shifting of the overton window in recent political memory. Lombardo, on the other hand, has a real shot at national stardom if he plays his cards right.

Did they, though? How do you square this with Ralston noting that poor rural turnout killed Laxalt?

I actually think the major GOP overperformance in Clark is stronger evidence of their base turning out than lower rural turnout is to the contrary, especially given how strongly independents seemed to break for CCM. It's true that the rurals are base voters for the GOP here that matter on the margins in close races like this one, but they are only 15ish% of the vote in a good year, so in a state where the GOP gets at least 45% of the vote in a bad year, the bulk of their base is coming from elsewhere. If the GOP is losing independents, the only sensible explanation imo for Clark being only CCM +7 is a substantial base turnout advantage for the GOP.

I suppose in a <1% race you can argue that anything was decisive, be it lower rural turnout, Laxalt's toxicity, or any other factor that I'm possibly missing. But I think Ralston's "Repubs won Washoe by 7K and Laxalt lost Washoe by 8K" line is the best way to sum it all up here, this especially considering that the rural turnout the GOP did get in the end was enough for Lombardo to win by 15k.

[wbrocks67]

Yeah, although Washoe seems to be trending left, the fact that it almost beat the margin for CCM in Clark seems to indicate meh turnout for Dems in Clark more than anything.

I think one thing Ralston and others will need to take into account in the future for NV too is the Indy vote, because like we saw this year, a lot of younger voters get registered for Indies, so even in a GOP-leaning year like this one, Indies seem likely to still lean left at least given if things continue this way (if new voters continue to be automatically registered as Independent)

[Pericles]

It's pretty wild how well CCM did. Lombardo is the obvious example, but Republicans achieved the swing they needed to flip the Senate seat in every House race, the Senate race was the only federal race where that swing did not happen. Something was clearly happening-maybe CCM was strong, maybe Laxalt was weak, maybe voters treated the Senate and House races differently-it should be looked into.

[wbrocks67]

I feel like people don't give enough credit to Masto here. She ran a basically perfect campaign.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

I feel like people don't give enough credit to Masto here. She ran a basically perfect campaign.

Masto is a strong candidate. An unbeatable titan even. It must be because she is a populist❤️

[Progressive Pessimist]

I feel like people don't give enough credit to Masto here. She ran a basically perfect campaign.

Ralston was saying that all along, if we remember.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That DSA takeover sure destroyed the party.

[Alben Barkley]

That DSA takeover sure destroyed the party.

The battle was won not by the DSA but by the Democrats who unanimously resigned after the DSA takeover, split off from the DSA loons, and continued Reid's machine as if they still controlled the party.

[Alben Barkley]

I feel like people don't give enough credit to Masto here. She ran a basically perfect campaign.

She also was an incumbent while Laxalt was still an election denier (unlike Lombardo) and weak candidate, even if he wasn't as obviously awful as Oz or Walker to most.

Turns out incumbency and candidate quality still matters.

Who would have thought???

[Sestak]

That DSA takeover sure destroyed the party.

The battle was won not by the DSA but by the Democrats who unanimously resigned after the DSA takeover, split off from the DSA loons, and continued Reid's machine as if they still controlled the party.

Reid's machine was never in the apparatus of the Democratic state party in the first place, contrary to what the media etc. may sometimes imply. Democratic victory in Nevada was driven, as it always has been, by the organization of Culinary 226 and the other casino unions.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

That DSA takeover sure destroyed the party.

The battle was won not by the DSA but by the Democrats who unanimously resigned after the DSA takeover, split off from the DSA loons, and continued Reid's machine as if they still controlled the party.

And if Masto lost, you'd be laying the blame at the DSA. But we both knew that.

[Alben Barkley]

That DSA takeover sure destroyed the party.

The battle was won not by the DSA but by the Democrats who unanimously resigned after the DSA takeover, split off from the DSA loons, and continued Reid's machine as if they still controlled the party.

And if Masto lost, you'd be laying the blame at the DSA. But we both knew that.

I really wouldn't. Is there even any record of me blaming them before the election when I thought CCM would probably lose? No. Because the DSA has been powerless ever since the "takeover" and I knew that. It wouldn't make sense.

Let's try to think logically rather than emotionally, because believe it or not that's actually what I try to do, rather than just side instinctively with my "team." (I have, after all, given credit where it is due before even if I despise the people doing it; you'll never catch me saying Mitch McConnell isn't a highly effective politician, for instance.)

Can you point to anything the DSA did to help CCM and the House Democrats win this election? At best you can say they weren't actively harmful. But this election was won by two things: Swaying independents and swing voters in the middle and turning out the old Reid machine. It certainly was not the product of a democratic socialist revolution. Claiming it as a victory for the DSA is completely asinine, at least as much as blaming it all on them would have been had it gone the other way. And who's to say you would not be blaming the old guard Democrats who split off after the takeover had CCM lost, despite crediting a DSA victory now? I'm guessing you probably were more ready to do that than I ever was to blame the DSA. I knew who was in charge in Nevada, and thus who would bear the responsibility for either victory or defeat.

[YE]

This confirms what I already knew. With comparable base turnout turnout Masto probably pulls out a ~3 point win maybe a little less. Also why I'm not terribly worried about 2024.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

That DSA takeover sure destroyed the party.

The battle was won not by the DSA but by the Democrats who unanimously resigned after the DSA takeover, split off from the DSA loons, and continued Reid's machine as if they still controlled the party.

And if Masto lost, you'd be laying the blame at the DSA. But we both knew that.

I really wouldn't. Is there even any record of me blaming them before the election when I thought CCM would probably lose? No. Because the DSA has been powerless ever since the "takeover" and I knew that. It wouldn't make sense.

Let's try to think logically rather than emotionally, because believe it or not that's actually what I try to do, rather than just side instinctively with my "team." (I have, after all, given credit where it is due before even if I despise the people doing it; you'll never catch me saying Mitch McConnell isn't a highly effective politician, for instance.)

Can you point to anything the DSA did to help CCM and the House Democrats win this election? At best you can say they weren't actively harmful. But this election was won by two things: Swaying independents and swing voters in the middle and turning out the old Reid machine. It certainly was not the product of a democratic socialist revolution. Claiming it as a victory for the DSA is completely asinine, at least as much as blaming it all on them would have been had it gone the other way. And who's to say you would not be blaming the old guard Democrats who split off after the takeover had CCM lost, despite crediting a DSA victory now? I'm guessing you probably were more ready to do that than I ever was to blame the DSA. I knew who was in charge in Nevada, and thus who would bear the responsibility for either victory or defeat.

I've already said on this board that neither the "Reid machine" nor the DSA deserve credit for Democrats doing well in Nevada. Good organizing has nothing to do with ideology or who the leadership supported in a primary. Nowhere else in the country is this debate being had.

Harry Reid is no longer around, the Culinary Union still is, and so is the same infrastructure that the icky DSAers used to the party's advantage. You are the one who's giving credit - specifically, to Democrats who split when they didn't get their way in the party - for the party's success.

[YE]

The DSA run party leadership were basically figureheads. They don’t deserve credit for anything and the candidates they ran in the primary flopped and weren’t that left wing to begin with. The Reid machine is still alive and outside of Sisolak most of the prominent Dem figures are slightly on the left of the party anyway.

[Yoda]

These results paint a horribly dire picture for republicans in '24, especially if they nominate trump and trumpy candidates for COngress again. If they didn't manage to win any big swing state races (with exception of WI-Sen) with their turnout being significantly better than democratic turnout, they are in for a world of hurt in a Presidential year, when democratic turnout will be sky high.

[windjammer]

That DSA takeover sure destroyed the party.

The battle was won not by the DSA but by the Democrats who unanimously resigned after the DSA takeover, split off from the DSA loons, and continued Reid's machine as if they still controlled the party.

And if Masto lost, you'd be laying the blame at the DSA. But we both knew that.

I really wouldn't. Is there even any record of me blaming them before the election when I thought CCM would probably lose? No. Because the DSA has been powerless ever since the "takeover" and I knew that. It wouldn't make sense.

Let's try to think logically rather than emotionally, because believe it or not that's actually what I try to do, rather than just side instinctively with my "team." (I have, after all, given credit where it is due before even if I despise the people doing it; you'll never catch me saying Mitch McConnell isn't a highly effective politician, for instance.)

Can you point to anything the DSA did to help CCM and the House Democrats win this election? At best you can say they weren't actively harmful. But this election was won by two things: Swaying independents and swing voters in the middle and turning out the old Reid machine. It certainly was not the product of a democratic socialist revolution. Claiming it as a victory for the DSA is completely asinine, at least as much as blaming it all on them would have been had it gone the other way. And who's to say you would not be blaming the old guard Democrats who split off after the takeover had CCM lost, despite crediting a DSA victory now? I'm guessing you probably were more ready to do that than I ever was to blame the DSA. I knew who was in charge in Nevada, and thus who would bear the responsibility for either victory or defeat.

I've already said on this board that neither the "Reid machine" nor the DSA deserve credit for Democrats doing well in Nevada. Good organizing has nothing to do with ideology or who the leadership supported in a primary. Nowhere else in the country is this debate being had.

Harry Reid is no longer around, the Culinary Union still is, and so is the same infrastructure that the icky DSAers used to the party's advantage. You are the one who's giving credit - specifically, to Democrats who split when they didn't get their way in the party - for the party's success.

Well you're being incredibly of bad faith to Say that the Reid's machine and its successor do not have any kind of role about why the democrats are being successful in Nevada

[Devils30]

Perhaps NV without this huge GOP turnout edge trends Dem in 2024, like Minnesota in 2020 after 2016.

[wbrocks67]

Perhaps NV without this huge GOP turnout edge trends Dem in 2024, like Minnesota in 2020 after 2016.

Yeah quite frankly it's kind of shocking that given the recent "NV trending red" the last few cycles, that Masto still won this by 1% despite GOP turnout being way better. Like someone said above, with that comparable base turnout in 2024, Dems should be breathing a sigh of relief a bit more now about NV imo.

[Person Man]

Perhaps NV without this huge GOP turnout edge trends Dem in 2024, like Minnesota in 2020 after 2016.

Yeah quite frankly it's kind of shocking that given the recent "NV trending red" the last few cycles, that Masto still won this by 1% despite GOP turnout being way better. Like someone said above, with that comparable base turnout in 2024, Dems should be breathing a sigh of relief a bit more now about NV imo.

As in, it might continue to vote more Democratic than Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and MAYBE Michigan and Pennsylvania?

[forsythvoter]

Just curious why folks think the Reid turnout machine was so effective this cycle given the extremely poor D turnout? If the Reid machine were effective, I don't think there would have been a more than double digit turnout gap between Ds and Rs in Clark county.

It feels to me like NV is a clear example of Rs getting the base turnout they needed to at least comfortably win statewide, but failing to appeal to Independents (who decisively broke D in almost all of the battleground races).

[wbrocks67]

Just curious why folks think the Reid turnout machine was so effective this cycle given the extremely poor D turnout? If the Reid machine were effective, I don't think there would have been a more than double digit turnout gap between Ds and Rs in Clark county.

It feels to me like NV is a clear example of Rs getting the base turnout they needed to at least comfortably win statewide, but failing to appeal to Independents (who decisively broke D in almost all of the battleground races).

I mean, it was still a Biden midterm. I think the fact that Ds did what they did during a Biden midterm kind of proves it, no?