Was Adam Laxalt the first statewide candidate to ever win without taking either urban county?

After successful attorney general candidate's campaign manager, Robert Uithoven, asserted Adam Laxalt was the first statewide candidate in modern history to win while losing both urban counties, I wondered if that was true.

So I had the nonpareil researchers in the Legislative Counsel Bureau's library check for me. And you know what? Uithoven was not far from right.

I guess it depends how you define "modern."

Here's what the research found:

The LCB folks found two examples of statewide races in which the winning candidate lost both Clark and Washoe.  In 1934, Joseph Taber beat H. W. Edwards for the Supreme Court, 21,391 - 18,096, but lost Clark (2,879 - 2,788) and Washoe (6,154 - 5,691). For a constitutional office, you have to go back to 1922, when Ed Malley beat E.H. Hunting 15,183 - 12,731, but lost Clark (1,097 - 563) and Washoe (3,417 - 3,307).

By the way, Laxalt may not want to cite Malley too often because he ended up being convicted of embezzlement despite being defended by legendary Nevada Sen. Pat McCarran.

Speaking of legends, Laxalt's grandfather, Paul, won three statewide races despite losing Clark County (he won Washoe) -- for lieutenant governor, governor and U.S. senator. That last one was in 1974 against a guy named Harry Reid.

It's not impossible that Laxalt the Younger could repeat that in 2016, right?

Comments: