Nevada governors are rarely ideologues.

Take the last 35 years. Of the five chief executives, only one could claim to be a true conservative or true liberal. That was Republican Jim Gibbons, who ran against then-state Sen. Dina Titus. (He was also the only one-termer among them.)

Richard Bryan and Bob Miller were seen as moderate Democrats, and Kenny Guinn and Brian Sandoval as middle-of-the-road Republicans. It’s not hard to figure out why: campaigning is easy; governing is hard.

All except Gibbons, whose governorship was a disaster, probably would agree with what Sandoval recently told journalist Steve Sebelius about how he would describe how has governed: “….it’s someone who’s pragmatic, somebody who does their homework, somebody who is a solutions person, somebody who cares deeply about people.”

As the 2018 governor’s race already has begun, it’s worth noting this history, especially because none of the prospective candidates have comprehensive records on issues that have confronted and will confront them should they get the privilege of living in that big house on Mountain Street in Carson City.

We have a pure conservative, Attorney General Adam Laxalt, and a pure liberal, Clark County Commissioner Chris Giunchigliani, poised to enter the contest. And we have a moderate Democrat, Clark County Commissioner Steve Sisolak, and a maverick Republican, Treasurer Dan Schwartz, already having announced their candidacies. (Remember, no one is “in” the race until he or she files next March.)

History says Sisolak most fits the profile of a Nevada governor. But I give Laxalt a slight edge over the other three (for now) because of his superb political positioning skills and the money backing him, including Las Vegas Review-Journal owner Sheldon Adelson. Laxalt, should he defeat Schwartz, also will be facing a Clark County commissioner in the general election and, as Harry Reid once unsuccessfully argued to his son, Rory, (see 2010) that’s a boneyard for statewide ambitions because of the local government political cesspool and the ease of pay-to-play perceptions.

No pure progressive has been elected Nevada governor, but Giunchigliani signaled last week she will be running. And if she can raise enough money, she could well defeat Sisolak in that primary, just as Titus erased a Sisolakian figure, then-Henderson Mayor Jim Gibson, in the 2006 gubernatorial primary.

I don’t know of too many people who give Schwartz much of a chance against Laxalt, whose conservative bonafides are unimpeachable. But the treasurer has personal wealth and doesn’t seem to care what anyone thinks, which could be dangerous in a low-turnout primary in June.

Even Sandoval, whom historians likely will rate as one of Nevada’s greatest governors, campaigned in dark red to defeat Gibbons in 2010 but governed in purple (raising taxes but arguing for school choice and vetoing other Democratic priorities) after reality bit upon moving into the mansion.

Nevada has changed since Sandoval was elected and certainly since Bryan became governor nearly three and a half decades years ago. Laxalt won his race four years ago by minimizing losses in the two urban counties and dominating Ross Miller, Bob’s son, in rural Nevada. That’s an unprecedented feat, unlikely to be repeated next year.

What has not changed in Nevada, though, is that what happens in Elko is very different from what happens in Reno, which is very different from what happens in Vegas. Sandoval can talk about One Nevada, but there are still three Nevadas, and gubernatorial candidates will often tell different stories while campaigning in each.

That’s where we come in.

The quartet of candidates in the most important race next year will make all kinds of claims about what label they deserve and what they will do if elected. But there are ways of fleshing out just how conservative or liberal they are, just how captive they are to certain constituencies and just how pragmatic -- i.e. Sandovalian -- they will be.

Here are 10 questions (there are others, too) each candidate should have to answer, and sooner rather than later:

1. Do you support the 2015 tax increase, the largest in state history, proposed by Sandoval and passed by large majorities in both houses of the Legislature?
2. Do you support the state’s right-to-work law, or should it be repealed?
3. Do you believe members of the public sector should be allowed to serve in the Legislature, or is this a violation of separation of powers? (The let-the-courts-decide dodge is not an option here.)
4. Do you believe that providing tax incentives to companies to move to Nevada, as was done with Tesla and others, is good policy?
5. Do you support the measure by which $750 million in public money was diverted to build a stadium for the Raiders?
6. Do you support a ballot question to outlaw so-called sanctuary cities in Nevada, and why or why not?
7. Do you support reviving the Education Savings Account program, and with how much money and what revisions, if any?
8. Do you believe in mandating that candidates disclose all of their contributions in real-time – or close to it – and would you propose a bill to do so?
9. How do you feel about three prominent social issues of our day: gay marriage, abortion, transgender rights?
10. Do you support the pharmaceutical transparency bill signed by Sandoval last session, and if it is struck down by the courts, will you propose another one in 2019?

It doesn’t matter what they call themselves as the race gets underway. Nevada’s gubernatorial contenders should have to answer questions about where they stand on pressing issues, without being permitted to dodge. They owe it to the voters.

Our reporters will ask difficult questions, and I assume other media outlets will, too. It’s the only way to let voters know where the candidates stand – or claim to stand – no matter what their campaign ads say.