Commentary - October 30, 2026 - by Rachel Dahl

- Click for Full Interview

Political advertising is the only business where people spend millions interrupting your evening to explain why you should be terrified of somebody you’ve never met.

By November, you aren’t sure who should be governor. You just want your television back.

On a recent Nevada Newsmakers, Sam Shad sat down with former state senator Helen Foley and political consultant Tom Letizia for a discussion that required very little encouragement. Sam brought the questions. His guests brought the matches.

The opening subject was Nevada’s governor’s race: Joe Lombardo, Aaron Ford, and the apparently bottomless supply of money available to tell us what’s wrong with both of them.

Foley’s observation was simple enough. Lombardo’s advertising had been rolling for months, yet, in her assessment, the race remained essentially tied.

Letizia agreed that the contest was close despite the spending imbalance.

That ought to give every political donor pause. After all those checks, all those consultants and all those ominous announcers, the voters were still reserving judgment.

How inconsiderate of them.

Then came the fellow who can dominate a Nevada election without running in it: Donald Trump.

Foley argued that Lombardo’s fortunes could turn on how voters feel about the president. Letizia supplied the comedy, predicting that if Trump visited Nevada, Lombardo might suddenly discover a scheduling conflict.

“He’ll have a cold that day.”

There’s a campaign maneuver for you. Stand close enough to collect the votes, but far enough away to avoid appearing in the photograph.

Of course, predicting what voters will do is a hazardous occupation, even for people who get paid to do it. Letizia forecast a strong Democratic showing while still giving Lombardo the edge. Foley saw plenty of trouble ahead for Republicans.

We’ll find out. The electorate has a nasty habit of withholding the ending until the votes are counted.

The conversation became more useful when it moved from who might win to what anybody intends to fix.

Take immigration.

Shad asked why securing the border couldn’t be followed by addressing the people already here, including longtime residents and DACA recipients.

A reasonable question. Naturally, it landed in the middle of a political argument.

Foley criticized the reach of Trump’s enforcement policies. Letizia criticized Biden’s border record while also arguing that Trump had gone too far.

There was room in that exchange for an actual policy discussion: border enforcement, public safety, workers, families, and an economy that depends on people showing up to do the work.

Nevada should be particularly interested in that last part. It is difficult to run a hospitality economy on campaign slogans. Somebody still has to clean the rooms, prepare the meals and build the houses.

Washington has spent years campaigning on immigration. At some point, a person starts wondering whether fixing it would put too many political operatives out of work.

Then the panel turned to data centers, and suddenly the discussion came down to something you could put on a utility bill.

Shad pointed out that much of modern life depends on them. Foley raised the questions communities ought to ask about water, power, location and oversight. She also questioned whether Nevada needs to keep offering the same tax inducements to an industry looking for places to build.

A comment that honestly, deserves more attention than another round of election fortune-telling.

If a company wants to come to Nevada, welcome. Bring the plans. Explain the water supply. Explain the power arrangements. Explain what the neighbors will hear and what the public will pay.

We can admire the technology and still read the contract, including the fine print at the bottom.

Foley disclosed that she represents Storey County and argued for strong county oversight rather than a single approach imposed statewide. Letizia likewise said developers need to work with communities and go through the regulatory process.

There was useful agreement hiding underneath all that political sparring: development comes with obligations.

“The cloud” may sound airy, but the facilities sit on actual ground. Somebody lives nearby. Somebody has to supply the electricity.

Those people deserve answers before the ribbon-cutting.

By the end of the program, the panel had covered elections, immigration, war, artificial intelligence and humanity’s prospects. Sam probably could have used another hour. Or a whistle.

But the Nevada questions were plain enough.

Can I afford to live here? Who will do the work? What will growth cost my community? And when the campaign is over, will anybody solve something?

The commercials will keep coming until Election Day.

I’d settle for a little less ominous music and a few more answers.

- Click for Full Interview