Most candidates paid dearly

Now that the election is over and we are getting ready for the frenzy of the holiday season, let us pause to relax.

Ahh. Deep breaths now. In, out. In, out. Hmmm. That was nice. Feel better? Good, good.

Now let's take a look back, for you cannot plan where you are going if you do not know where you've been. Let us look at the numbers, because there is little interpretation needed with numbers. They are difficult to spin if embraced in full. They lean neither left, nor right. They are neither moderate nor fringe. They are pure, and perfect, and, as Aristotle said of mathematics in general, they can be beautiful.

Let us look at the beautiful truth in the numbers revealed on Election Day.

Remember when all those "Dump Harry" signs started showing up around town? When the Tea Party Express bus rolled across the country, snapping up hordes of supporters? When the polls said we, the voters, hated anybody who currently held any type of elected office, including possibly our own mothers if such was the case?

"Anti-incumbent fever at record high," CNN reported back in February.

"Polls confirm anti-incumbent tide," said Politico in June.

"Get ready for an anti-incumbent wave," warned the Wall Street Journal in September.

Yeah. Well. Not here.

In case you hadn't heard, U.S. Sen. Harry Reid got re-elected. So did U.S. Rep. Dean Heller. And U.S. Rep. Shelley Berkley and the secretary of state and the lieutenant governor and the controller and, well, you get the picture.

In state and federal races, there were 41 incumbents running for re-election who had opponents running against them; 37 of them won, four lost.

The number that lost, that's 9.8 percent. Four people. A congresswoman, a university system regent, and two state legislators. We like our incumbents, rhetoric be damned. There is truth in the numbers, whether or not we want to face it.

Such as this: Election officials revealed that turnout in Nevada was 64.5 percent statewide, 63.3 percent in Clark County. Officials say that's relatively high for a midterm election.

Except there's another truth. To calculate that number, the total number of people who voted is divided by the total number of active registered voters to come up with that percentage.

People who don't register to vote aren't counted. When they are counted, when you use the over-18 population as a whole, the number is more like 36.8 percent statewide and 33.3 percent in Clark County.

So, one in three adults voted. That's truth.

Want more truth?

The candidate who got the most votes of any candidate in a statewide race was Supreme Court Justice James Hardesty. That's because he was running un­opposed.

The race where None of These Candidates finished highest? Same race, Hardesty.

But, hey, at least the judge didn't spend any money on his race. Unlike a bunch of others.

Who spent the most? Harry Reid. According to the latest financial dis­closure statements filed with the Federal Election Commission, Reid had spent $19,377,956 as of Oct. 13.

Sharron Angle had almost matched him up to that date, spending $18,777,352.

Who got the most bang for their buck? Neither one. Angle spent $58.50 per vote. Reid spent $53.58 per vote. That's terrible, judged against races in other contests. And it could get worse once the final spending reports come in.

The cost for a seat in the House of Representatives was a lot lower.

Dina Titus spent $17.60 per vote in her losing bid to Joe Heck to represent the 3rd Congressional District. Heck spent just $7.27 per vote.

Berkley, whom everyone assumed was going to win, spent $16.47 per vote. Her opponent, Kenneth Wegner, spent a measly $1.09 per vote.

Heller, who also seemed a sure winner, got his seat for the bargain price of $4.27 per vote. His opponent, Nancy Price, could have bought every voter who supported her a can of Coke and saved some money. She spent just 79 cents per vote.

For governor, Rory Reid not only got trounced in the voting booth, he got ripped off. Reid spent $17.86 per vote, while winner Brian Sandoval was a whole lot more economical, spending $9.92 per vote.

Ten bucks a vote? To be governor? We'd bet current Gov. Jim Gibbons would have loved to hear that a few years back. Gibbons, who this year became the first Nevada governor to lose in his party's primary, spent $20.29 per vote to get the job in the first place back in 2006.

That's the truth. Beautiful or ugly, it is at least unspun.

Contact reporter Richard Lake at rlake@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0307.