The Cowboys went 1-2 in their trip to Charleston.

Oklahoma State fell to Nevada 90-78 on Sunday afternoon in the Charleston Classic’s consolation final. It was a game dominated by a pair of Nevada players, as Kobe Sanders and Nick Davidson combined to score 50 of the Wolf Pack’s points (27 from Sanders and 23 from Davidson). Nevada shot 59% from the field and 39% from 3.

OSU was playing from behind all afternoon, as the Cowboys never held a lead, and the Wolf Pack led for about 38 of the 40 minutes. After going into the break down 40-33, OSU made a few runs at it in the second half, but the Pokes couldn’t get over the hump. Nevada extended its lead to 19 with about 14 minutes to play before the Cowboys stormed back with an 11-0 run to cut it to 62-54. The teams traded baskets for the next few minutes before OSU ripped off another 7-0 run to cut Nevada’s lead to 70-66. But when the Wolf Pack needed a basket, they got one.

As much success as Nevada was having shooting the ball, the Cowboys ran into some struggles, hitting just 42% of their shots from the field and 29% of their 3-point attempts. It continues the trend to start this season where OSU has either shot in the 40% range from 3 or in the 20s.

The Cowboys forced Nevada into 10 turnovers, the fewest OSU has forced this season. OSU also had a season-low four steals.

OSU had four players score in double figures. Chi Chi Avery led the way with 15. Arturo Dean hit double digits for the first time as a Cowboy, finishing with 13. Robert Jennings II and Abou Ousmane each had 11.

The Wolf Pack are a good squad, winning 26 games last season and 22 the year before. Nevada made the NCAA Tournament on both of those occasions, and KenPom projects the Wolf Pack to finish this regular season with 24 wins.

At 4-2 in the young season, the Cowboys have some time to recalibrate after being tested in Charleston. OSU’s next game is Dec. 4 in Tulsa.

The semi-celebrities and quacks (not that they’re mutually exclusive) get a lot of attention, but one recent appointment announced by Donald Trump is cause for even more concern, and especially for historically anti-government states like Nevada.

Trump on Friday named Russ Vought his director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Of all the Project 2025 authors, none is more eager to create chaos within and dismantle much of the federal bureaucracy than Vought

“We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected,” Vought has declared. “When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains.”

Minimizing the the federal workforce and traumatizing what’s left of it is Vought’s raison d’etre.

That might sound all “ooh, cool, that’ll teach ’em” — until the federal government can’t competently distribute grandma’s monthly Social Security benefit or process your federal income tax refund.

In Nevada, there are many dedicated state and local government employees who work hard to deliver a vast array of programs and services – from nutrition programs for low-income families to processing tax abatements for multi-billion-dollar corporations.

As in every state, those myriad programs and services and initiatives are contingent on federal money, or federal cooperation, or clarity and timeliness of federal rules and regulations.

And while there are many dedicated Nevadans working to provide and/or administer government programs and services the best they can, there are very rarely enough of them. Nevada can be very generous to big business. But when it comes to financing government, Nevada has always been a notoriously cheap state – bottom of the good lists, top of the bad lists, etc.

Vought’s – and Trump’s – crusade against federal civil servants promises to wreak havoc on the delivery of programs and services in every state, red and blue alike.

All states will struggle to compensate for the carnage Vought vows to inflict on the United States civil service.

The states that will have the best fighting chance of safeguarding continued and competent delivery of vital services will be those with something approaching adequately funded and staffed state and local government. Nevada has never been one of those.

***

A pleasant (if short-lived) surprise. But back to the aforementioned quacks and semi-celebrities… it’s as if Trump has been deliberately debasing his own supporters, nominating obviously outlandish and offensive people to jobs they have no business being anywhere near, for the depraved satisfaction of watching his followers – both those who are elected and those within the electorate – obsequiously go along with whatever he says or does.

Initially it looked as if Republican senators were prepared to surrender unconditionally, and  grovel in submission while Trump insults their intelligence and rubs their noses in it.

So their willingness to tell Trump to shove his nomination of Matt Gaetz you know where, is a fine thing.

So that’s on the bright side.

On the not so bright side… Yes, though it’s a low bar – subterranean, even – Pam Bondi, the person Trump has named to be AG instead of Gaetz, is far more competent than Gaetz. But she’s also no less loyal to Dear Leader, meaning she could be even worse for the nation and the rule of law than Gaetz. And not surprisingly – her being an extreme Trump loyalist and all – she has documented dalliances with corruption (shielding the Trump University grift) and rejecting reality (election denier).

Stay strong, Republican senators,

Portions of this column were originally published in recent editions of the Daily Current newsletter, which is free and which you can subscribe to here.

A majority of Nevada voters rejected Question 3 on the Nov. 5 ballot. This complex amendment would have eliminated party primaries, advanced five candidates to general elections and introduced a new voting method in general elections

I moved to Nevada in 2021 to care for my aging mother. Before that time, I lived in Maine, where I led efforts that opened Maine’s primaries to all voters and protected the nation’s first statewide ranked-choice voting law.

My values and experience inform me that initiatives to change how we elect our leaders should make their way to voters as the result of home-grown and grassroots movements that are thoughtful, collaborative, strategic and patient.

I am dumbfounded that out-of-state donors and advocates would come into Nevada, steamroll stakeholders and potential allies, rush a constitutional amendment to ballot and spend millions to score a quick win for their preferred policy prescription to our political ills.

As a recent Review-Journal editorial noted, the national coalition behind Question 3 pushed similar initiatives in other states in 2024. Voters rejected each of these proposals.

Here are a few of my takeaways from these failed efforts:

■ Mission and strategy must align. Election reform is inherently hopeful and optimistic. Ramming through policy changes and seeking to buy elections are anti-democratic and deeply cynical approaches to politics. Coalitions with antithetical missions and strategies will almost always fail to achieve the real and lasting change that they seek.

■ Patience is practical. Process matters. How change is made can be as important as what change is made, especially when it comes to process reforms. Elections and voting reform initiatives must be organized by local leaders who will build coalitions and recruit volunteers to secure majority support for their cause, one voter and one conversation at a time. The proper role of national groups is not to lead or dictate, but to support.

■ There is no single solution to fix our broken politics. There are 50 states and more than 50 ways of conducting elections and voting in the United States. While policymakers and advocates should learn from one another, we should be skeptical of anyone or any group that promises a silver bullet or pushes a one-size-fits-all solution.

Voters aren’t stupid. We have a sense when politicians and special interests are trying to put one over on us. Question 3 didn’t pass the straight-face test.

That’s too bad because my experience with ranked-choice voting in Maine has taught me that it works to eliminate vote-splitting and ensure majority winners. You have the freedom to vote for the candidate you like best without worrying that your vote will be “wasted” or that you will help to elect the candidate you like least. In both Maine and Alaska, ranked-choice voting has stopped extreme candidates from winning congressional races.

Ranked-choice voting also increases voter turnout, reduces negative campaigning and encourages more women and minorities to run for office.

Surveys from the states and cities in which millions of Americans rank their vote indicate that voters find it to be simple and easy to use and preferable.

One of the most disappointing false attacks on ranked-choice voting is that communities of color might find it difficult to rank candidates. To suggest that white voters are intellectually superior to voters of color is a racist argument.

Nevadans are frustrated with politics as usual. We know that our system isn’t working like it should. We know that billionaires and corporations have too much power and influence over decisions that affect us all. We want to strengthen our democracy for future generations.

Had the national advocates behind Question 3 approached this effort differently, I believe that there might have been a different outcome.

Kyle Bailey moved to Nevada in 2021 and previously served in the Maine House of Representatives.