How will enthusiasm gap affect Nevada elections in the fall?



Now that the dust has settled from the major party primaries Tuesday, what do the numbers tell us about the outcomes in November in a few of the key Nevada races?

There does seem to be an enthusiasm gap between the Republicans and Democrats according to the turnout statewide.

Cortez Masto

If you just look at the raw numbers in the U.S. Senate race, you’d think they bode well for Democrat


nominee Catherine Cortez Masto who garnered 82,000 ballots, compared to Republican nominee Joe Heck’s 74,500. But Heck faced more opponents, and, contrasting with the voter registration rolls, 13,000 more Republicans voted in that race than Democrats, even though Democrats outnumber Republicans in Nevada by 48,000.

Statewide voter registration breaks down to 39 percent Democrat, 35 percent Republican and all other parties and independents account for 26 percent.

It is hard to say at this time how the lack of enthusiasm for either major party presidential candidate will affect turnout in November.


The story is similar in the closely watched 3rd Congressional District race, which is an open seat because


incumbent Heck is running for the Senate. On the Democrat ticket, Jacky Rosen raked in 14,000 votes to win the nomination, compared to Republican nominee Danny Tarkanian’s 9,000 votes, besting state Sen. Michael Roberson of $1.5 billion tax hiking fame.

CD3 is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans with each having 37 percent of the registered voters and all others with 26 percent. Yet 5,000 more Republicans voted Tuesday than Democrats in the district.


It is an entirely different story in the 4th Congressional District race in which Republican Cresent Hardy is serving


his first term and easily won the party nomination over two candidates whose campaigns failed to register a blip on the radar. Hardy collected 18,600 votes, compared to Democrat nominee Ruben Kihuen’s 12,200, but he faced seven opponents who put up vigorous campaign efforts.

The registration in that district leans heavily Democratic — 42 percent Democrat, 33 percent Republican and 25 percent all others. The district covers northern Clark County as well as southern Lyon County and all of White Pine, Nye, Mineral, Esmeralda, and Lincoln counties. Clark is heavily Democratic, while the rurals lean Republican.

In fact, 5,000 more Democrats voted Tuesday than Republicans in that district, but there wasn’t much of a choice for Republicans. The rurals are credited with putting Hardy over the top in the election two years ago.

Another factor is that Cortez Masto, Kihuen and Rosen are all backed by retiring Sen. Harry Reid and are likely to garner union support, which will drive turnout in November. Whether Reid’s backing is a buoy or a millstone is an open question.

Will Harry Reid’s support help or hurt candidates?



30 comments on “How will enthusiasm gap affect Nevada elections in the fall?

  1. Steve says:

    I think Roberson lost that race by running a crappy campaign.
    Plenty of tax raisers were sent back to Carson City for the next session.
    I think Roberson suffered from self inflicted injuries in the form of a negative campaign that carried no message on what he would do with two years in the US congress.

    I am glad Conrad Hafen got dumped. He was instrumental in getting Reid the opponent Reid wanted in the last cycle.

  2. My memory ain’t what it used to be. How so Hafen?

  3. Actually…if you add up the votes of Joe Heck and Sharon Angle (100,659) they actually demolish the Masto enthusiasm gap (81944). I think Sharon’s voters will hold their noses and unite with Joe Heck to defeat Harry Reid’s hand picked candidate! Same thing in US Congressional District 3…add the votes of the other top 3 candidates and Tarkanian (24,855) it handily beats the enthusiasm gap of Jackie Rosen (14219)…another Harry Reid puppet. And I think the race in US Congressional District 4 will be a tough match up for Crescent Hardy. Harry Reid’s other hand picked candidate Ruben Kihuen is much more charismatic and savy than good ole’ Crescent…and if you add up the votes from Lucy Flores and Susie Lee to Kihuen’s total (26473) they vanquish the enthusiasm gap of the incumbent Hardy (18607). All I can say is…a fitting end to Ho House Harry’s dismal and embarrassing political career…would be for all three of his hand picked puppet candidates to GO DOWN IN FLAMES!

  4. nyp says:

    On a global basis, this past month was the hottest May ever recorded.

  5. And the “record” is how old?

  6. nyp says:

    Q: “And the “record” is how old?”
    A: Since 1880.

    BTW, May was the 13th consecutive record-breaking month.

  7. Rincon says:

    So Thomas’ position appears to be that, well, scientists still haven’t proven AGW beyond any doubt – a position which will stand for decades because absolute proof of anything like this is essentially impossible. When the odds are 1000:1, Thomas will still be saying the same thing as will his playmates. He’s very, very certain that there is no significant AGW because….uh, because,,,ummm. So tell me Thomas, just how are you so certain there’s no AGW that you’re willing to gamble your children and grandchildren’s comfort and happiness?

    The evidence that AGW is occurring is far greater than the evidence that it is not. As a matter of fact, there is almost NO evidence that it is not occurring, so a rational mind would choose some sort of action. But, of course, we’re talking politics, which, as with religion, needs no facts to support irrational faith.

  8. Steve says:

    AGW is real..what is not known and has no consensus of scientists to claim, is to what degree climate is being forced by human activity.

    Show us the consensus on that!
    (hint: It doesn’t exist.)

  9. Rincon says:

    Why is is necessary to know the exact degree of human forcing? Do you need to know the exact location of the next gas station before you decide whether to fill your tank? As with most of life, a reasonable estimate is all that’s available. Deal with it.

    In the absence of human influence, the chances of a significant cooling are about 1 in 3, probably less. The chances of seeing fairly steady temperatures are also about 1 in 3, probably more. The likelihood of significant warming is also about 1 in three, probably less. Add to that the fact that scientists have been predicting this for decades, that the scientific community is in huge agreement and that the chances of the extremely fast warming that we are seeing is FAR less than 1 in 3. Even without the theoretical underpinnings our scientists have achieved, the case for a human cause is strong.* Add to that the fact that we are clearly monkeying with an active part of the atmosphere, knowing that our ability to predict the consequences is limited at best and it becomes obvious that we are engaging in an extremely foolish gamble based on wishful thinking.

    I believe your position is that we should blithely assume that the scientists are wrong and that we should tacitly assume that the statistically unlikely warming we are seeing is due to pure chance alone (or at least behave as if we felt that way by doing nothing), despite a nearly total lack of evidence for this.

    Although our models are far from perfect, they all are in relatively close agreement. Have the skeptics managed to come up with a climate model showing minimal human influence? Why not? Too lazy?

  10. Steve says:

    “Why is is necessary to know the exact degree of human forcing?”

    Really…lets just kill the human race off, that will take care of all human activity won’t it?
    But if the degree of human activity is near 10% then the climate will continue to change anyway and the upcoming generations of human babies…..oh, we killed off the species so we could “save the planet” because we failed to determine what effects any “mitigation” might really have, up to and including killing off the entire human species.

    With zero information you try to lay odds. You want to play roulette with nature, the odds are bad to begin with and nature always wins, no matter what people do.

    Then you bet on my position by trying to change what I say into something you CAN argue!

  11. Rincon says:

    So mitigation (even limited, conservative mitigation?) might just kill off the human race? OK Steve, if you say so. Just promise to stay away from sharp objects.

  12. Patrick says:


    I think we’ve discussed this before and, in spite of what Stevetard says, science HAS determined, with high levels of confidence, that man is contributing more than 70% of the increase in global warming (and up to 95% according to some scientists). Stop banging your head against Stevetards block wall of nonsense.

  13. Patrick says:

    And apparently while we all were focusing on something else; the 5th dentist came in; CO2 is now being measured, at EVERY measuring station on earth, at levels which exceed those found in the atmosphere at any time in the last 4 million years.

    I’m sure it’s just a coincidence though.

  14. Steve says:

    Patrick, shammy that he be, picks cherry’s like crazy again.

    Rincon, tried (and failed) to change the statement I made, reducto ad absurdum is playable on both sides.
    Mine made my point clear and Rincon can’t argue it.
    Shammy doesn’t have a clue…just a bunch of misdirection and bit loaded sleight of web.

  15. Steve says:

    In other words…..

    neither of you show a consensus of scientists who agree to what degree human activity is effecting the climate

  16. Rincon says:

    Thanks, Patrick, but I think we’re just confusing him with facts. His mind is made up.

  17. Steve says:

    Knew you couldn’t show a consensus…that’s why you go for the concession insult.

  18. Rincon says:

    Nope. Just calling it as I see it. Nevertheless, I repeat the question which you did not bother to answer: Why is is necessary to know the exact degree of human forcing? Do you need to know the exact location of the next gas station before you decide whether to fill your tank? As with most of life, a reasonable estimate is all that’s available. Deal with it. Insisting on impossibly perfect information is a common stonewalling tactic. It is also ethically and logically bankrupt…although it is universal. One can use this tactic to refute almost any argument. Its only flaw is its lack of validity.

    Since you accept it though, turnabout is fair play. Show me a consensus on precisely how much harm mitigation strategies will cause to our society and contrast that with the cost of adaptation and, as they said in school, show your work.

    I also note that you failed to respond to my statement that there is precious little evidence that the observed warming is natural. In fact, there isn’t even a good hypothesis that can explain it without the involvement of anthropogenic greenhouse gas release.

    “Rincon, tried (and failed) to change the statement I made, reducto ad absurdum is playable on both sides. Mine made my point clear and Rincon can’t argue it.” Sorry Steve. I’m not willing to take the time to decode this abstruse comment. Try writing clearly.

  19. Steve says:

    Nice to see you agree there have been no studies, in either direction.


  20. Rincon says:

    The evidence for anthropogenic warming is overwhelming; that for natural warming is almost nonexistent. The lack of the impossibly perfect information that you demand is a fact of life. It doesn’t excuse obfuscation nor rhetorical games. Lack of action can be as disastrous as acting wrongly. We’re merely butting heads. No point in continuing.

  21. Steve says:

    The consensus says AGW is real, I do not dispute that.
    I say again, you have not shown a consensus on the degree of effect human activity has on climate change.
    I am not asking for “perfect” information at all, provide the consensus of scientists that show the degree of effect human activity is having on the climate… can’t because there is none.

    And one study does not make a consensus.

  22. Rincon says:

    Fine, here you go:

    “That humans are causing global warming is the position of the Academies of Science from 80 countries plus many scientific organizations that study climate science.”

    “Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change.” (February 2007)” American Meteorological Society

    “Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century.” – American Geophysical Union

    “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society” – American Association for the Advancement of Science

    “Most of the recent warming can be attributed to fossil fuel burning and other human activities that release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.” – National Research Council of the National Academies

    “The integrity of essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.” – InterAcademy Council As the representative of the world’s scientific and engineering academies,

    “As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases…”

    “Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years…”

    They all agree, along with scores of others, greater than 50% of the observed climate change is due to us. Is that good enough for your demands or do you want the impossibly accurate number to which I referred?

    Feel free to make another snotty comment about my cutting and pasting. It says much more about you than about me.

  23. Steve says:

    None of those show any thing like a consensus of climate scientists.

    Let alone the holy grail 97%

  24. Patrick says:

    Rincon your bashing your intelligence against the rocks in Stevetards head for no reason; he not only doesn’t want to learn, it’s pretty obvious he can’t.

    Hopefully you learned something when you did the search (I’ve found that sometimes that is a positive takeaway when you deal with people like Stevetard). Cause that’s the important thing.

  25. Steve says:

    Oh LOOK!

    Another concession compliment from Shammy!

    And another post showing no consensus of climate scientists on the degree of human effect on the changing climate!

    This is fun!

  26. Rincon says:

    End of discussion Steve. I’ve concluded that you will tenaciously cling to your position regardless of the evidence. Perhaps you believe the same about me. Either way, there’s no point in continuing.

  27. Steve says:

    You have no evidence.
    My point remain solid.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s