SOUTH LAKE TAHOE – They came. They spoke. They pandered.

That was the least surprising part about the speeches given by gubernatorial candidates Steve Sisolak and Adam Laxalt at the Nevada Mining Association confab at Harrah’s on Saturday. I am not sure what made me chuckle harder:

Clark County Commissioner Sisolak’s name-checking of various rural cities and wide-eyed discovery of the wonders of lithium – “Mining is the backbone of rural economies,” he declared, apparently without embarrassment.

Or: Attorney General Laxalt’s self-description as a bulwark against federal intrusion into mining country and “someone who understands mining in his bones” – apparently because of all the major mining operations in suburban D.C., where he has spent much of his life.

Catering to the audience is standard operating procedure in campaigns, of course. Still, Laxalt and Sisolak revealed much, even as they said so little.

What struck me the most as I listened to the mining-love-laced stump speeches is how rare the situation was – both candidates for the most critical contest on the ballot in the same room – and how sad it is that just two months from Election Day, this is so unusual.

Some of my takeaways:

---Laxalt was much more comfortable than Sisolak. The attorney general spoke with ease and extemporaneously while the county commissioner had a scripted speech and mostly just read it. The contrast was not lost on those who were there. Laxalt, though, also spoke for only half as long as Sisolak, using only about half of his allotted 30 minutes as he glided quickly through his standard fare. He made a point to boast of his battle against federal overreach during the Obama years and tethered himself even closer than in the past to the Trump Administration: "Fortunately, we have a new administration, (including) Secretary Zinke and the EPA…..(As governor), I will use the relationships I have with this administration to find solutions."

(Guess which candidate mentioned Gov. Brian Sandoval (more than once) and which did not? Hint: It wasn’t the Republican.)

---Both candidates made only casual or oblique references to the other. Sisolak sneered at Laxalt by saying of himself, “I was not born with a trust fund. I did not come from a political pedigree family.”

The commissioner, who said during the primary “everything’s on the table” when it comes to education funding, took mining taxes (and gaming, too) off the table.

“I vehemently oppose industry-specific taxes,” he declared to the industry-specific crowd.

---Laxalt, who wants to excise the Commerce Tax and has proposed a school safety plan with a hefty price tag, said unequivocally that he will “put a lot more funding into schools.”

He referred to the state’s coming budget surplus as the vehicle allowing him to accomplish this. But this is a mathematical mirage, what with rollup costs for schools and health care (unless he cuts whatshisname’s Medicaid expansion) in a budget presumably without Commerce Tax money—and his proposed career programs and technical education gobbling up all the “extra” money (and likely requiring more).

---Sisolak did all he could to reassure the mining folks that he was not some tax-happy Bernie-lover from the South hoping to raise their rates, including reminding the group opposed to the Energy Choice Initiative that he agrees with them—and Laxalt does not.

He also asked them to remember “my opponent’s running mate tried to double the mining tax.” That’s a reference to state Senate Minority Leader and lieutenant governor hopeful Michael Roberson, who many remember as the main legislative force behind the largest tax increase in history in 2015 but who also during the previous session tried to remove the industry’s constitutional protections and put a doubling of net proceeds tax on the ballot. (If you can’t get a man, get his horse; if you can’t get a man, get his putative running mate? Humorous but hollow, I think.)

---Despite Sisolak’s inoculation attempts, Laxalt highlighted an issue he has used repeatedly during his campaign and one he knew would resonate with the audience (and in many other quarters, I’d guess). Accepting the inevitability that both houses of the Legislature will be Democratic, Laxalt said, “If we do not elect a Republican governor, you will see a tax increase,” adding for good measure that there would be more regulations, too.

“I think this election creates a stark choice,” the attorney general said, honing in on the surging economy. “We could see things go in the exact opposite direction, and this is not hyperbole.”

It is just that, of course, as were his references to a resurgent radical left among Nevada Democrats and his now rote reference to the horrors of becoming like California. But Laxalt is right that if Sisolak wins, even though he only pretended to be a liberal to win the primary and actually is a moderate, the Democrat is much less likely to veto legislative tax proposals.

It’s a smart approach by Laxalt. It probably will rev up the base and attract some moderate voters, and it has the benefit of being true.

Comically, after claiming that the Democratic legislative caucuses are all but infiltrated by communists, Laxalt told the group he’s the kind of guy who can work well across the aisle, even claiming that he did so last session. Why yes, if “working well” meant ignoring calls to defend his agency’s budget and avoiding the Legislative Building until he was summoned to a hearing on whether he abused his position to approach the state’s top gaming regulator on behalf of one of his biggest donors.

The speeches were a little more substantive than “Shady Steve” vs. “Lackey Laxalt,” but not by many orders of magnitude. Most polls show the contest within the margin of error, and both candidates realize they have little…margin for error.

So here we are, six weeks from early voting, and no televised debates are firmly set in the most important race in the state, one that almost surely will dramatically change what the New Nevada looks like. This is a travesty, and if both candidates do not agree to two or three (I’d guess we will be lucky to get one), voters will have to rely on the kind of pabulum that was disgorged before the mining group over the weekend in order to make up their minds.

Disclosure: Steve Sisolak has donated to The Nevada Independent. You can see a full list of donors here.

Jon Ralston is the editor of The Nevada Independent. He has been covering Nevada politics for more than 30 years. Contact him at [email protected]. On Twitter: @ralstonreports