Jacob Solis/ Nevada Sagebrush
Tim Kaine speaks to a crowd of students and community members at the University of Nevada, Reno on Sept. 22, 2016. He is one of the many surrogates that have come to Nevada to campaign for Hillary Clinton.

Every four years, Nevada becomes the belle of the electoral ball. Celebrities and high-powered politicians alike descend on the state in droves, all in hopes of securing its precious electoral votes.

It’s an intricate dance, and it’s one that’s intensified in the past month as each campaign ratchets up its Silver State operations. And while Nevada does receive proportionately less campaign attention than other swing states (it does, after all, only offer six electoral votes to Florida’s 29), it hasn’t stopped everyone from Jennifer Garner to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders from stopping in Reno to campaign for Hillary Clinton, while even bigger names like Katy Perry and President Barack Obama hit the trail in Las Vegas.

And even the Trump campaign, which has been notorious for relying on rallies with the candidate over traditional ground-game operations, has started sending more surrogates to the state. This includes visits just last week from both Donald Trump Jr. and Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence.

But is it a dance that works?

According to assistant professor of political science and campaigns and elections expert Kevin Banda, the answer is yes, and it’s for a couple of reasons.

“First is just simply because the candidate can’t be everywhere at once,” Banda said. “So if you want to have events that people are interested in going to, you have to use surrogates to get people interested enough to show up, which is why better-known surrogates are better. Who would I rather have, Catherine Cortez Masto show up here or Bill Clinton?”

It’s a phenomenon that’s easy to observe in the real world. When actress Jennifer Garner came to help the Clinton campaign with voter registration, it drew a crowd of several dozen students eager to take selfies. But when Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley came to campus to energize student volunteers, it drew a crowd of fewer than five.

people interested enough to show up, which is why better-known surrogates are better. Who would I rather have, Catherine Cortez Masto show up here or Bill Clinton?”

It’s a phenomenon that’s easy to observe in the real world. When actress Jennifer Garner came to help the Clinton campaign with voter registration, it drew a crowd of several dozen students eager to take selfies. But when Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley came to campus to energize student volunteers, it drew a crowd of fewer than five.

There’s also the matter of mending broken primary fences, something Banda says the right surrogates can do pretty effectively.

“If you get the people that you beat [in the primary] to stump for you, that can be electorally advantageous,” Banda said. “You’re going to be more likely to be able to make successful overtures to those people’s supporters, the supporters of the losers, to show up and vote for you.”

This too is easily observable, says Banda. One need look no further than last week’s visit by Bernie Sanders to the University of Nevada, Reno. It’s just one of many similar stump speeches the independent-turned-Democrat has made since he formally endorsed Clinton back in mid-July.

But has the wave of campaign surrogates made a measurable difference in either campaign’s efforts?

There likely isn’t a single answer nor a way to tell because, according to Banda, the data to see what’s most effective in driving voter turnout just isn’t there.

“In the presidential context, it’s usually hard to test [what’s effective] because both campaigns are doing basically everything at similar levels,” Banda said. “That’s not true this year, so I guess we may be able to test that a little bit because the Trump campaign has, basically, no ground game and they’re not advertising that much.”

He added that Trump is especially hard to pin down because Trump’s not running a professional campaign. Among other things, Banda says that Trump’s lack of political experience, ground game and advertising operations, and often offensive statements are driving the real-estate mogul down in the polls.

Trump was once up in Nevada polls, if only briefly and by a few points. Back in late September, Trump had a two-point lead in the Silver State and had nearly closed the gap to Clinton in national polls. Flash-forward to now though, and that lead is evaporated, replaced with a four-point Clinton lead in Nevada and a six-point lead nationally, according to the Real Clear Politics average.

And with early voting already underway, the Trump campaign and the GOP more generally are running out of time to win the election. Early voting, which started on Saturday, Oct. 22, is showing an early lead for Democrats. Even so, there are a few caveats to this data, notably the fact that early voting often leans Democrat and that early voting is indeed just early voting and may not reflect the outcome of Election Day.

However, Democrats are still punching above their weight in these early numbers with a lead five points greater than their registration advantage in the state, according to Nevada politics reporter Jon Ralston. They’re also leading in early absentee ballots, which usually favor Republicans. It’s an early result that is, while not wholly representative of what will happen on Nov. 8, certainly not comforting for Nevada Republicans.

Jacob Solis can be reached at the jsolis@sagebrush.unr.edu and on Twitter @TheSagebrush