COVID Lockdown Helps Bounce Democratic Governor in Nevada
Republican Joe Lombardo ousts incumbent Steve Sisolak over pandemic closures.

While a national political audience, eyeing the razor-thin margin for partisan control of the United States Senate, eagerly awaits the nail-biting finish between incumbent Catherine Cortez Masto (D–Nev.) and Republican challenger Adam Laxalt, people who actually live in Nevada have just made a more forthright decision about how their lives were governed during the height of COVID-19: They didn't like it.
Joe Lombardo, the Republican sheriff of Clark County, has been declared by both Decision Desk HQ and The Nevada Independent to be the winner of the state's gubernatorial race over Democratic incumbent Steve Sisolak, after campaigning relentlessly against Sisolak's "draconian" pandemic shutdown of casinos and imposition of COVID-related mandates. Sisolak conceded Friday night. With 93 percent of ballots counted, Lombardo has 49.2 percent of the vote, Sisolak 47 percent; the margin of 21,216 votes dwarfs Laxalt's rapidly vanishing 798-vote lead over Cortez Masto with around 100,000 left to count. It's the first time in 40 years a sitting governor has lost a general re-election in Nevada, and so far the only incumbent nationwide to get bounced.
"Sisolak's [Vegas Strip shutdown] may be the single biggest reason he's in serious danger of losing his job," Governing magazine foreshadowed in a piece Monday about Republican gubernatorial candidates using COVID policies to punch above their expected weight in the West. "His response to the pandemic and especially his decision to shutter businesses as the outbreak spread became one of the Republicans' main campaign attacks," reported the Las Vegas Review-Journal Tuesday.
If anti-lockdown policies led to easy reelection victories for Govs. Ron DeSantis (R–Fla.), Brian Kemp (R–Ga.), and Jared Polis (D–Colo.), Sisolak might be the cleanest case of a pro-lockdown incumbent getting scalped. Not only was Nevada's massive hospitality industry infuriated by watching tourists and conferences flock to open Florida, but the governor also had to contend with a messy pay-to-play scandal involving a well-connected but ineffectual COVID testing company.
"The emergence of the Northshore scandal probably cut him, perhaps enough to cost him the race even though he did his best to distance himself from it," the terrific Nevada political observer Jon Ralston wrote the Sunday before the election. "Sisolak has been relentless and ubiquitous. But it probably won't be enough because people are still mad about COVID restrictions and a governor is the most visible person for people to vent their spleens about all the ills of the world when a president is not on the ballot."
Nevada, like Wisconsin, Georgia, and Arizona, has featured some obvious ticket-splitting, with voters choosing Republicans for lieutenant governor (Stavros Anthony) and state controller (Andy Matthews), and Democrats for attorney general (Aaron Ford), treasurer (Zach Conine), and secretary of state (Francisco Aguilar). Generally speaking, the more wedded to 2020 election denialism the Republicans have been, the worse they have performed.
Lombardo survived a tough challenge in a jungle GOP primary against Reno attorney and MAGA enthusiast Joey Gilbert, whose commitment to the election-fraud bit was so total that he promptly sued Lombardo and several state officials for using an allegedly "illegal geometric formula" to tally up his double-digit loss. (Gilbert would eventually endorse Lombardo, as would Trump, even after Lombardo said in a general-election debate that Trump's 2020 allegations against Nevada vote counting "bothers me.")
Anti-lockdown gubernatorial campaigns by Republican challengers against Democratic incumbents proved less successful elsewhere. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, one of the most notorious lockdowners in the country, not only sailed to an 11-point reelection victory against Tudor Dixon, but she also oversaw the biggest Democratic sweep in the Great Lakes State for decades. Dixon was also a comparative novice with extremely prohibitionist views on abortion who has said she believes Trump won Michigan in 2020, not Biden.
Across the border in Wisconsin, even as Republican Sen. Ron Johnson was fending off a Democratic challenger, incumbent Gov. Tony Evers also managed to narrowly hold onto office despite being heavily criticized both for pandemic policies and his stewardship during the deadly Kenosha riots in August 2020. His Republican opponent, Tim Michels, was also a Trump-endorsed questioner of the 2020 presidential election (open to potentially decertifying the Wisconsin results) and opposed abortion in all cases except to save the life of the mother.
In New York, on the other hand, Rep. Lee Zeldin, who focused his campaign heavily on crime but also the economy and COVID policies, performed better than any Republican gubernatorial candidate in a generation, helping pull several contested House districts into the GOP camp. Zeldin still fell five percentage points short of unseating incumbent Kathy Hochul, likely harmed in this deep-blue state by having voted as a lame-duck congressman against certifying the results of the 2020 election.
Beware all commentators telling you what the deeply divided 2022 midterms were "about"; they were about many things, even in individual idiosyncratic races. But National Review's Michael Brendan Dougherty was on to something a week before the election when he observed:
We have just gone through a national political trauma and disruption to our way of life the likes of which we've never experienced before, and many never want to experience anything like it ever again. Voters currently cite the economy and inflation as their top issues, far outranking abortion and guns. Crime is often second or third in the priority list of voters, according to all pollsters. This is all downstream of Covid. We are still climbing out of our pandemic response, and our politics reflect that.
Maybe we underestimated voter distaste for stop-the-steal shenanigans. We probably failed to see what motivating role abortion politics would have. But in Nevada and a handful of other states, there were referendums available on pandemic policy, and with the exception of Michigan, restrictionists were lucky to hold onto power by their fingernails.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So in a victory with a margin of 2%, you’ll credit a state’s Covid response as being a factor but not Trump’s endorsement of the winning candidate?
(ducks)
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> ???.????????.???
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, i’m now creating over $35000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! i do know You currently making a lot of (ihd-02) greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
Ah yes, make sure the Chosen One gets his due. Good for you and the grifter who hoodwinked you.
I see nothing there about Obama you leftist tool.
Look, you fucking Trump cuck, you are a complete incel loser. Of that, there can be no doubt. Stupid cunt
Ha ha. Meltdown.
Ha ha another cuntface
You missed all their articles blaming trump for every loss yesterday didnt you dummy.
It is called intellectual inconsistency. Something you leftists seemingly embrace.
You may have outed a Welch sock
Go fuck yourself you dumb conservative. Fake ass libertarian. Autocratic worshipping cilture warrior loser. Imagine thinking Trump is someone to really get behind! That kind of stupidity should be grounds for suicide all by its lonesome.
Where on my comment did I talk about getting behind him shrike? I know your dead brain addled delusions drive your posting, but wipe your spittle.
Go back to r/conspiracy and jerk off with all your cultist weirdo friends. You guys can sit around and discuss how awesome being socially conservative is and how none of you ever gets fucking laid.
Fuck off and die, steaming pile of TDS-addled shit.
Good one, you stupid cunt. Who's truly deranged here?! The person who thinks Dinald Trump isn't completely playing them as a fool or...nevermind, wr know the answer. You fucking lowlife scumbag
Another amazing strawman.
You leftists really are fucking dumb. No wonder you complain about inflation and the direction of the country but still vote Democrat.
You people are truly pathetic.
Fuck Dems. I know that doesn't compute in your Trump addled brain, but people can, and do, say "fuck em all."
Except you voted for Warnock, Shrike, so fuck off.
Eat a dick, you dumb fucking partisan
What did you just call Comrade Tito, you četnik dog?!
"VoteQuimby"
Wow, you're resurrecting all your old socks this week, Shrike.
Shrike is a good argument for killing pedophiles in prison.
Laxalt just went down giving Biden's handlers control of the Senate. What were you saying about Trump's endorsement?
I have to agree with Mr. Engineer, it’s going going to take a lot more than Trump’s endorsement to overcome a blue state long count with a Democrat incumbent.
Mcconnel spent 10x more on laxalt than Trump did.
Odd the head of the party gets no blame.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/is-it-true-that-mcconnell-tanked-senate-races-by-not-funding-candidates-like-masters
This has been hilarious watching Reasons stances after Greenhuts no narrative articles.
"Generally speaking, the more wedded to 2020 election denialism the Republicans have been, the worse they have performed."
Interesting pattern.
With that in mind, can anyone in the class tell me what the absolute dumbest Republican strategy for 2024 would be?
#MicheleBachmann4Prez?
Nice try, but no.
The correct answer is, the absolute dumbest strategy is to hold the 2024 Republican convention in Alaska. It's obviously too cold.
By 2024, Alaska is going to be as warm as the tropics. Don't you even climate change?
I like this idea. Maybe force them to use RCV to decide the candidate?
Can we hold the 2024 Democratic convention in Hawaii? I am thinking somewhere near an erupting volcano.
We should hold both conventions in Hawaii. The Republicans inside the volcano, the Democrats outside.
What did volcanoes ever do to you?
As long as the whole island goes, I'm good.
This is seemingly a correlation sams causation. Non deniers also lost. The one common cause in close races has been the quality of election identity verification and the overwhelming bias in media. Blake masters was cited by media for months as being for no abortion no exceptions despite his platform being the majority agreed 15 weeks.
This happened across the nation. This has happened to McCain and Romney who were not trump supporters in prior years.
For the left truth doesn't matter. Just the narrative. Even in the sentence you quoted it is a continuation of a left created narrative. It is pushed over and over even sans evidence until taken as truth. It is post modernism in action. The same narrative built on trans ideology. It is not based on objective criteria but on subjective narrative building.
Look at the constituency that went democrat. Young college students or just graduated and young single women. Not exactly the cohorts of sanity or truth.
It is the same means Mao, Stalin, and others rose to power. You see it in South America and their socialists governments. Outcomes don't matter to them, even in starvation and poverty. 70% of Americans said the country was on the wrong track and the economy was shit but still supported those pushing those policies. It is irrational beliefs. And it is quite pathetic reason has gone full bore in it for seemingly no reason other than hating trump.
If the dems win the house and the senate im actually going to start a counter on critical articles on the left vs right. Want to take odds on which party will get more blame?
I agree, Jesse. I am just dumbfounded that there are enough voters out there who, on the one hand, believe the country is on the wrong track, and, on the other, vote for the same people who put the country on the wrong track. Insanity, stupidity, nihilism, maliciousness, brainwashed?
At this point it will likely take a grass roots uprising to stop the Marxists. Elections and the courts are failing us.
I keep saying there are reasons that so many cultures throughout history have sent young people away until they mature. Of course, now we are dedicated to a society where people never have to grow up. I seriously think that is part of progressive appeal.
I also keep wishing to see voter choice breakdown based on net taxes paid (or not). The other obvious appeal of the progressive platform is free stuff.
“Generally speaking, the more wedded to 2020 election denialism the Republicans have been, the worse they have performed.”
"Interesting pattern".
It's not actually true. It’s not Republican messaging. It’s not low-quality candidates. It’s not Trump. It’s not abortion.
It’s mass mail-in/drop-box voting. It’s as simple as that. And Republicans will never win another election unless it’s stopped.
I can't understand why this isn’t obvious to more in Republican leadership, who seem to prefer finger-pointing and infighting instead of addressing the real issue.
"With that in mind, can anyone in the class tell me what the absolute dumbest Republican strategy for 2024 would be?"
Anything that doesn't push for paper ballots, purple fingers and public counts.
Going hard core green energy, crt, and Marxism.
I wish the was the loosing strategy for all of parties, yet here we are
More "celebrity" candidates.
I think this is what upsets me the most. This was everyone's opportunity to tell the Branch Covidians to fuck off and only one state actually did it.
We all know that Michigan is the worst state in the Union, but it was still shocking to see all those losers look straight into the bleeding jaws of fascism and say, "yes, daddy, please."
Next door in Ohio, too. Republican Gov. Mike Dewine, one of the most enthusiastic COVID Nazis of all governors, won re-election by a landslide. Americans love authoritarian collectivism.
Dewine was hyper-aggressive with the covid stuff? I honestly didn't know.
I just heard the major takeaway from Ohio was that J. D. Vance must have been a weak candidate because he didn't win as comfortably as Dewine.
Maybe also because he was Trump's cuck? I mean, imagine going to your own campaign event and having that two-bit grifter come out and take swipes at you while you just sit and take it? He was fucking Vance's voters right in front of him. Awesome.
VoteQuimby appears to be a representative sample of the voters I've talked about: "I'd rather vote for harmful lockdowns, inflation, less freedom, and a shittier quality of life if it means getting back at Trump."
Retarded.
It lines up with their penchant for projection, see also: "They have no policy except for owning the libs!"
I don't vote for Dems. Sorry to ruin your black and white narrative. I also don't vote for two-bit charlatan grifters.
Nobody believes you shrike. You cheer it on in every thread. You fucking defend biden with lies.
Who do you think you're fooling?
K
"...I mean, imagine going to your own campaign event and having that two-bit grifter..."
Fuck off and die, steaming pile of TDS-addled shit.
You first, Angry Little Trump Man. ALTM...that's you. You stupid cuck. You like getting fucked by the big man, huh?
Are they any actual libertarians here or is it just loudmouth Trump cucks and progressive culture warrior scum now?
You aren't a libertarian shrike. Youre a soros paid globalist who constantly defends democrats and leftist global entities.
Again, who do you think you are fooling?
Judging by the comments since you r/conspiracy idiots invaded, Im about the only libertarian here.
I’m sure no one sucks cock like you do. Although we know you prefer prepubescent boys, you goddamn Pedo.
Kill yourself.
Oh no, an angry little bitch boy Republican. You're so unique here!!! You pussy
Triggered?
Hey look! Found another incel piece of shit
It’s the Tucker Carlson effect. Everyone he’s had on frequently did less well in the vote than they should.
Based on what?
Yes, at first, he most definitely was. But I think he started to realize what was going to happen if he continued down that path (he didn’t get 50% of the vote in the primary). I think there might have been some Democrats that voted for him too, because all the wine moms were absolutely enamored with him and Dr. Amy very early on.
Yes, I'm certain a lot of Democratic voters crossed over to vote for him, because they are COVID Fear Cultists.
It is bizarre. Why do people want to live in fear?
My guess is it’s a Combination of collective virtue, “I sacrificed for the team against the peril and the dangerous peril deniers”, and getting their pet projects rammed through in a climate of fear.
Months after municipal mandates ended and any illusion that the vax stopped the spread had vaporized, DC clubs were still requiring vax passports at the door. It’s a powerful identity marker.
That's a Hallmark of most leftist (at leadt how America defines left right) political movements, at the core their collectivists. They are far more willing to sacrifice individual liberty for an undefined "greater good". Marxism socialism, progressivism etc. Even moderate leftist have this view. Remember "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"? This is a call for sacrifice for an ambiguous concept of the greater good. It's also happens to overlap with ideas of old world conservativism, especially nationalists and royalists movements.
The difference in America is that we were founded on enlightenment ideals of individual liberty, and a Scando-Germanic tradition of leaders ruling by the consent of free citizens. This traces back to the old Scandinavian Thing and the equivalent Anglo-Saxon Fyrd. It was codified with the Magna Carta. Equivalents also existed throughout the history of the Holy Roman Empire, were the Emperors we're selected by approved by acclimation of the lords, and then the electors and the Reichstag.
The beauty, and the weakness according to many progressives, of the Constitution is that it was and is an attempt to balance the need for a strong federal system with individual liberty and central Republicanism. The Bill of Rights also was a further attempt to protect the latter from the former. The Constitution created three co-equqal branches, with specified duties and the theoritical ability to check the power of the other branches. Unfortunately, for leftists, this stymies the power of the central government and or a strong executive. So, throughout our history, there was conflict between pro liberty, republicans (small R) and centralized collectivists.
Over the last century (arguably since 1861) the scales have been mostly tiled to the collectivists. Additionally, the left has been very successful at co-opting even individualistic movements like during the 1960s (the peace, liberty and love movement of the mid 1960s was co-opted by a more collectivists movement by the 1970s). This is further exampled by the lefts new ideals of equity over equality (although, even often their older embrace of equality tended to be equity in all but name). Equity is the idea of collective goals over individual achievement (equality of opportunity vs equity of outcome).
The right on the other hand has failed to be a true individualistic, liberty movement. This is often been the result of getting caught up on fealty to social conservatism. Some of this is because of the coalition that makes up our right political parties.
Finally, self sacrifice and sacrifice for the greater good is a very Judeo-Christian ideal (actually all Abrahamic religions). Thus, it's easier, culturally to sell to west because of our cultural heritage. Protestants like Luther did stress individual salvation over a collectivists salvation, but didn't extend these ideals to the relationship between princes and subjects (using his phrases). But, the mistake that historians who bash Luther for his preaching of subservience to the state miss is that Luther had caveats on this. The largest was that, true to Germanic culture, the relationship was that he did not view this as a one direction relation. The people accorded authorities (the princes) fealty but that Christian ideals required the princes fealty to their subjects. Another point on this is that the Catholic Church and the Imperial authorities (often the same at the time) claimed Luther's teachings of individual salvation and personal responsibility was a threat to established order. At the time of the Peasants' Revolt, Luther had been excommunicated and outlawed by the Hapsburg Emperor. He was living under the protection of sympathetic northern Germanic princes, and he never originally set out to destroy the Catholic Church nor the Empire, but to reform the Church. Even at the time of his death he largely rejected the idea that the church he founded was separate from the Catholic Church (this can still be seen in the Liturgy of the Lutheran Church, and even the church organization of the largest branches of Lutheranism). So while Luther can be given some credit for (returning) to a more individualistic Christianity, it's wrong to assume that this necessarily extended beyond individual salvation.
Although, I would say that countries that embraced Protestantism were societies with less autocratic governance and that embraced the idea of individualism. Scandinavia, Germany, the Netherlands, England and Scotland. Additionally, even when one of these became extremely autocratic in the 20th century, it should be noted that it's strongest support was always in the more Catholic southern states, and that it gained power with only 33% support among it's voting citizenship (the danger of parliamentary governments based on coalition governance and little to no separation between legislative and executive powers).
This is not meant as to be anti-catholic or a criticism of Catholicism but rather a condemnation of the incestuous relationship between state authority and church leaders, especially in the Holy Roman Empire, where the crown appointed Bishops and rebelled against Rome whenever the papacy attempted to curtail this. Also, it's pointing out that for a large portion (even today in some aspects) Catholicism was more collective salvation over individual salvation, as well as being more hierarchical.
Especially from the high Renaissance to early modern period.
"The difference in America is that we were founded on enlightenment ideals of individual liberty, and a Scando-Germanic tradition of leaders ruling by the consent of free citizens."
For some reason you are omitting the role of indigenous peoples in shaping the American political landscape. When Cortez arrived in Mexico, he relied on the Tlaxcalans, whom he identified as a Republic, in contrast to the monarchy of the valley of Mexico. In Canada you had the Treaty of Niagara, mid 1700s, cementing mutual recognition and sovereignty. In the US, around the same time, Benjamin Franklin drew deeply from the traditions of the Iroquois nation, a democratic institution hundreds of years old at the time.
I urge you not to belittle or denigrate the role of the indigenous inhabitants of the Americas and their influence on how politics diverged from Europe.
Good points. The Iroquois were fairly well advanced politically.
The main reason that Cortez was able to conquer the Aztecs with only several hundred men is that the Tlaxcalans and other tribes hated paying heavy taxes to the Aztecs who had conquered them previously. The Tlaxcalans at first fought the Spanish and tried to drive them out, but when they saw how effective steel swords and cavalry and guns were against them, they realized the Spaniards could help them beat Montezuma.
And one reason the far more numerous and warlike Aztecs weren't able to defeat the Spanish is that the Aztec weapons weren't really designed to kill. They mainly used war clubs, designed to injure opponents so they could be captured and taken prisoner to serve as human sacrifices later.
The Iroquois were advanced but they're influence on the government of the colonies has vastly been overstated in recent years. It's clear from the writings that the continental Congress based their structure on colonial charters, the Magna Carta and English Common Law.
"but when they saw how effective steel swords and cavalry and guns were against them, they realized the Spaniards could help them beat Montezuma."
Couple of things surprised me about Cortez and his conquest was that the horses died off over time and there were only a dozen or so left by the time of the confrontation with the Aztecs. Still they managed to make a huge impression on them. The conquest came down to a naval battle, for which Cortez had dismantled all his ships on the coast of today's Vera Cruz, transported them over the mountains, and reassembled them in the lakes around today's Mexico City. (Which he set about draining unfortunately) Also surprising was his campaign against human sacrifice, idolatry and cannibalism, even to the extent of jeopardizing fragile relations with local tribes whose help he needed. Cortez seems to have sincerely held beliefs and was not simply a cynical opportunist.
Cortez didn't found America. As for indigenous influence on our government, they vastly overstated. If you look at the actual process it was largely based on the Magna Carta and English Common Law.
He did find California.
"Cortez didn’t found America. "
Was there an America when Cortez landed in Mexico? I know there was Brazil, which is pretty much the same as it is today. There was Peru, which was the rest of South America, and Mexico, which included the Mexico of today, the USA, Canada as well as Central America.
"If you look at the actual process "
I'm not referring to the actual process, whatever that is, but the importance of democratic institutions of the indigenous population and how it differs from Europe which was pretty autocratic.
" It’s clear from the writings that the continental Congress based their structure on colonial charters, the Magna Carta and English Common Law."
England was a monarchy, like I think every other European nation at the time. USA was a federation of states, and not a monarchy, just like the Iroquois had been for 100s of years. I urged you not to belittle or denigrate the influence of the indigenous population on shaping the American political landscape, but clearly you can't help yourself.
The Constitution didn’t create three co-equal branches. The Congress was way more powerful than the President, and the Courts were an afterthought. The Supreme Court took it upon itself later to declare laws Constitutional or not. Likewise, the Bill of Rights was added later. And the Presidency didn’t start to become imperial until Lincoln, and then Roosevelt (our most beloved Presidents).
The Constitution did try to strike a balance between centralized power and distributed power, leaving many things to the states. But most of that power has accreted to the central government over the decades since, to the point where people now routinely debate various potential federal laws that should not be federal at all.
The Bill of Rights was approved the next year, however, the Bill of Rights was created during the convention and was promised as a compromise for those who felt the Constitution as originally written didn't provide adequate protections for personal liberties or state rights. They demanded a Bill of Rights as in exchange for their support of the Constitution.
Additionally, by equal, it is meant that each branch has distinct powers not delighted to the others, but also has a means to check the power of the other branches. Well, the Constitution does not address if the courts can rule on constitionality, it does state the courts are responsible for judicial processes regarding federal law. The courts extended this to include ruling on if the laws themselves comported with the Constitution, which clearly states that no law can be override the Constitution. The Constitution also gave the courts a role in impeachments and the ability to try federal officials. The legislature can be vetoed by the executive branch. They did provide a means to override this veto but made the process require a supermajority. So, it's arguable that the legislature was more powerful than the executive, even then. Even if it were it was only slightly.
Fear and drama make mundane lives more exciting, and add to victim status points.
There's a lot of overlap between fear and sexual excitement.
The legislature also got control of that too. I'm fairly certain they passed bills over his veto to rein in his emergency powers. I know at least one was to eliminate the whole "essential workers" bullshit.
Some kind of Stockholm sheepdog-loving sheep syndrome?
The under 30s are lazier and more dependent on welfare than at any point in American history. They didn't mind the lockdowns that much at all because 1) Many of them don't have the kind of normal social lives people used to, 2) they don't fuckin' work, and 3) they got handed free money out the ass.
The future of America is grim as fuck.
Agreed. Remember those signs at restaurants? " be patient with our staff, nobody wants to work anymore."
And anyone who still goes out to eat and does stuff knows just how true those signs are!
That's why a $15 minimum wage has me terrified. Nobody takes pride in their work to begin with and we're going to nearly double their wages?
Give them a choice: take free stuff or keep the vote.
Even better, let's just raise the voting age to 30, in order to adjust to expanded childhood.
You don’t need age discrimination. Just limit the vote to net taxpayers. (Which would also cut out public employees unions.)
Say you don't earn the right to vote unless you pay 10K in taxes that year. And if you pay 20K you get two votes. And no one should have to pay more than 20K a year. (Call it an Alternative Maximum Tax. Pay 20K and you don't have to disclose any details.)
My theory is those states that held on to their lock-down-happy governors were depopulated of voters who hated them, who in turn moved to states like Florida where the putative "red wave" happened. Those who remained are either extremely short-sighted or liked the abuse.
"....who in turn moved to states like Florida—"
This. Based on the results in places like Florida, Georgia, and Texas, where Republicans fared very well, I'm cautiously optimistic that one of my chief worries* has been alleviated; namely that refugees from the northern prison colonies would being their shitty politics with them.
*I reside in one of these states
In Montana, Senator Steve Daines’ office conducted a study of people moving from out-of-state and concluded they were mostly Republican-leaning. They were probably right: this is the first federal election with two House districts in the state, and the western district (which includes woke Missoula and Bozeman, which each have a state university, and historically socialist Butte) elected Ryan Zinke, even with the libertarian candidate getting almost 4% of the vote (Rosendale cruised to another term in the eastern district).
Good. And it makes perfect sense. The people who elect lockdown-loving governors crave punishment at the hands of government, so really it only makes sense that they'd stay in a state they know will heap on the abuse. When rolling carbon lockdowns come to California, the people there will cheer.
California already reelected Newsome twice, after he moved to stop people from driving to work more than 3 days a week, forced cars to go electric, and stopped letting people put more efficient and desirable gas appliances in their homes. They love abuse.
I’d be curious how that breaks down with Californians who moved there. If I ever escape this left-fascist sewer, I’d like to go where I’m not automatically pegged as….someone who will vote for all…THAT…in my new home area.
I do love the meme directed at Californian emigres: “Remember, you are a refugee—NOT a missionary!’
Living here and seeing the Tranel signs I was actually very surprised that Zinke won. Tranel seemed in the vein of Tester someone who was moderate enough to get elected and generally a person people could interact with. Lamb could have done a bit better by looking a bit more presentable in the vote not like Ted K.
Yeah, a lot of freedom lovers (and smart people who saw the lockdowns as COVID theater) fled to Florida and Texas. So I think Texas won't be joining Georgia anytime soon as a battleground state. And Florida is solidly Repub again.
Yeah, that's what's really bugging me too. The most important issue of this election should have been the absolute disaster of the response to covid.
.
"COVID Lockdown Helps Bounce Democratic Governor in Nevada"
Sure wish we could say the same of that greaseball Newsom.
Likewise with that ball of lard called Pritzker.
California loved its lockdowns. They can't wait to do it again.
We love our lockdowns, and we love our governor. Californians love their betters being held above them, and it’s a long term relationship. If we didn’t have term limits fucking Jerry Brown would still be governor.
I can only shudder at the thought of what elitist they’ll have to find to replace Newsom when his term expires. Just as New Yorkers were instructed to elect Hillary, I’m sure we’ll get some superstar like Michelle Obama, now that the Obama’s own a home down in SoCal.
And yeah, judging by the amount of people I see commuting by themselves with masks on, we’ll be tearing Covid away from their cold, dead fingers.
I’m hoping for Kurt Russell to pull some Terminator style magic. Maybe when SF and LA get as bad as New York and LA in the Escape from New York and Escape from LA movies, the voters will turn to Snake Plissken.
Plus the voters love a governor to play Santa Claus, and Russell has literally played Santa Claus in the movies.
In California? I shudder to think who the next celebrity governor will be.
#WandaSykes4Governor
"California loved its lockdowns. They can’t wait to do it again."
Leftists have a masochistic "spank me, daddy" sort of relationship with their state governments. So yes, when California implements rolling "carbon lockdowns," the people there will be giddy.
The Covid response affected the 2020 and 2021 votes while it was happening. People were not looking at Covid for 2022.
The author’s logic is flawed. Any broad generalization about voting for governors in which half the results were “exceptions” show the generalization is incorrect.
That depends.
How many people who typically voted Dem voted for Lombardo because of Sisolak's COVID response which was pretty much over in the second half of 2020?
Reason takes an event and molds it to their preferred narrative? They would never...
Disagree. Governors of the response were not up for election until now. And now we know that virtually everything they did to restrict our freedom was absolute horseshit. Good on Nevadans for ousting a petty tyrant.
"If anti-lockdown policies led to easy reelection victories for Govs. Ron DeSantis (R–Fla.), Brian Kemp (R–Ga.), and Jared Polis (D–Colo.)"
Quit fellating Polis. That's his husband's job.
Lol
Why do they leave Noem's election results out?
Donald Trump: The gift that keeps on giving:
"Biden’s student-debt relief faces biggest test yet after Texas judge blocks program. ‘Definitely kind of like burst a lot of people’s dream’"
[...]
"On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman ruled that the program usurped Congress’ power to make laws. The administration immediately filed a notice to appeal.
[...]
Pittman — an appointee of former President Donald Trump based in Fort Worth, Texas — made it clear that he felt Biden overstepped his authority. He said the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, commonly known as the HEROES Act, did not provide the authorization for the loan forgiveness program.
The law allows the secretary of education to waive or modify terms of federal student loans in times of war or national emergency. The administration said the COVID-19 pandemic created a national emergency.
But Pittman said such a massive program required clear congressional authorization..."
https://fortune.com/2022/11/12/is-student-loan-forgiveness-relief-canceled-debt-texas-judge-blocks/
Burst the dreams of those hoping the Jackson orchard out back was ready for harvest.
Thank you, Mr. Trump; not bad for a 'game show host' (sandra), 'the US greatest criminal (tony), and a 'grifter' (votequimby).
And that’s why the Dems will keep the House and gain one Senate seat and pursue cash for kids UBI, mandatory Section 8, student loan forgiveness, rent control, eviction bans, fossil fuel bans, and finally, tax on unrealized gains and financial transaction taxes. Oops forgot windfall taxes
The House looks like a narrow Republican victory, but it's going to be really close.
The NYT had the House going Repub on Nov 9 (the day after the election), with 219 wins and 10 tossups, with an 83% chance of control. They gave the Dems a 66% chance to control the Senate.
Our local lockdown asshole county executive won re-election, but it was by about 10 points less than predicted.
I hope he dies in a fire, personally. I'm just not willing to start it.
My county voted for a new bureaucratic boondoggle transportation authority. A new tax for subsidized childcare. Magic mushroom legalization as healthcare (I assume all the “growers” will be subsidized under the farm bill?).
Hey, (magic?) mushroom farming is still farming.
And mushroom farming is like grooming voters (feed them shit, and keep them in the dark).
(For what it's worth, I laughed.)
(Well, chuckled, anyway)
Magic mushroom legalization as healthcare (I assume all the “growers” will be subsidized under the farm bill?).
Libertarian victories!
I’m sure that any shroom subsidy will have a cap on it (details pending more stem research)
My state voted to protect abortion on demand (at any point in the pregnancy) and to keep gambling illegal, unless you pay 50% to the state in the lottery of course.
Huh, something going on in the crypto space this week. Wonder if there's anything of interest to the flagship libertarian magazine about that?
Their liberal culture that they absorb by osmosis hasn't told them what to think yet.
https://twitter.com/AMC_Apee/status/1591501831003582464?t=bDw5Z1BOJJblDYL5tNyo4g&s=19
Money Laundering 101.
1. Foreign aid goes to Ukraine.
2. Ukraine invests in $FTX
3. $FTX donates back to the Democratic Party.
And the same basic cycle applies to dozens of other corporations, both real and shell corporations.
The Tom Brady Youtube ads for FTX called it “the most trusted way to trade crypto”.
They even mocked Brady as “the most hated person” when he called former fans in New England on the phone to urge them to buy crypto through FTX. I bet he’s even more hated now.
Let the lawsuits begin. Sometimes, even lawyers are valuable to society.
https://twitter.com/unusual_whales/status/1591657358077222912?t=B9APm6zZ9_tGeHUNOZbqSw&s=19
Bankman-Fried secretly transferred $10 billion of customer funds from FTX to Alameda.
A large portion of that has since disappeared, with one source put the missing amount at about $1.7 billion and another estimating the gap was between $1 billion and $2 billion, per Reuters.
Has anyone else noticed that Bankman-Fried is a dead ringer for Napolean Bonaparte?
https://www.forbes.com/profile/sam-bankman-fried/?sh=4e8b5ab14449
https://www.napoleon.org/en/history-of-the-two-empires/images/an-artists-impression-of-napoleon-produced-by-artificial-intelligence-may-2020/
And dreams of world domination didn't end well for either of them.
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/ftx-held-just-900mm-liquid-assets-vs-9bn-liabilities-video-emerges-confirming-alameda-knew
Standard leftist grift. And when found out use it as a means for government control.
Meanwhile, Californians, New Yorkers, and Michiganders appear to be suffering from the biggest outbreak of Stockholm syndrome ever.
Many are. I'm not, but got outvoted in my state by the "coastal crazies". Just disgusting seeing so many sheep willing to keep their tormentors in office.
I am neither supporting nor disabusing the idea of election fraud, but it does seem that the longer a district or state takes to count votes, the more likely, no matter how big a lead the Republican has on election night, that the race is going to go Democrat. Laxalt was just announced to have lost his race. He's been ahead all along. I checked before dinner, and it had narrowed to under a thousand votes but he was still ahead. Now two hours later he is behind by five thousand and his opponent declared the victor (giving the Democrats nominal control, hopefully Walker can still win in Georgia keeping it a 50-50 Senate and maybe we can get Manchin to cross?).
This is not some endorsement of conspiracy but rather a comment on the state of elections in states that often decide control of one or more house (and the presidency more often than not). The fact that 8/10 times the longer it takes to count and announce results, the race will results favor one party over the other (no matter if the losing power lead throughout the process right up towards the end) the more the losing party and it's followers are going to be dissatisfied and untrustful of the outcome. Here we are five days after the election and Laxalt lead the entire time until a couple of hours ago. Now he is suddenly the loser and with his loss the Democrats remain in power in the Senate. If this was happening routinely to Democrats, the left and the media would be throwing a fit. But since it's happening to the right, anyone who questions this (even if they are not screaming fraud or cheating, just questioning why this paradigm seems to be) is described as deniers, threats to democracy, etc. This isn't about Trump but about about half the country not trusting the results. Maybe they aren't questioning or rioting but more like me resigned to the fact that to often Republican leads disappear in critical states that take longer than 24 hours to return results, and resigned doesn't mean accepting or even trusting the results. It means we're resigned to the fact that for whatever reason the rules in these critical states favor drastically Democrats, and that, while we can't prove it (because the rules make it nearly impossible without a confession) something appears extremely fishy about this state of affairs.
As of just now, according to RCP and FNC vote tracking (which basically are the same as AP) Republicans are ahead still in nine of the undecided House races, which would give them the majority. All of these races are over 50% (many over 80%) completed (how is it 5 days later and many California districts are still just above 50% complete) if the Republicans do not win these, especially with Republicans up by 4.7% nationally, I can't predict what will happen. No matter how you feel about parties it's a shame that one of the oldest Republics in the world and five days later we still can't declare a winner. The excuse is mail in ballots. Oh, I know people love mail in ballots, but, it doesn't increase trust in the system (and rather or not fraud has or hasn't occurred, I'm not endorsing either view, mail in ballots are more difficult to verify and thus less secure from fraud than in person voting with ID).
The real threat to democracy or better yet our representative constitional Republic, is loss of trust in the system. Both sides have contributed to this over the years (questioned losses) and both sides have accused the other of gaming the system. It's not a one sided issue. That being said, however, there is a disturbing tendency that prolonged counts more often than not seem to benefit the Democrats (I'd estimate since 2002 about 80% of the time). These prolonged counts also tend to be policies created to "make voting easier" and "every vote count". There does need to be some form of voting reform, because "trust me" isn't good enough. Nor is condemning one side or the other, or cries of fraud and cheating without evidence (again this isn't limited to one side or the other, both sides have done this for the past 20 years), or cries that gerrymandering tilts the field (again both sides gerrymander, and even Nate Silvers has pointed out that statistically it almost always balances out). There is two problems to fixing this nationally. Well, actually three. The first is that to the left, and thus the majority of the media, currently there do not agree there is a problem, and anyone who says otherwise is sore losers or worse (semi-fascists, anti-Demicracy according to our President). The second is it's very Constituonally questionable to make changes federally. Third, the so called voting rights acts actually forces red states to adopt many of the policies that can arguably be the root cause of the current state of affairs that has led many on the right, and even a large percentage of centrists, to question the validity and security of the results. This, contrary to the current left zeitgeist, is not the same as denying, but even I who was disgusted by Trump's actions in 2020, and the riots on January 6th, 2021, have a deep unsettled feeling that something "is rotten in the state of Denmark".
" am neither supporting nor disabusing the idea of election fraud, but it does seem that the longer a district or state takes to count votes, the more likely, no matter how big a lead the Republican has on election night, that the race is going to go Democrat." Except in 2016, when those late-breaking states gave Trump the presidency.
And Nevada is no slower in counting its votes than Ohio, Indiana and Illinois and a lot quicker than Arizona, California or Alaska. And four of those states are run by Republicans. You're just a crybaby.
Thanks for proving my point about the left not listening because they are happy with the results. Additionally, try California is one of the states I mentioned as being broken, as is Arizona. Nor does the slowness of Ohio and Alaska disprove my point, in fact it proves what I was saying. Your first post was factually inaccurate and historically inaccurate. Your second post was a personal attack that didn't address what I actually stated. Good job with two completely sophomoric and factually inaccurate posts (also, part of Alaska's slowness is related to their ranked choice voting, plus the fact that it's winter there and almost all the districts yet to report are the most isolated villages that aren't connected by road, have minimal communication with the capital that the weather often makes even less reliable). Fuck, you're an idiot. Yeah, pointing out the facts is crying. That is the take of a simpleton partisan. Good job, being wrong factually, sophomoric and imbecilicly partisan. Refer to the widely popular meme from Billy Madison about getting no points. You earned it.
Also, for your information, I am not registered with any party, and haven't voted straight ticket in over a decade. I've voted for Republicans, Democrats and Libertarian candidates. But, you're to simplistic to grasp that people may honestly disagree with you. Your so close minded that any one who dare says anything contrary must have ulterior motives. Good job with the group think. As always, the partisan poster once again demonstrates the dangers of group think. BTW, it's funny, Jesse and Nardz been attacking me and ridiculing me for the past four days for being to soft in regards to being outraged by the outcomes. Now you're calling me a crybaby for saying there is some valid questions. Let me guess, you didn't read past the first sentence you quoted, and as soon as you saw the name Trump made an unwarranted assumption?
Its funny to Trump supporters I'm to soft, and blinded by my opposition to Trump and to blame for Biden because I didn't vote for Trump, and to proggies, I'm just another Trump supporters (despite never having supported Trump) and crying.
Maybe, it would surprise you that I blamed Trump for the losses starting Tuesday night? But then again I doubt it matters because I suspect that you're one of those that if I'm not 100% for your side, I'm the enemy and thus can be dismissed. I'm drawing this on your first post, which was factually incorrect, and the fact that you quoted only my first sentence and chose to counter it by bringing up Trump, someone who I never voted for, and have condemned multiple times (even later in the very post you responded to). But you made your response about Trump, and got even the basic facts of your response wrong in playing the whataboutism card.
Arizona elections are run by democrats you ignorant shit.
Um, the head of Arizona's election system is running against Kari Lake and refused to recuse herself as head of elections for this race.
Trump led most in those states by midnight east coast, and had been declared the winner before the following morning. Not even close to the same thing. Not even fucking close to five days later. Way to miss the fucking point.
Also, in most those states Trump led all along but the media kept saying the late votes would change those results. It wasn't a case of him behind and suddenly winning almost a week later.
To add to my last post. Biden is right that this is a threat to our country, but he is right for the wrong reasons. People don't trust the system and this wasn't the result of Trump. He just took it to far. People have been questioning it for quite awhile. For the right it really started around 2006 when the Republican nominee for Washington governor won multiple recounts, but the courts kept ordering more recounts, until eventually he was declared the loser and then the courts refused his request for a new recount. Additionally, when Al Franken win in 2008 after they "discovered" a box of ballots in someone's trunk during the recount. So, no it's not Trump, nor is it only Republicans (2000, 2004, 2016, hell Stacy Abrams said as late as last week that she was going to win "if people were allowed to vote"). Libertarians also have long argued the fact that it's really hard in a lot of states for them to get their candidates on the ballot (additionally, the Democrats the last three elections have sued to keep leftwing alternative parties off ballots in key states).
One more thing to consider. The national Republican committee was banned from assisting candidates nationally (including organizing, voter outreach and judicial challenges) by the order of a Carter appointed justice. This order did not apply to the DNC. The order was also supposed to be limited to only 7 years. At the end of the initial 7 year period, the judge (who had retired but maintained senior associate privileges) extended it for another 7 years (because he was the judge of record and maintained associate status, the case was never reassigned). This continued every 7 years until after his death.
The last order finally expired in 2016, despite many progressives demanding that Obama and the DoJ sue to get to extend the thirty+ year old ruling. Credit to Obama, he didn't. So, for three decades, the DNC was able to actively sue to get rules changed to their benefit, lobby state legislators to change rules to what they want, actively endorse, recruit and campaign for candidates with their national organization in conjunction with their state and local organizations and their Senate and Congressional organizations. The Republicans were not able to utilize their National organization due to this ruling, nor could they coordinate get out the vote, voter registration, election policy etc between the national organization and the state and local organizations like the Democrats could.
The original ruling may have been just, I don't know enough about the original case and the facts (it was never heard, instead the RNC agreed to a short term settlement that the courts kept renewing for over 30 years). But it was not supposed to have been a 30+ year precedence. As a result, Democrats were successful, largely unchallenged by the Republicans (who were legally barred from fighting) to shape election laws, court cases etc and to build a coordinated national level campaign strategy for over thirty years. One of the keys to our country is the idea of fairness regardless of political beliefs. When I read about this last week, I find it very hard to see how this was fair (even if the original decision was, the perpetuation of it for over three decades wasn't).
Also, I wonder how many people were aware of this? I read a lot of political writing and journalism from all sides, plus I read almost exclusively anymore historical non-fiction and didn't realize this had happened until last week.
But I'm sure to the simple-minded like Syd, this either never happened or is just more crying because I support Trump (ask Nardz and Jesse if I support Trump).
One more final thought. The 8/10 thing is just the impression I get. I haven't actually ran the numbers. I would be open to persuasion that my impression is mistaken, but no, people like Syd can't actually persuade, instead the make unwarranted assumptions, misrepresent what I wrote and then attack me, which makes me less open to viewing their argument critically (once it gets personal, logic tends to take a backseat with most people). And it's not just Syd, because Nardz has been doing the same thing for the past week, and Jesse and a couple others from the right.
Overt and I disagreed two weeks ago about ranked choice voting. He never got personal. He responded with reasoned arguments and facts. I countered them. Neither of us took it personally, because neither of us made it personal. I still believe we disagree on ranked choice voting (looking at the Alaska results I think it's just more room for gamesmanship, which the Democrats excell at and doing the math, were 30+% don't pick a second choice it still appears that the eventual winner often ends up winning by only a plurality but it appears to be a majority because they get 50% of the much smaller second count). But, his disagreeing with me didn't make me less open to persuasion, unlike Syd's response and Nardz earlier behavior towards my opinions.
If anything, Nardz reactions and Syd's posts further convinces me that my original presumptions are correct. Nardz has convinced me this week that Trump is very bad for the GOP, because his supporters seem to be pushing that it's Trump or no one. And Syd seems to prove my point that the left will never admit there is a problem because it benefits them.
Okay, I thought of one more thing I wanted to say. My first sentence, that Syd quoted out of context, was written solely because I know how certain people think. And he proved it. Anyone who questions or states that the confusion and chaos of our voting system (which has gotten worse not better in my 46 years of life) they're going to misrepresent as being conspiracy nuts or Trump supporters. So, even before Trump, but especially since 2015 when he announced his run, you have to almost make a standard disclaimer that your thoughts are not because of Trump (and the reverse can also be true, which is why I phrased that disclaimatory statement the way I did). This is not all Trump's fault, because before Trump it was the Tea Party, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh that the left largely used to attack anyone to their right (oh you're just another Teabagger, heard that a lot even on here in 2010, and before that, you should turn off Fox or stop listening to Rush). I'm sure the right does it too (in fact I know some do), but in my experience I can disagree with people on the right with it less likely to get personal and dismissive than on the right (and, when it does happen on the right, they're rare exceptions).
Narrator:
It's fraud.
Or the Dems are just better at harvesting ballots. Repubs are more civic minded and more likely to vote on their own, make the effort to go to the polls, and prevent people from voting for them. Dems are lower information voters and more likely to turn out if it is easier (mail-in ballots thanks to COVID), or to let someone else "collect" their ballots for them. Ballot harvesting is even legal in California.
In Missouri, we had no-excuse, mail-in, absentee, and every other sort of voting available you could imagine, and on election day:
the polls closed at 7pm
all of the votes were counted by 9pm
How reactionary!
"He’s been ahead all along. I checked before dinner, and it had narrowed to under a thousand votes but he was still ahead. "
LBJ made sure the precincts he'd rigged were the last to be reported so he'd know how many votes he needed to put him over the top. It's a little unfair to single out LBJ as it was a by no means an unusual practice for Texas at the time.
There is plenty of evidence of election tampering in Texas back then. What evidence is there of monkey business on the part of Laxalt's opponent?
COVID-19 is going to be a problem again and again. When will we maintain this as well? The COVID vaccine is helping people but this issue is not going away from the world. Click Here
“Click here.”
No.
You know who else liked to bounce?
Tigger? Or was he canceled along with Pooh?
Jan Masaryk? Vaclav Havel? (You know how those Czechs bounce!)
Too bad voters didn’t bounce COVID tyrants (and hypocrites) Whitmer and Newsome too. Now they’re both going to run for President.
At least they can’t run on the same ticket, since the Dems won’t allow an all-white ticket any more. So they’ll probably be fighting over Stacy Abrams as running mate. With the loser in the Abrams sweepstakes settling for Beto (or AOC).
After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i've had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me.They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500.Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet.
Read all about it here.........>>> onlinecareer1
After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i've had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me.They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500.Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet.
Read all about it here.........>>> onlinecareer1