Yes, but “Nonpartisan voters” is a bigger block than either party. As Ralston himself states in the Tweet you quoted: “Major parties make up less than 60 percent of the electorate.”
Others have pointed out that young new voters tend to register as Independent / Nonpartisan.
Which still wasn't quite enough to deliver it to Harris, but was for most other statewide and downballot Dems. So calling it "newly red" is a bit of a stretch, even from an authority on the state like Ralston. Thoroughly purple is fine for now.
LOL at "newly red". Who won the state in 2000 and 2004? How big was Bill Clinton's margin in 1996? (That would be one point).
For various reasons, registered Republicans are going to pass registered Democrats in Nevada, this will also happen in North Carolina, and then in Pennsylvania at some point. Bloated registered Dem advantages didn't stop these states from voting GOP in previous decades. It won't, on its own, mean these states are uniquely shifting Republican moreso than the country now (basically every state with partisan reg shows a GOP shift if you ignore independents - Colorado is the one exception and even there the GOP has been close to keeping parity by registration in recent years even as they lose every race by double digits now).
Calling Nevada "newly red" is unnecessary engagement bait on Ralston's behalf. Nevada has been a swing state for over a decade now. It was a swing state that we just barely won more often than lost, but a swing state nonetheless. There are potential signs for it being a slightly less friendly swing state, in the near future, but not enough information to make a confident evaluation either way.
Calling it a red state is just plainly wrong, like if we called Michigan or Pennsylvania "newly blue" states after 2020.
It is unfortunate too, because there is an interesting discussion to be had over the data about Nevada's recent trends, but his provocative framing kills the discussion off right away. I'm sure it's good for his engagement and eventual subscription numbers, but it's an annoying trend.
In my experience, we always have to look at the totality of what Jon Ralston writes. Yes, he does have an annoying tendency to make attention-grabbing statements. The key is to never stop with those.
NEVADA
"Republicans are within 4,000 voters of overtaking Dems in this newly red state. Dem lead was 10 times that a year ago."
https://x.com/RalstonReports/status/1877043102365483234?t=plhBwLt-yEarxO_nepGtQw&s=19
Time for an intraparty struggle in the Silver State?
Yes, but “Nonpartisan voters” is a bigger block than either party. As Ralston himself states in the Tweet you quoted: “Major parties make up less than 60 percent of the electorate.”
Others have pointed out that young new voters tend to register as Independent / Nonpartisan.
Which still wasn't quite enough to deliver it to Harris, but was for most other statewide and downballot Dems. So calling it "newly red" is a bit of a stretch, even from an authority on the state like Ralston. Thoroughly purple is fine for now.
I totally agree.
LOL at "newly red". Who won the state in 2000 and 2004? How big was Bill Clinton's margin in 1996? (That would be one point).
For various reasons, registered Republicans are going to pass registered Democrats in Nevada, this will also happen in North Carolina, and then in Pennsylvania at some point. Bloated registered Dem advantages didn't stop these states from voting GOP in previous decades. It won't, on its own, mean these states are uniquely shifting Republican moreso than the country now (basically every state with partisan reg shows a GOP shift if you ignore independents - Colorado is the one exception and even there the GOP has been close to keeping parity by registration in recent years even as they lose every race by double digits now).
Calling Nevada "newly red" is unnecessary engagement bait on Ralston's behalf. Nevada has been a swing state for over a decade now. It was a swing state that we just barely won more often than lost, but a swing state nonetheless. There are potential signs for it being a slightly less friendly swing state, in the near future, but not enough information to make a confident evaluation either way.
Calling it a red state is just plainly wrong, like if we called Michigan or Pennsylvania "newly blue" states after 2020.
It is unfortunate too, because there is an interesting discussion to be had over the data about Nevada's recent trends, but his provocative framing kills the discussion off right away. I'm sure it's good for his engagement and eventual subscription numbers, but it's an annoying trend.
In my experience, we always have to look at the totality of what Jon Ralston writes. Yes, he does have an annoying tendency to make attention-grabbing statements. The key is to never stop with those.
Democrats have got the entirety of 2025 and a majority of 2026 to register new voters and gain ground with nonpartisans and it will be fine!! 💙🇺🇲