Admittedly know nothing about the Dem slate. My knee jerk reaction is the the candidates either had nothing to say or were mealy mouthed about what they did say. I want strong Dem candidates to stand up and take pride in the Dem accomplishments. -- Yea, my middle name is pollyanna!

But - as the story goes - the Dems cut a devil's bargain with the Republicans, eliciting Sandoval's promise that he would expand Medicaid in the state, which he did, for assurance that he would run unopposed for reelection.

So, the Dem Party refused to give support to candidates who had any chance of beating him - and that is what prompted the "none of the above" votes. Those who ran were the sacrificial lambs; they might as well have just left the ballot blank.

And yes, I'm so frustrated with this I could spit. Sandoval (or Sandogibbons, as we not-so-fondly call him here, in honor of his similarity to our last horrendous governor, Jim Gibbons) has been nothing but bad for this state and now we're stuck with him for another four years.

Wonder how often this happens. I'd spit with you but our humidity is sown today.

I grant that I have to work to build up sufficient spit to be spat . . . so I stick to metaphorical spitting.

Every ballot should have that option. Federal, state and local.

I think if we added that option nationwide that it would increase voter turnout, not to mention that quality of candidates and their response to the needs of their constituents.

I know nothing about the Nevada race, but I'm disappointed that even though it "won" that "None of the above" was defeated by Goodman. Seems as though there should be a reset. I hope at least Goodman takes the vote of no confidence to heart and adjusts his campaign accordingly.

Right now in most elections, there's no way to differentiate lazy voters who stay home from disenchanted ones, who do the same. "None of the above" is an improvement in that area.

so having the "none of these candidates" option didn't seem to increase turnout

... for voters to realize that they don't have to vote for the candidate who sucks less.

He's the smartest man in the world, after all!

Actually, in 1967, a brand of foot powder was elected mayor of Picoazà, Ecuador.

I'd vote for foot powder over some of the candidates I'm forced to hold my nose and choose sometimes.

Actually, in 1967, a brand of foot powder was elected mayor of Picoazà, Ecuador.

I'd vote for foot powder over some of the candidates I'm forced to hold my nose and vote for sometimes.

wasn't a referendum on Goodman - it was a referendum on the Dem Party in the state. A local columnist, Steve Sibilius, wrote a column and suggested that people take advantage of the ability to vote for "none" - and they did.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/steve-sebelius/democrats-offered-no-choice-why-not-vote-way

I'm glad that folks had a way of registering their dissatisfaction with the choices.

...Robert Goodman realizes that he is ''running'' for a seat that the majority in his party would prefer be vacant.

- It'll be tough to rouse the voters when they'd prefer ''absolutely nothing'' compared to him.....

K&R

usually with a President in power who doesn't have very good approvals you will have people looking more towards the party out of power. but not in this case.

but was enough to propel him to national attention.