Nevada Democrats Spot an Opportunity in a Vulnerable G.O.P. Governor
The race, one of the most prominent in the country next year in a critical battleground state, is heating up. In addition to the parties' headliners, an unlikely challenger is already mounting a surprising bid. And a former governor may yet attempt a comeback.
The flurry of activity is all part of a growing effort among Democrats to take down one of the most vulnerable Republican incumbents: Gov. Joe Lombardo, who is running for re-election in a swing state that has not hesitated to oust its sitting officeholders in recent years.
Mr. Lombardo, the former sheriff of Clark County, home to Las Vegas, will nevertheless be tough to defeat. He has cultivated a reputation as a relatively moderate Republican focused on policy while avoiding much of the flamethrowing partisanship that has characterized G.O.P. politics in the Trump era.
Democrats' best shot is likely to be Aaron Ford, the state attorney general who announced his entrance into the Democratic primary on Monday after signaling his intention to run for months. Mr. Ford is widely viewed as the favorite to win the nomination, though he will have company in the primary next June.
Mr. Ford, 53, would be Nevada's first Black governor as Democrats strain to regain the trust of minority voters who voted for President Trump last year. Among working-class voters, Mr. Ford's blue-collar background could be an asset.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
8 minutes ago
- Fox News
Economic expert touts 'solid' economy after Trump's trade deals
Independent Women's Forum's Patrice Onwuka joins 'Fox & Friends First' to weigh in on the impact of economic impact of President Donald Trump's trade deals.
Vox
10 minutes ago
- Vox
How Republicans are trying to redistrict their way to a majority
We're more than a year out from the 2026 midterm elections, but the Republican Party is already starting to position itself for what will likely be a difficult election cycle. Texas lawmakers have an unusual plan to redraw their maps early and eke out as many as five more likely Republican seats in the House of Representatives — and California Gov. Gavin Newsom is promising to respond by doing the same thing in California. To find out more, I asked my colleague Christian Paz, who wrote about these efforts last week. We sat down to chat about his reporting for Vox's daily newsletter, Today, Explained, and our conversation is below. You can also sign up for the newsletter here for more conversations like this. What are Republicans trying to do ahead of the 2026 midterms? Ahead of the 2026 midterms, when parties in power tend to lose seats in Congress, there is an expectation that Trump, who has a tiny two-seat majority in the House, could lose that majority, which would effectively render him a lame duck for the second half of his second term. In response, Trump has been pushing for Texas state Republicans to take advantage of the fact that the legislature in Texas controls redistricting and to redraw the maps in Texas in the middle of the decade, when it is not usually the norm. Republicans could gain about five seats that are less competitive than the current map makes it out to be — essentially dividing up Democratic districts, mixing them with some Republican-leaning voters, and carving out five more seats that presumably Republicans would then win and be able to keep their majority in the House. Are there other states looking to do this, too? There are a handful of other states. At the moment, there is redistricting happening in Ohio as a result of court challenges in the past, and the new maps that are being redrawn would render about three more Republican seats out of Ohio. The other state is Missouri, which would render one more Republican seat. In response, the question has been, Can Democrats do this, too? The reason this is happening is because these are states where 1) Republicans have total control of government, and 2) the legislature still has power over drawing maps, or there are legal quirks requiring redistricting. Democrats are much more limited on this front because of the states that have Democratic trifectas, the majority of them don't give the power to redraw districts to the legislature. They give it to independent commissions or to bipartisan commissions, or their constitutions have stricter bans on redistricting early. Today, Explained Understand the world with a daily explainer, plus the most compelling stories of the day. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. With that being said, Gavin Newsom is threatening to add more Democratic seats in California. How does he want to make that happen? His plan is a little vague. A lot of the Democratic response seems to be a form of mutually assured destruction — the main idea here is to say that you're going to do the same thing and hope to scare Republicans out of doing this. And the idea Gavin Newsom has proposed is putting a measure on the ballot in an upcoming election, having a statewide referendum to either approve new maps or permanently change the way that the state does its redistricting. The idea there is to create five to seven more Democratic seats in California, which seems like a pretty tall order. It's possible that the state is already pretty maxed out. Can Democrats conceivably wring enough seats out of their redistrictable states to match the GOP? The other obvious seats that are out there are states like Oregon, Washington, and Colorado, which conceivably could all produce one to two more Democratic seats. There's always New York, too, and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who met with Democratic state lawmakers from Texas last week, has said that he's open to the idea as well. Republicans seem to be all in for this plan. Democrats aren't so sure. Tell me about that. The issue here is that Democrats, because they have tended to be the folks who argued against gerrymandering and this kind of politically motivated redistricting, acknowledge that it's not normal to do this. They acknowledge that maybe the rules are changing, but redistricting opens them up to charges of hypocrisy or descending to the same level as Republicans. But many Democrats are saying, you know, We're running out of options. Democratic voters want us to do something. That's been the rallying cry from the party base to party leadership over the last year, and this is a pretty substantive plan to do that. But then what happens in the next five years? What happens in 10 years? Is this just going to become something that states do whenever they notice that their national party is in danger of losing a majority or losing a political advantage? Does that then diminish trust in the political system as a whole? Does that raise even more questions about accountability and transparency that were the point of trying to have independent redistricting to begin with? In previous midterms, you've seen much bigger swings than five or even 10 seats, so it's very possible that this shaves the margins for Republicans, but doesn't end up swinging control of the House in 2026, right? Yes. This could either be another 2018 'blue wave' situation, where even if Republicans redistrict, they would lose the majority anyway. Or it could be a 2022-style midterm, where you have mixed results — Democrats are able to flip some Senate seats, but Republicans are actually able to uphold or expand their House majority by small margins. And the reason I bring that last point up is because this is another point that some critics on both sides are making. By trying to gerrymander things even more, you're making assumptions about what voters you have in your column, and given how much various parts of the electorate have swung…Black and Latino voters have swung toward the Republicans. Could they be swinging away from them this time around? Are you making an assumption as a Republican that you have a lot of a certain kind of voter, and then making a district slightly less safe because you're trying to shovel voters into a new district that you're creating? It creates questions about same effect in California: If you try to max out even more districts, are you accidentally making some of your other districts more competitive than they have to be, and in that case, will you end up having to spend even more money and resources on races that weren't competitive before, but now are because you're trying to marginally make another seat less competitive? There's a lot of inherent assumptions being made about what the electorate will look like next year. And again, one thing that's really easy to forget — and this is true for the parties, too, and I haven't really seen this discussed — is that in the Trump era, you have two different electorates. You have different electorates that turn out in midterms versus general elections. Sometimes it can be drastically different and much more Democratically aligned than you expect, and that ends up leading to overperformance, like in 2018 or 2022.
Fox News
10 minutes ago
- Fox News
Washington Post reeling from buyout exodus as bosses hope to turn the page at embattled paper
The latest round of buyouts at The Washington Post is hollowing out the paper of its most high-profile staffers as current management aims for an editorial overhaul and a financial turnaround. Washington Post executive editor Matt Murray announced its Voluntary Separation Program (VSP) in May, hoping that most veteran staffers would be enticed by the exit offer. And it's working. "It kind of shows the crazy incentives at play," one Post staffer told Fox News Digital. "There is a lot of great talent left, and we've been beating everyone on the federal government story, but it's going to be another talent drain." According to a VSP document previously viewed by Fox News Digital, nine months of base pay would be given to staffers employed for 10-15 years, 12 months of base pay for 15-20-year veterans, 15 months of base pay for 20-25-year veterans and 18 months for anyone who has worked at the Post for more than 25 years. All of them would also receive 12 months of pay credit in their Separate Retirement Account (SRA). "It's been a bloodbath on editorial," the Post staffer said. Some of the paper's biggest names in the opinion pages have taken buyouts, including Jonathan Capehart and Catherine Rampell (both notably MSNBC weekend hosts) as well as Perry Bacon Jr. and Philip Bump. The exodus from the editorial pages was also likely fueled by the Post's billionaire owner Jeff Bezos and his initiative to promote "personal liberties and free markets" while vowing not to publish pieces opposing those principles. Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah appeared to swipe the lack of diversity on the paper's editorial team as a result of the buyouts, posting on X "So.. officially, I'm the last Black staff columnist left in the Washington Post's opinion section." The buyouts, however, are having a huge impact throughout the "Democracy Dies in Darkness" paper. Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post's longtime fact checker, announced his exit Monday and its Supreme Court reporter Ann Marimow has joined The New York Times. Even most of the Post's obituary team have reportedly taken buyouts. The Post scrapped its so-called "third newsroom," dubbed WP Ventures, that aimed to capture social media users. Veteran Post editor Krissah Thompson, who was tapped to lead the now-defunct division after its launch last year, also took a buyout and the paper's viral TikTok personality Dave Jorgenson also left the company. Earlier this month, Washington Post CEO Will Lewis sent a memo to staff issuing an ultimatum for those contemplating whether to adapt to the paper's new direction. "The moment demands that we continue to rethink all aspects of our organization and business to maximize our impact," Lewis wrote in the memo obtained by Fox News Digital. "If we want to reconnect with our audience and continue to defend democracy, more changes at The Post will be necessary. And to succeed, we need to be united as a team with a strong belief and passion in where we are heading." "I understand and respect, however, that our chosen path is not for everyone," Lewis continued. "That's exactly why we introduced the voluntary separation program. As we continue in this new direction, I want to ask those who do not feel aligned with the company's plan to reflect on that. The VSP is designed to support you in making this decision, give you the ability to weigh your options thoughtfully and with less concern about financial consequences. And if you think that it's time to move on to a new chapter, the VSP helps you take that next step with more security." The Post staffer seemed skeptical the jarring editorial pivot would bear the fruit that the bosses were hoping for. "So far they don't have much to show for their efforts," the staffer said. "Subscribers fled. Traffic is falling. The third newsroom is dead. Scores of brand-name reporters and editors have left. If there are bright spots, I haven't seen them yet." Others who left the Post had some choice parting words. Longtime columnist Joe Davidson claimed he had a piece spiked because was it was "deemed too opinionated under an unwritten and inconsistently enforced policy" and called out Bezos' "unseemly and well-document[ed] coziness" with President Donald Trump. Editorial board member Eduardo Porter said he was a "bad fit for this ideological turn" and that Bezos and his team "are taking the paper down a path I cannot follow," risking turning The Post "into something more akin to a church, with tight constraints on thought." There have been multiple waves of exits from the Post over the past year, beginning last October when Bezos blocked the paper's endorsement of then-Vice President Kamala Harris just days before the election. Bezos further enraged staff with his editorial directive in February that resulted in the immediate resignation of Post opinion editor David Shipley. Both instances also sparked mass cancellations of reader subscriptions. The Post has since hired Adam O'Neal, formerly of The Economist and The Wall Street Journal, to replace Shipley as opinion editor. In his announcement, O'Neal echoed Bezos' mission of being "stalwart advocates of free markets and personal liberties," adding the opinion pages will be "unapologetically patriotic" and will not be lecturing its readers. Politico has a running list of over 100 Post employees who have left the paper since last fall, many of them joining rival papers like The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal as well as outlets like The Atlantic and CNN. A spokesperson for The Washington Post declined to comment.
