The results are in and we can all relax now!? Clark County results here; statewide results here.
Congratulations to everyone who won last night. We’ll hit a few of the highlights below.
Elissa Cadish, Lidia Stiglich, and Abbi Silver are all new additions to the Supreme Court. For the first time in history, a majority of the justices will be women.
Mary Kay Holthus managed to unseat Mark Bailus for a seat on the district court bench.
Elana Lee Graham soundly defeated James Dean Leavitt to win the coveted seat in Las Vegas Justice Court Department 1.
In one of the closest statewide races, Aaron Ford pulled out the win against Wes Duncan.
While Adam Laxalt and Michael Roberson both lost, there were several other Nevada attorneys who won different positions including Justin Jones, Shea Backus, Ozzie Fumo, etc.
The ballot questions went as most of you expected.
What are your thoughts about the results? What can we expect from the 2019 legislature?
This is an honest question – when one looks at the map, the two counties that went blue are the two largest population centers in Nevada. Why do rural, lower population concentration counties in a state generally vote republican and urban, higher population concentration counties in a state generally vote democrat? California is another example of that phenomenon.
This is true everywhere, not just Nevada and California. Urban areas tend to be more democratic and more liberal, rural areas less so. Some of it is demographic – people of color, which overwhelmingly vote democratic, are concentrated in urban areas. Rural areas are generally heavily white (with some exceptions in the deep south and southwest).
If you are comparing the difference between whites in rural areas and whites in urban areas, I think there is some more controversy. It has been several years since I have spent any time in the political science and sociological literature in this area, but the major hypotheses used to be some combination of correlation with other factors (for example, whites in urban areas tend to have higher education on average than whites in rural areas, and education is correlated with social liberalism) and interaction hypotheses, which generally held that people in urban areas regularly interact with both more and more types of people, and this exposure to diversity leads to social liberalism.
It is probably more complicated than that though, as the rural-urban divide is increasing. It used to be that urban areas in red states were red or pink, and rural areas in blue states were bluish. This is really not true anymore. Urban areas in the reddest states are now solidly democratic – think SLC, Missoula, Birmingham, etc. Rural areas of deep blue states tend to be pretty red.
@ 9:21; I also have the political science/sociology background but also many decades since I did the deep dive into the latest research in the areas. I concur with your analysis, with an additional factor added. Economics also play into the urban/rural dynamic. The urban voters (probably as a result of the increased education) generally have higher income levels which has also been correlated to greater liberalism.
Additionally, because the majority of employment opportunities exist in the urban areas, the voting age residents tend to be younger in the urban areas.
8:48 here. I agree with those, with the caveat that I think income correlates with social liberalism, but actually correlates slightly with voting republican. Last I checked, even among whites the very poor were more likely to vote democratic than those making over $100,000 a year, despite being more socially conservative.
This is going off of memory and a lot of these factors have blown up the last couple of cycles, so this might not still hold.
Just realized at 11:22 I claimed to be 8:48 – I meant 9:21. Sorry for putting words in your mouth, 8:48.
Guest
Anonymous
November 7, 2018 5:01 pm
8:48AM: Country folk tend to have a big distrust of government and do not look to government to solve societal problems. Where as city folk tend to trust government more and see government as a means to solve said problems. Typically, out in the rural areas of any state, the population has much less contact and interaction with government entities, whereas in the city centers government is everywhere.
When my young nieces asked my sister what the difference was between Democrats and Republicans, my sister responded, "Democrats care about people. Republicans care about their money."
i 100% agree with 9:35am. It has always been the case. I studied US history exclusively in high school (AP program) and majored it in college. regardless of what the party was called at the time, there was always a party that care more about businesses vs. a party that cared more about protecting the common man. For example, child labor laws, womens labor laws, labor laws in general, protecting the environment, helping the poor, etc. From the dawn of our republic to now, there have always been two sides of the coin, regardless if they were called Federalists, Repubs, Dems, Whigs, Bull Moose.
I would disagree with 9:35 and say that the main difference between them is Republicans believe in less government, and Democrats believe in more government.
I thought that was Tarkanian not Laxalt. I saw both concession speeches. Laxalt I thought appeared disappointed and hurt but graceful and dignified in conceding defeat. Tarkanian, however, was himself dignified (on verge of tears and said almost nothing) but then releasing his wife as an attack dog was outrageous and something I have never before seen in many years of close political involvement.
It tends to be individual specific, but having practiced in more than a single judicial district, of a single state, I have found at least in the 8th JD that more judges rule in ways that are result oriented or contrary to existing law than I have seen in other jurisdictions.
Whether that is intentional on their part or not, whether the result of inexperience, lack of knowledge or disregard of the law I can not say with any degree of accuracy. My best guess is a combination of all of the above, supplemented with the "this is how it's always been done" mentality.
We do have (and previously had) some very good judges in the mix (James Mahan comes to mind), but also have our share of poor ones as well (Judges Delvecchio and Halverson jump to mind).
11:00, thank you for the laugh. Interpret the clear language of the statute. It is a simple as negotiating an egg salad earl of which, or judge of which who is 1100 on the spot.
Guest
Anonymous
November 7, 2018 5:07 pm
How does Aaron Ford have a license to practice law? He doesn't know what "larceny" means?
And Sisolak?
The silver lining in this mid-term is control of the senate. DJT will get another appointment to the US Supreme Court and maybe we can get the 9th Circuit under control.
Virginia – West Virginia
California – East California
It could possibly be done in a manner that benefits the Republicans. Gerrymandering is a fine art form. If the state is split in a manner than creates a majority Democratic state and a majority Republican state (or at least a competitive state) the Republicans could end up better off than the status quo of a non-competitive Democratic state.
Elimination of SALT deduction will fix the Calif political problem. Red wave coming on the local levels in 2020.
Guest
Anonymous
November 7, 2018 5:09 pm
Population centers throughout the West almost without exception include large numbers of two groups that vote for more socialist-type policies, which in the US means Democrat: (1) highly educated and/or wealthy people who tend to vote left-wing because they were raised to, indoctrinated in college to, and/or out of guilt; and (2) the poor underclasses who vote socialist out of economic self-interest.
To:10:15. And that not only helps explain Trump's victory in '16, but it truly focuses on the grand example of the phenomenon you discuss–which are Reagan's victories in '80 and '84.He got working-class, marginally educated and somewhat ill-informed voters to support an economic model that crushes those toward the bottom rather than having the "trickle down" effect Budget Director Dave Stockman insisted it would have.
And how did they convince these people to support Reagan to the clear detriment of their own financial interests? The answer is to distract them with family value issues, imbue them with the belief they are morally superior to those on the other side, and convince them that their traditional, (supposedly)wholesome way-of-life, religion and values are at risk(and their firearm ownership at risk as well) if the opposing side wins(even though in actuality the opposing side would much better serve the economic interests of these voters).
Guest
Anonymous
November 7, 2018 5:29 pm
244,079 people voted against Abbi Silver, even though that NSC seat wasn't contested. 28.56% of the people that bothered to vote for the seat actively took the moment to say "I prefer someone else. Don't know who, but not her." The number of people who voted "None of these Candidates" was also more than the margin of victory in the AG race.
Way more than 28% of the populace should abstain from voting for judges. And if you've been in Nevada for any significant length of time you know that Nevadans love to choose none of these. Dems voted for none of these candidates against Sandoval in 2014.
Is them braggin' right? Abbi ain't nothin' to write home about. I will choose her over Cadish. I actually cannot wait to see the opinions of this new court come out.
I usually vote 'none of these' in uncontested elections if I don't like the person running. I cannot get myself to check off a vote for someone for whom I do not want to vote. The 'none of these' lets me vent my frustrations with no actual effect on the election.
Guest
Anonymous
November 7, 2018 5:33 pm
I really really thought Harter's signs were gonna be the difference.
Barbara Cegavske held on to her position by about .5%. It's weird that the only statewide contest that didn't go blue was Sec of State (who is in charge of the election… CONSPIRACY TIME!!!)
No, what's weird is how badly she was beat in Clark County. She's from here. She was a Senator of district 8 for 12 years, until she turned the reins over to that turncoat, Patricia Farley.
I am a Republican who voted for Rosen, Crescent Hardy, and None of these candidates for governor. I voted for Cegavske because she's a good egg and the Secretary of State's office has been rock solid under her tenure.
I just hope you didn't cross the aisle for Clark County Public Administrator. The GOP candidates for that office were an embarrassment from the get-go. I'm glad Telles got the job. Signed, 3:05.
I'm a Republican and voted for Telles for Public Admin ( had issues with the GOP candidate as well) & Debbie Conway for County Recorder because I have seen the improvements made in the recorder's office under her stewardship.
Guest
Anonymous
November 7, 2018 7:01 pm
Two obvious take-aways. First, we are probably no longer a purple state, but are firmly a blue state. I realize the worm can turn during any election cycle and the republicans could make a real comeback on the next election or two, and do as well as the democrats did this time. That may certainly be the case.
But my blue state comment is not just motivated by the virtual clean sweep of all important seats by the democrats, but, perhaps more importantly is the incredible spread. Some of these races, some months ago, were thought to favor the republicans, and the ones that did not were expected to be resolved by just one or two points. But many of these important races(Senator, Governor and other state-wide offices) were decided by double digits. Sometimes the spread is even more telling, as to developing trends, than the mere result of who won.
Second take-away is that as to the judicial races, gender is still an important factor to the voters, and apparently always will be. I think in the judicial races lost by Leavitt and Bailus, their victorious opponents ran really solid campaigns. But the large percentage spread between winner and loser is explained, at least in part, by the fact that some voters tend to have a pro-female lean in judicial races. And, I understand that such can be a valid factor of consideration. So, I'm not saying voters should not be motivated in part by gender concerns, I'm simply saying that this phenomenon exists.
As recently as the last election, we had two competitive congressional districts. Looking at the vote totals from last night, it doesn't look like we have any. The only district that even looks to be trending towards competitive is NV-2. Given the demographic shift happening in Washoe, that could be a coin-toss district within a few cycles.
According to the legal directory, it's De'Awna Crews. Phone 702/671-4353
Guest
Anonymous
November 7, 2018 10:13 pm
Today is a great day to be me. I haven't voted in approaching a decade. I make more than what the governor, state Ag, and U.S. senator make combined. Jon Ralston has never written a hit piece on me. And I've never had to kowtow to a needy electorate looking for handouts from their social program of choice (fuck your guns, your subsidized grazing, your "I'm always a victim" life outlook, and the unearned handouts you incessantly demand; how about take some initiative to make your life better you shiftless bums, that's how I made it out of the fucking ghetto).
To borrow a phrase, conservative tears are delicious.
Moreover, any practicing Nevada attorney who believed that Adam Laxalt was a good AG and would have made a decent governor, should turn in their bar license.
Read again. I'm not a conservative. I find both parties repulsive. I haven't voted in almost a decade. Nasty campaigns and media treatment continue to vindicate my refusal to engage at all in politics. You're kidding yourself if you think Sandoval, Frankie Sue, Cortez Masto, Duncan, Ford, or anyone else would actually do a "good" job running that office of bureaucrats eyeing the clock while counting down the minutes until they can clock out.
I don't think I'm narcissistic or pompous, I'm just ranting and trolling a little bit on an anonymous blog, but in true anti-politics fashion I'll admit a few things I wrote are a little over the top. My takeaways from politics (so I guess my points) are that life is better if you don't get worked up about politics, life outside the political arena is far better than some underpaid service position within it (so especially haha at the idiots that suffered through criticism just to lose some poor paying job last night), no one's life is better because one guy beat another guy yesterday except for maybe some underqualified people that will land stepping stone positions because they know a person that won, and elected officials–even the ones you really really wanted to win–almost never provide the best answer to anyone's problems.
4:37 — This is 4:19: Points well taken about not getting worked up about politics and the scariness of being governed by the under qualifies. But this is a time like no other we have had in this country — the warp of Donald Trump and the invertebrate Republicans. Even if you don't like having "under qualified" people in office, it doesn't change that they still get to make the decisions about the things that affect all of us — including you. If you don't even participate in the process, you are deluding yourself if you think you're OK. That's pompous. And if you care only about yourself, then you are a narcissist. Somehow, though, I think you're potentially salvageable.
Nobody gives money like this, for nothing…….well, maybe Bloomberg or Steyers. But Walters, from behind bars?
Guest
Anonymous
November 8, 2018 4:06 am
ATTENTION PATRIOTS:
The new Trump-appointed US AG Whitaker has made it clear that the best method to kill the Mueller investigation is by slowly starving it of funding. If that strategy is used, there will not be a clear "trigger" moment for the people to rally around, rather the investigation would die a slow, gradual death.
That means today's firing of AG Sessions is the clearest "trigger" moment we are going to get, people. Time to get out there and protest – PEACEFULLY – we are not a mob!
NSC sucks worse now.
This is an honest question – when one looks at the map, the two counties that went blue are the two largest population centers in Nevada. Why do rural, lower population concentration counties in a state generally vote republican and urban, higher population concentration counties in a state generally vote democrat? California is another example of that phenomenon.
This is true everywhere, not just Nevada and California. Urban areas tend to be more democratic and more liberal, rural areas less so. Some of it is demographic – people of color, which overwhelmingly vote democratic, are concentrated in urban areas. Rural areas are generally heavily white (with some exceptions in the deep south and southwest).
If you are comparing the difference between whites in rural areas and whites in urban areas, I think there is some more controversy. It has been several years since I have spent any time in the political science and sociological literature in this area, but the major hypotheses used to be some combination of correlation with other factors (for example, whites in urban areas tend to have higher education on average than whites in rural areas, and education is correlated with social liberalism) and interaction hypotheses, which generally held that people in urban areas regularly interact with both more and more types of people, and this exposure to diversity leads to social liberalism.
It is probably more complicated than that though, as the rural-urban divide is increasing. It used to be that urban areas in red states were red or pink, and rural areas in blue states were bluish. This is really not true anymore. Urban areas in the reddest states are now solidly democratic – think SLC, Missoula, Birmingham, etc. Rural areas of deep blue states tend to be pretty red.
I agree with 9:21. Increased education levels and increased levels of interaction with other types of people both beget a more liberal mindset.
@ 9:21; I also have the political science/sociology background but also many decades since I did the deep dive into the latest research in the areas. I concur with your analysis, with an additional factor added. Economics also play into the urban/rural dynamic. The urban voters (probably as a result of the increased education) generally have higher income levels which has also been correlated to greater liberalism.
Additionally, because the majority of employment opportunities exist in the urban areas, the voting age residents tend to be younger in the urban areas.
8:48 here. I agree with those, with the caveat that I think income correlates with social liberalism, but actually correlates slightly with voting republican. Last I checked, even among whites the very poor were more likely to vote democratic than those making over $100,000 a year, despite being more socially conservative.
This is going off of memory and a lot of these factors have blown up the last couple of cycles, so this might not still hold.
Just realized at 11:22 I claimed to be 8:48 – I meant 9:21. Sorry for putting words in your mouth, 8:48.
8:48AM: Country folk tend to have a big distrust of government and do not look to government to solve societal problems. Where as city folk tend to trust government more and see government as a means to solve said problems. Typically, out in the rural areas of any state, the population has much less contact and interaction with government entities, whereas in the city centers government is everywhere.
When my young nieces asked my sister what the difference was between Democrats and Republicans, my sister responded, "Democrats care about people. Republicans care about their money."
i 100% agree with 9:35am. It has always been the case. I studied US history exclusively in high school (AP program) and majored it in college. regardless of what the party was called at the time, there was always a party that care more about businesses vs. a party that cared more about protecting the common man. For example, child labor laws, womens labor laws, labor laws in general, protecting the environment, helping the poor, etc. From the dawn of our republic to now, there have always been two sides of the coin, regardless if they were called Federalists, Repubs, Dems, Whigs, Bull Moose.
"I studied US history exclusively in high school (AP program)"
Thank you for that
Might want to use "extensively" not "exclusively". I would hope that you also studied other STEM subject areas.
I would disagree with 9:35 and say that the main difference between them is Republicans believe in less government, and Democrats believe in more government.
What does Laxalt do now?
Move home to the D.C. area perhaps.
You beat me to it.
I hear there may be a paralegal or filing clerk job opening at the law offices of Dewey Cheatem and Howe.
Hopefully he will fuck off now, like Joe Heck did once his 15 mins of fame was up
I heard his former law firm would be happy to have him back.
Ackchyuallly . . .
He should probably run these options by his wife first she appears to do all the talking for him.
I thought that was Tarkanian not Laxalt. I saw both concession speeches. Laxalt I thought appeared disappointed and hurt but graceful and dignified in conceding defeat. Tarkanian, however, was himself dignified (on verge of tears and said almost nothing) but then releasing his wife as an attack dog was outrageous and something I have never before seen in many years of close political involvement.
Trump needs a new attorney general … just saying.
Welcome to Las Vegas, where your parents can buy you a judgeship, and judges can ignore the rule of law. We should all be happy with the selections.
Could not agree more.
Please for the love of God, stop with the vague "judges don't follow the law" gripes without any actual context. It's tired and not at all persuasive.
It tends to be individual specific, but having practiced in more than a single judicial district, of a single state, I have found at least in the 8th JD that more judges rule in ways that are result oriented or contrary to existing law than I have seen in other jurisdictions.
Whether that is intentional on their part or not, whether the result of inexperience, lack of knowledge or disregard of the law I can not say with any degree of accuracy. My best guess is a combination of all of the above, supplemented with the "this is how it's always been done" mentality.
We do have (and previously had) some very good judges in the mix (James Mahan comes to mind), but also have our share of poor ones as well (Judges Delvecchio and Halverson jump to mind).
"Welcome to Las Vegas, where your parents can buy you a judgeship, and judges can ignore (my interpretation of) the rule of law."
There, fixed that for you, 9:05 AM.
11:00, thank you for the laugh. Interpret the clear language of the statute. It is a simple as negotiating an egg salad earl of which, or judge of which who is 1100 on the spot.
How does Aaron Ford have a license to practice law? He doesn't know what "larceny" means?
And Sisolak?
The silver lining in this mid-term is control of the senate. DJT will get another appointment to the US Supreme Court and maybe we can get the 9th Circuit under control.
Virginia – West Virginia
California – East California
Republicans will never allow California to be split because it will result in more democratic senators.
It could possibly be done in a manner that benefits the Republicans. Gerrymandering is a fine art form. If the state is split in a manner than creates a majority Democratic state and a majority Republican state (or at least a competitive state) the Republicans could end up better off than the status quo of a non-competitive Democratic state.
Elimination of SALT deduction will fix the Calif political problem. Red wave coming on the local levels in 2020.
Population centers throughout the West almost without exception include large numbers of two groups that vote for more socialist-type policies, which in the US means Democrat: (1) highly educated and/or wealthy people who tend to vote left-wing because they were raised to, indoctrinated in college to, and/or out of guilt; and (2) the poor underclasses who vote socialist out of economic self-interest.
While poor people in the rurals have been indoctrinated to vote against their economic self-interest.
To:10:15. And that not only helps explain Trump's victory in '16, but it truly focuses on the grand example of the phenomenon you discuss–which are Reagan's victories in '80 and '84.He got working-class, marginally educated and somewhat ill-informed voters to support an economic model that crushes those toward the bottom rather than having the "trickle down" effect Budget Director Dave Stockman insisted it would have.
And how did they convince these people to support Reagan to the clear detriment of their own financial interests? The answer is to distract them with family value issues, imbue them with the belief they are morally superior to those on the other side, and convince them that their traditional, (supposedly)wholesome way-of-life, religion and values are at risk(and their firearm ownership at risk as well) if the opposing side wins(even though in actuality the opposing side would much better serve the economic interests of these voters).
244,079 people voted against Abbi Silver, even though that NSC seat wasn't contested. 28.56% of the people that bothered to vote for the seat actively took the moment to say "I prefer someone else. Don't know who, but not her." The number of people who voted "None of these Candidates" was also more than the margin of victory in the AG race.
Way more than 28% of the populace should abstain from voting for judges. And if you've been in Nevada for any significant length of time you know that Nevadans love to choose none of these. Dems voted for none of these candidates against Sandoval in 2014.
This happens with some regularity in uncontested judicial races.
Justice Cherry drew about 25% none of the above when he ran unopposed years ago.
Is them braggin' right? Abbi ain't nothin' to write home about. I will choose her over Cadish. I actually cannot wait to see the opinions of this new court come out.
I usually vote 'none of these' in uncontested elections if I don't like the person running. I cannot get myself to check off a vote for someone for whom I do not want to vote. The 'none of these' lets me vent my frustrations with no actual effect on the election.
I really really thought Harter's signs were gonna be the difference.
Damn, beat me to it! 😉
GOPers are triggered today!
It's all the same person.
Are you not entertained?
Who won the race for NV Secretary of State? It appears that info is not necessarily updated on the various sites. Or, maybe I am just confused.
Barbara Cegavske held on to her position by about .5%. It's weird that the only statewide contest that didn't go blue was Sec of State (who is in charge of the election… CONSPIRACY TIME!!!)
No, what's weird is how badly she was beat in Clark County. She's from here. She was a Senator of district 8 for 12 years, until she turned the reins over to that turncoat, Patricia Farley.
I am a Democrat who voted for Barbara because she is good at her job. Simple as that.
I am a Republican who voted for Rosen, Crescent Hardy, and None of these candidates for governor. I voted for Cegavske because she's a good egg and the Secretary of State's office has been rock solid under her tenure.
Also Dem, also voted for Barbara. Not the only place I went across the aisle, either.
I just hope you didn't cross the aisle for Clark County Public Administrator. The GOP candidates for that office were an embarrassment from the get-go. I'm glad Telles got the job. Signed, 3:05.
I'm a Republican and voted for Telles for Public Admin ( had issues with the GOP candidate as well) & Debbie Conway for County Recorder because I have seen the improvements made in the recorder's office under her stewardship.
Two obvious take-aways. First, we are probably no longer a purple state, but are firmly a blue state. I realize the worm can turn during any election cycle and the republicans could make a real comeback on the next election or two, and do as well as the democrats did this time. That may certainly be the case.
But my blue state comment is not just motivated by the virtual clean sweep of all important seats by the democrats, but, perhaps more importantly is the incredible spread. Some of these races, some months ago, were thought to favor the republicans, and the ones that did not were expected to be resolved by just one or two points. But many of these important races(Senator, Governor and other state-wide offices) were decided by double digits. Sometimes the spread is even more telling, as to developing trends, than the mere result of who won.
Second take-away is that as to the judicial races, gender is still an important factor to the voters, and apparently always will be. I think in the judicial races lost by Leavitt and Bailus, their victorious opponents ran really solid campaigns. But the large percentage spread between winner and loser is explained, at least in part, by the fact that some voters tend to have a pro-female lean in judicial races. And, I understand that such can be a valid factor of consideration. So, I'm not saying voters should not be motivated in part by gender concerns, I'm simply saying that this phenomenon exists.
As recently as the last election, we had two competitive congressional districts. Looking at the vote totals from last night, it doesn't look like we have any. The only district that even looks to be trending towards competitive is NV-2. Given the demographic shift happening in Washoe, that could be a coin-toss district within a few cycles.
Everything went R in 2014. Depending on motivation to vote, this can still turn on a dime.
What is Elissa Cadish's recorder's name, please? Thank you!
Deanna Crews, have no idea of spelling.
According to the legal directory, it's De'Awna Crews. Phone 702/671-4353
Today is a great day to be me. I haven't voted in approaching a decade. I make more than what the governor, state Ag, and U.S. senator make combined. Jon Ralston has never written a hit piece on me. And I've never had to kowtow to a needy electorate looking for handouts from their social program of choice (fuck your guns, your subsidized grazing, your "I'm always a victim" life outlook, and the unearned handouts you incessantly demand; how about take some initiative to make your life better you shiftless bums, that's how I made it out of the fucking ghetto).
To borrow a phrase, conservative tears are delicious.
Moreover, any practicing Nevada attorney who believed that Adam Laxalt was a good AG and would have made a decent governor, should turn in their bar license.
Read again. I'm not a conservative. I find both parties repulsive. I haven't voted in almost a decade. Nasty campaigns and media treatment continue to vindicate my refusal to engage at all in politics. You're kidding yourself if you think Sandoval, Frankie Sue, Cortez Masto, Duncan, Ford, or anyone else would actually do a "good" job running that office of bureaucrats eyeing the clock while counting down the minutes until they can clock out.
Mike Tyson reads the blog?! Awesome!
Perfect, 3:46. I just reread 2:13 in my best Iron Mike and it's just spot on. Top notch! Top notch!
Hey 2:13, 3:08 — So what's your point? Don't like hypocritical politicians? How about narcissistic pompous asses, you narcissistic pompous ass!
I don't think I'm narcissistic or pompous, I'm just ranting and trolling a little bit on an anonymous blog, but in true anti-politics fashion I'll admit a few things I wrote are a little over the top. My takeaways from politics (so I guess my points) are that life is better if you don't get worked up about politics, life outside the political arena is far better than some underpaid service position within it (so especially haha at the idiots that suffered through criticism just to lose some poor paying job last night), no one's life is better because one guy beat another guy yesterday except for maybe some underqualified people that will land stepping stone positions because they know a person that won, and elected officials–even the ones you really really wanted to win–almost never provide the best answer to anyone's problems.
4:37 — This is 4:19: Points well taken about not getting worked up about politics and the scariness of being governed by the under qualifies. But this is a time like no other we have had in this country — the warp of Donald Trump and the invertebrate Republicans. Even if you don't like having "under qualified" people in office, it doesn't change that they still get to make the decisions about the things that affect all of us — including you. If you don't even participate in the process, you are deluding yourself if you think you're OK. That's pompous. And if you care only about yourself, then you are a narcissist. Somehow, though, I think you're potentially salvageable.
This didn't get much traction:
https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/billy-walters-wife-former-businesses-gave-100000-in-last-minute-contributions-to-sisolak
Nobody gives money like this, for nothing…….well, maybe Bloomberg or Steyers. But Walters, from behind bars?
ATTENTION PATRIOTS:
The new Trump-appointed US AG Whitaker has made it clear that the best method to kill the Mueller investigation is by slowly starving it of funding. If that strategy is used, there will not be a clear "trigger" moment for the people to rally around, rather the investigation would die a slow, gradual death.
That means today's firing of AG Sessions is the clearest "trigger" moment we are going to get, people. Time to get out there and protest – PEACEFULLY – we are not a mob!
No One Is Above The Law LV Rally
Thursday, November 8, 2018 at 5 p.m.
Lloyd D. George – US District Court Downtown LV
Be safe!