Over the weekend, I have been religiously checking the election results for the Senate race in Nevada. It’s been really fascinating to me, given the new focus on swing states out west, like Arizona and Nevada. Growing up in Florida, I was used to our preeminence as a true purple state. Media attention and political pundits would pull out their hair guessing where the state would pivot to in any given election, making it a truly competitive and entertaining state to watch throughout the election years. More recently, however, Florida has lost that distinction. It was a little shocking to me, but I think reflects overarching national trends. The new swing states are showing themselves in Arizona and Nevada, and I think it’s for the best that attention is transitioning from Florida to newer states. I also think it’s healthy to have close and competitive elections in our democracy, as it showcases rare examples of partisanship easing, which makes me hopeful for the future.

Personally, I really enjoyed observing the development of news from the Nevada electorate. I thought it was interesting to see the types of voting methods and their relationship to political preference. For example, the way that Democrats are more likely to benefit from mail-in and absentee ballots. In juxtaposition, it’s equally interesting to observe how voters that choose to vote on Election Day are more likely to prefer Republican candidates. That’s what made Nevada so interesting, because nobody could accurately gauge who would prevail in the Senate election. It was also incredible to realize that the first Latina elected to the Senate would be able to continue her service with a second-term. I think Nevada is a primary example of the uniqueness of the American electorate, and how not everything can be accurately predicted.