The campaign targeted to outwit Biden directed its strategies towards maligning Sam Brown, attaching an aura of notoriety to him in relation to abortion. The eccentric presidential hopeful’s unique talent lay in urging low-propensity voters towards the booths, which was extraordinary. The senator ship’s candidate from Nevada forayed into a state-specific campaign, consciously maintaining a safe distance from party chiefs. Simultaneously, the voting public considerably shifted towards third-party elections and the ‘none of the above’ option in the Senate race, as opposed to settling on the presidential choices.
The political undercurrents in Nevada in 2024 interestingly echoed the trends of 2012, though the final outcome portrayed a contrasting picture. About twelve years earlier, Barack Obama had clinched a victory in Nevada with a comfortable margin of nearly 7 percentage points. However, his influence seemed restricted — the Democratic electorate either ignored or voted for the third-party in the Senate race, leading to a bare minimum victory for Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) by 1.2 percentage points.
This year also witnessed a similar election outline, but the scales tipped towards former President Donald Trump’s favor, rallying the infrequent voters to lead him to the winning post by approximately 3 percentage points. Sadly for Republican Senate contender Sam Brown, he could not ride the wave in his favor. He fell short by almost 10 percentage points compared to Trump’s tally in a race marginally characterized by lesser votes (about 1.4 percent) than the presidential one.
Senator Jacky Rosen (D-NV) remained almost untouched by this trend and managed to secure a number of votes comparative to what Vice President Kamala Harris received. In fact, she gained even more raw vote count than her party’s leader in regions like the rural belt and Washoe County. Rosen attributed her success to her campaign strategy, which was to keep the Senate election heavily localized, advocate her Nevada lineage, commitment to bipartism, whilst portraying Brown as too radical for the local expectations.
This strategy helped Rosen achieve victory even under national circumstances that seemed to favor the Republicans. It worked well to retain the quasi-Republican Trump voters and registered non-partisan voters from switching their preference towards Brown. The Rosen campaign credits this success to their initiative of showing Brown as an extremist before he had any chance to portray himself positively, dissuading enough voters to see him as a viable choice.
Despite the Brown campaign’s belief that they were successful in increasing their voter base within these groups, in the end, it was the Democrat who triumphed. The win owed to larger vote counts in Clark County, coupled with a modest victory in Washoe County, to counterbalance the loss in rural areas. Regardless, it seemed the election outcome was predicted well in advance.
Rosen emphasized the rising housing costs in the South while heavily promoting her initiatives to acquire public funds for the Brightline train project connecting Southern California with Las Vegas. This move predicted massive job creations and economic growth. Further, she ran advertisements expressing her support towards ranchers and miners in rural regions.
However, the Brown campaign failed to stick to a steady message and tried to wear too many hats. Initially, they aimed at highlighting Rosen’s 2017 discrepancies concerning the STOCK Act, where she delayed the public disclosure of her automatic stock trades. Later, they rerouted their campaign to focus on the controversy surrounding the forfeit of a match by the UNR women’s volleyball team against an opponent with a transgender player.
Yet, the Rosen campaign did not bother to release any direct response addressing these accusations, which a campaign member put down to the inconsistency in Brown’s attack strategy. In their opinion, the most influential argument against Rosen was not her individuality but people’s discontent concerning the country’s economy.
The 2012 and 2024 elections exhibited a significant dissimilarity between the presidential and the Senate races, largely due to votes placed against non-major party candidates. This trend was especially visible in rural counties, where over 6.6 percent of voters refrained from voting for either Rosen or Brown. Hence, Rosen’s loss margin was only 34 points in rural areas, far less than Harris’s 40-point deficit.
The events of the 2024 Senate race seem to mirror the happenings of the 2022 midterms, sharing a lot in common with the past political climate. As political landscapes constantly change, they offer a myriad of opportunities and challenges for the players in the public arena. Though the targeting tactics and campaign strategies may vary, the end goal remains the same: to win the favor of the electorate.