“The Green Bay Packers never lost a game. They just ran out of time.” (Vince Lombardi)

Three nights ago, the Cleveland Indians were up 3 games to 1 on the Chicago Cubs and I pretty much counted them out. As a Twins/Nationals/Rockies fan, I really don’t have a dog in the fight. But, I love baseball so I’m still interested and will watch the game tonight.

Yes, the Cubs had two better pitchers scheduled in games #5 & #6 but not so much better it was a slam-dunk they’d win these two must-win games. And, for the 7th game, the Indians have the better pitcher scheduled on the mound. Three nights ago, Vegas oddsmakers gave the Cubs about a 15% chance of winning the World Series. Now, after winning two games in a row (25% chance they would win both games), the oddsmakers have the Cubs at a 45% chance of being the World Champions. It’s game on!!

Three weeks ago, the Billy Bush/Donald Trump tape came out and I begged for Trump to drop out and let us take our chances with Mike Pence. When the tape came out, Nate Silver handicapped Trumps chances at less than 15% (roughly equivalent to the Cubs odds three nights ago). Personally, I thought it was high. I reacted as I did with the Cubs and said “game over.” I almost entitled this thread “To win, you’ve got to stay in the game” (Claude Bristol). NOT!

Five things have happened in the last week which I didn’t expect (could have also entitled this “Skip, what are we gonna do about those numbers? They suck.” from the movie Perfect Storm):

1) The Wikileaks released emails provide a smoking gun on how the Clintons parlayed the Office of the Secretary of State to enrich the Clinton personally to the tune of what could be over $50 million. This is what I think is most significant because it goes beyond being a political fibber (the public seems to expect or at least tolerate political fibbing) who spins everything or says anything to curry favor with the voters. Personal graft and enrichment is beyond acceptable to a very large segment of the voting public.

2) This is what I think should have been the most insignificant. The FBI informed Congress they were re-opening the investigation into Hillary’s use of a private server. Comey said he’d keep Congress informed if he got new information. He got new information. And, he was clear he didn’t know if the information was significant and would report back. Should have been the end of the story.

3) Hillary totally badly muffed her reaction. She should have said, “Director Comey has a job to do and is accountable to both the President and Congress. I’m confident when they get through the new information the conclusion of a few months ago will be confirmed. Director Comey is an honorable public servant.” This response would have given the impression she was truly confident there is “nothing new” and would have matched her words “there is nothing there.” Additionally, it would have reinforced her earlier praise of Director Comey. Instead, the disconnects were palpable. She basically violated the Cardinal Rule of corporate crisis management. Twice. And reinforced she might not be trustworthy, her biggest weakness.

4) The Press went bonkers on the letter which belied how much they are in the tank for Hillary and it reinforced Trump’s message the system is rigged.

5) After watching great points and positions get lost in too many shallow bromides or distracting ramblings, Trump got on message AND presented it concisely and cogently. On Monday, Trump and Pence laid out a powerful case for a Trump Presidency, in particular replacing Obamacare and how his economic plan serves the interests of ALL Americans in ALL walks of life. It was so moving, I almost drove to Canton to vote just in case I got hit by a bus between then and Election Day. Frankly, I think this might in the end be more significant than even #1 above.

Today, Nate Silver updated his handicapping of the President race Trump a 30% chance of winning (assumed Hillary leading in the polls by 4%). He also did an analysis which assumes Hillary is leading by 2%. While he didn’t complete the math, I did and and a 2% Hillary leads changes the odds of Trump winning to slightly above 40%. Nate Silver’s latest analysis can be read here

Personally, I think Silver’s methodology masks a slight hidden disadvantage for Trump. Before the polls started to move last week, 20% of the votes were cast via early voting and Hillary was ahead by roughly 5%. Assuming early votes reflected the national position, Hillary has banked what translates into a 1% advantage. Trump has to move the population past even and make-up this 1% disadvantage.

Well folks, the current realclearpolitics.com race has Trump behind less than 2% and he clearly has the momentum. A few weeks ago, he was down 7%, narrowed it to 5.4%, and it is now under 2%.

Whether he can continue to move the voting public or there is enough people open to being moved, I don’t know. But, it appears Hillary doesn’t have the game to stop the momentum. Her recent acts of desperation, including bringing back Alicia Machado to the forefront, aren’t gonna get the job done.

The Cubs know they have at least 9 innings and maybe more.

Donald Trump is behind and has six more days and nothing more. I hope its enough time and Trump/Pence uses the time well.

There is a chance and its no longer a long-shot.

UPDATE: Cubs win. Trump do the “impossible” too? Well, Hillary seems intent on muffing again.

“Do the right thing. It will gratify some people and astonish the rest.” (Mark Twain)

Before voting, I decided at a young age to consider the following:

1) Does the candidate pass the “good neighbor test.” Would I want want my kids to observe this person and would they see an example of a life well-lived? Would I give them code to enter my house? Would I enjoy an evening with this person on the deck with an adult beverage?

2) Do I think they have the skills to be effective at the office they are pursuing?

3) Do I agree sufficiently with their views on the issues most important to me?

In the 36 years I’ve been voting, in general, whether they be Republican or Democrat, in most elections I have thought both candidates would be good neighbors and had the skills to be effective. In the few times a Republican couldn’t pass #1 or #2, in a general election state-wide race, I am sure I skipped the race because I don’t recall finding enough issue agreement with the Democrat to give them my vote. I think maybe I’ve voted for a Democrat or two in legislative or local races.

About when Donald Trump announced for President, here on SDWC, Pat asked the question “Have you selected a candidate yet” and I responded I was sufficiently comfortable with all the candidates on the issues. “I’m still watching to see who demonstrates the breadth of skills to be good candidates. . . . For me it is going to be a process of elimination as the campaign goes along. So far, I have only eliminated Trump.”

My rationale was Trump didn’t pass the “good neighbor test” and I doubted he had the skills to work with Congress, be Commander in Chief, and discern international matters.

When it became clear our choices were to be Trump and Clinton, I decided for the first time to set aside #1 (one is a bullying cad and the other is a lying crook) and #2 (one has no experience and the other has learned all the wrong lessons from her experience).

In short, I found Trump better on the issues despite him being the most politically and personally moderate (concurrently holding a disproportionate number of conservative and liberal positions) Presidential candidate the GOP has nominated in my voting lifetime.

When the infamous Billy Bush video broke, I admit being shaken to my knees. Not because I never heard or couldn’t handle crap in that vein. I’ve been in plenty of locker rooms. But, never before has such a person asked to be my President, someone my grandchildren will be expected to respect. And, most importantly, even in the most private of “locker rooms,” I don’t recall anyone ever saying crap like that with the proviso “because I’m rich and famous, I get to do it without permission.”

My first reaction was Trump has to drop out of the race. Besides my personal revulsion to the video, there is the practical matter it could be the difference between having Clinton as President or not.

Since the conventions and prior to the first debate, Trump had the momentum and had crept up to being virtually tied with Clinton. But, since then, the race is worse that it was after the two conventions. Currently, Clinton is up 5% or more in enough states to win the Electoral College.

To win the Electoral College, Trump essentially needs to attract over 90% of the undecided to have a chance to squeak out a razor thin victory. If I was behind in the final minutes of a football game, I’d rather put on the field my second string quarterback than my first string quarterback who just broke both his legs.

Contrary to popular perception, we don’t vote for President but select Electors of the Electoral College. If either Clinton or Trump died today, we wouldn’t just give the Presidency to the other. We’d have the election with the voters choosing between the Clinton/Kaine Electors and Trump/Pence Electors. So it could/would be if Trump dropped out.

Because Trump is that quarterback with two broken legs, we need a substitute who is at least healthy. Somebody had to stand up and call for a new quarterback and I’m proud and grateful Senator Thune and Governor Daugaard were among those who tried to induce Trump to drop out.

When Trump announced he would stay in the race no matter what, my second reaction was I’m just going to skip this race. The thought of voting for Trump makes me feel dirty, he obviously only cares for himself and not the country or down-ballot Republicans (right now both the RNC and DNC believe not only is it likely we will lose control of the Senate but the House is even in play), and voting for Gary Johnson felt like the easy way out to make myself feel good. Frankly and ironically, while I have confidence Hillary will pursue most of the harmful policies she has promised, I don’t have much confidence Trump will follow through on his promises because I don’t know if I know what he really believes.

But, over the last five days, the latest leaked emails bring me back to the discernment table as we learn:

1) Despite Hillary’s call for “getting money out of politics,” her campaign violated election law by coordinating with Super Pacs.
2) Hillary’s campaign induced/cooperated with DNC senior executives willing to violate their own neutrality rules.
3) Hillary’s campaign considered the State Department and Justice Department arms of her campaign as they coordinated how to obfuscate and/or minimize public disclosure of her conduct at the State Department.
4) The deepening melding of Clinton Foundation interests with State Department business.
5) The depth of the covert cooperation and support from the mainstream media to enhance Clinton’s persona and failure to report news because it was unflattering to Hillary.
6) And now we find out the career FBI and DOJ attorneys all wanted her to be charged and have her security clearance yanked. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/12/fbi-doj-roiled-by-comey-lynch-decision-to-let-clinton-slide-by-on-emails-says-insider.html

While probably so remote to be unrealistic, I still hope Trump just says “I’m fired” if for no other reason than it will take away any Clinton claim to a mandate. Only 25% of the electorate say they support Clinton for who she is. The rest either oppose her or say they only dislike her less than they dislike Trump. As more and more of the recent Wikileaks information gets processed, I just can’t believe the voters will give to Hillary both the Senate and House to pursue her agenda unfettered by a Republican Congress. In fact, the greater her chances of the winning the White House might diminish the chances of Democrats winning the close Senate and House races.

If he drops out, we can then rally around Governor Pence, put him on stage for the last debate, and urge voters to vote for the Trump/Pence electors.

If the Trump/Pence electors get a majority of the Electoral College (270 Electoral Votes), the Constitution and Supreme Court will be tested to figure out what isn’t specifically provided for in the Constitution or Law.

Will the Supreme Court allow the Electors to select Pence as President? If not, Hillary doesn’t have a majority of the Electoral College, the House of Representatives selects the President.

In short, even if I wanted Trump to be my President, his only chance is a “Hail Mary” pass and we know how often they work out.

Personal Message to Donald J. Trump: If you really care about our country and don’t want Hillary to be President, drop out and let us take our chances. Whatever modicum of reputation as a man you want to retain, it is only possible if you put country before yourself and drop out. While I will still vote for you if you stay in the race, I beg you to take that cup from me.

Sidenote: Over the past few weeks, President Obama’s job approval numbers have been creeping up. Does anyone really think in the context of what is going on domestically and internationally people are saying he is doing a better job? Or could they just be saying he looks good compared to Clinton and Trump?

The Hill: Trump #1, Rand Paul done.

augustgraphic3The beltway newspaper “The Hill” is noting today that Hulk Hogan’s favorite Candidate Donald Trump is on top of the GOP in their rankings …at the same time that they’re saying you can stick a fork in Rand Paul, because he’s done.

10. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (July ranking: 6)

A candidate who attracted considerable media attention, particularly in the early days of his bid, Paul has drifted gradually downward in the polls.

The bad news: There is no strong reason to believe he can reverse his decline. The RCP averages have Paul 10th nationally, ninth in Iowa, ninth in New Hampshire and a dismal 12th in South Carolina. Paul is a known quantity and GOP voters simply aren’t buying what he’s selling.

Read it all here.

Is it about time that we start shedding some people in this race, so we can get down to business?

“Daring ideas are like chessmen moved forward; they may be beaten, but they may start a winning game.” (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)

Update:  8-11-15 @ noon:  Another Iowa caucus poll was just released and was in the field one day longer which showed an expected result-  The reaction from the debate appears to be confirming as discussed in the original post but the reactions are more muted and Rubio should be listed as a “winner.”  Further, the “Bubble” I discuss may be on the verge of disappearing.  Fiorina moves into the top tier debate and Christie falls back.

Additionally, there are two other pieces of news today that may be illuminating.

  1. Rick Perry has run out of cash and has asked his paid South Carolina staff to become volunteers.  Because he has concentrated this in the 3rd state (after Iowa and New Hampshire), it tells me he is hopeful to turn things around and/or he has decided to stay in the race as an “issues candidate” (see below) and that issue might just be Donald Trump.
  2. Rand Paul has decided to strike out at Donald Trump.  After Bush, Paul may have the strongest/smartest campaign team, he has plenty of money, and is likely spending money on polling/focus groups so this is not likely an action of desperation.  It has a purpose but I’m not sure what it is.  Veep Cred?  Believe Trump supporters would otherwise support him as “another kind of Republican?”  Precursor to choosing to run for re-election for US Senate and not wanting Trump at the top of the ticket?

I want to stress the following:

  1.  I don’t think any of this is predictive of who will be the nominee or who will still be viable once the elections start.  However, those in the bottom tier may have only one more chance to break-out and they may have to do it in the next debate.  
  2. In my mind, the value is what will happen with undecideds and to the support for the bottom 7-10 candidates when they disappear over the next 6 months.  This is roughly 30% of the primary voter population.  The candidates who pick up chunks of this will find higher viability via fundraising and ability to attract organization for when the elections start.
  3. This is Iowa and not the nation as a whole.   My main point was to attempt to assess movement and reaction to the debate as well as try to discern strength/weaknesses and future direction/discern of the individual campaigns.

However, this poll gave some interesting new information:

  1. Top 5 candidates as 2nd choice after their first choice (in order):  Carson (12%), Rubio (12%), Cruz (11%), Walker (10%), Fiorina (9%).  Personally, until and through the Iowa Caucus & New Hampshire primary, I think this is a critical component of staying in the field as it winnows down.
  2. Top 5 candidates with a favorable impression (in order):  Carson (78%), Walker (73%), Rubio (72%), Fiorina (70%), Huckabee (69%).  Lowest is Cristie (37%)
  3. Top 5 candidates with an unfavorable impression (in order):  Christie (43%), Paul (41%), Trump (37%), Bush (36%), Huckabee (19%).  Lowest is Carson (7%).
  4. Of those who watched the debate second debate (Fiorina got 83% in the first debate), Top 5 who made a favorable impression (in order):  Rubio (23%), Carson (22%), Cruz (11%), Trump (11%), Kasich (8%)
  5. And, finally, after watching the debate two Trump impressions:  56% are less comfortable with Trump as a candidate and 32% think Trump doesn’t show appropriate respect for women.

Original post:  At this stage of a campaign, I don’t put any stock in polling with regard to predicting who the nominee might be.  There are way too many variables, especially when you consider the current size of the field.  Too much can happen plus we don’t really know the voter’s second and third choices which is relevant as first choices fall out.  In a few months, the most relevant polling information will be candidate’s favorable/unfavorable numbers.  A candidate has negatives above a certain level is not longer viable (too unlikeable-think Gingrich). Similarly, a candidate who can’t stimulate a favorable number above a certain level is not going to be viable (not likable- think John Edwards).

However, I do think where polls are informative at this stage is they give understanding about what is moving people’s impression at particular stages of a campaign.  Most recently, we had a debate which was watched by a record number of viewers.  And, today we got the first post-debate scientific poll  measuring a highly informed group of voters (Iowa Republican caucus goers).  Yes, they are generally considered more conservative than the average Republican primary and general voter.  However, they are those most likely to be monitoring current developments and how they move can be a glimpse into what is happening or will happen in the general public.

So, comparing it to a similar poll of the same voters, what happened from before the debate and after the debate?

Apparent “winners;”     Fiorina (+7%), Trump (+6%), Bush (+5%), Carson (+5%), Cruz (+2%)

Apparent “losers:”       Walker (-10%), Jindal (-2%), Paul (-2%)- Editorial comment-  Walker might not really be a “loser” as his number settled to a level comparable to his national numbers.

Everybody else:          Between +1% and -1% which is really no movement.  Maybe a case can be made that no movement is a move backwards but, at this stage, I think treading water keeps them in the game unless they are near the bottom.

If these numbers extrapolate to the nation at large in national polls:

Practical Impact #1 for the CNN debate on September 16:

In top 10:  Bush, Carson, Cruz, Fiorina, Huckabee, Rubio, Trump and Walker

Bubble:    Christie, Kasich, Paul, Perry (two will make it, two will not)

The debates after the the CNN debate have not announced the selection criteria yet.  Thus, we don’t know whether the debates will have all remaining candidates or will have a limit on the number of candidates.   If the debates are limited to 7-10 candidates on the podium, I suspect we might see more fireworks with the lower tier candidates trying to stand-out.

Practical Impact #2 on fundraising:  Florina has reported a big spike in fundraising.  Cruz and Bush are rumored to have had a good weekend.  Graham, Jindal, Pataki & Santorum are likely going to see raising money very difficult.  Unless they are the break-out candidate (ala Fiorina) in the next debate, their reason for remaining in the race is down to two purposes:

  1. Be a “happy camper” and hope to be selected as Veep (ala Biden in 2008)
  2. Be an issue candidate hoping to frame an issue in the minds of voters (ala Gene McCarthy in 1968)

Practical Impact #3 on strategy:  

  1. Bush, Carson, Cruz, Huckabee, Rubio & Walker (assuming Walker’s support nationally doesn’t drop as it appears to have done in Iowa) are likely to continue to do what they have been doing.  They don’t have to be aggressive or throw any bombs.  They should just keep raising money and meeting with voters in low-volatile formats with an occasional policy speech or announcement to add to their gravitas.
  2. Fiorina is hot right now and needs to try to get one more bump to firmly get herself in list above.  Candidates who get hot risk flaming out.  If I were her, I’d maximize fundraising as money presents viability and hammer exclusively on Clinton to engender greater bona fides as a politico.
  3. Trump is rumored to be considering making a pledge to not run as an Independent and to support the GOP nominee.  While it might not be politically critical (I think it is) at this stage of the election, it will become practically critical prior to state primaries because the national and state parties will not make available voter lists and other data available to a candidate who hasn’t made such a pledge.  Additionally he needs to find a way to make amends with women, he might be able to reverse his current high unfavorable rating where he only trails Graham (40%) and Christie (36%) with 35% of the GOP primary voters having an unfavorable opinion of him.    Finally, with the exception of building a wall on our southern border, Trump has been high on rhetoric and low on policy.  At minimum, he should unveil 2 or 3 policy specifics.
  4. Bubble candidates have two choices:  Throw bombs and hope to move up while risking they blow themselves up.  Christie and Paul appear to pursing this strategy.  Or, do as Floriina did-  steadily and seriously talk about issues with voters and hone their message.  Perry and Kasich appear to moving in this direction.
  5. Bottom tier candidates have one realistic hope- be the next Fiorina in the CNN September debate.

Practical Impact #4 on organizational emphasis:  You might be wondering how the Fox debate influences organization priorities?  The top candidates (poll standing or money) have the luxury of looking forward to the blocking and tackling of preparation to an actual Election Day.  By the time the campaign moves to South Carolina, it is likely the field will be reduced to only 4-5 candidates at most.  Right now, NO CANDIDATE is assured of being in the top 5 after New Hampshire and there will be only one winner in Iowa.

  1. Iowa:  This state is famous for picking candidates who disregard perceptions of national viability or conventional wisdom (Santorum in 2012 or Huckabee in 2008) or are regional favorites (Dole in 1988 and 1996).  This state is ripe for someone to make a statement and catapult up in standing.  This is where Cruz, Rubio, and Walker can shine.  Trump and Fiorina have real problem here because of its intense retail politics, with which they have little experience.  Nobody has ever won here without being excellent retail politicians.
  2. New Hampshire:    Because this is almost a home state for the Bush family and they have most of the political leaders in their camp, this is a place where Bush must do reasonably well (yet currently is polling below his national standing) and someone can land a knock-out punch.  Carson, Paul and possibly Kasich can be that candidate as they appear to be polling well so far.  Trump also seems to have captured the imagination of NH voters above his national standing so he should attempt to build on his standing there.

Are you going to join the fun? AFP’s Defending the American Dream Summit coming in less than 2 weeks!

Have you registered yet?

In less than 2 weeks, on August 21st and 22nd, Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and whole pile of other speakers will be addressing the 9th Annual Americans for Prosperity’s Defending the American Dream Summit in Columbus, OH.

I’ve got my reservation, and my flight, and as I understand, there’s a great group of South Dakotans going including legislators and recent statewide candidates who want to make sure that the free market continues to thrive in America, and want to enhance their campaigning and organizational skills .

According to the web site for the event:

Americans for Prosperity is thrilled to annually host the Defending the American Dream Summit where free-market champions from across the nation come together for an unforgettable weekend with a shared desire to advance spreading opportunity and economic freedom.

Attendees of the Defending the American Dream Summit will have the opportunity to receive high-level training from experts who can teach how to affect real change for our nation’s future.

Join us in 2015 at the Greater Columbus Convention Center to take part in cutting-edge activist training, become better educated on relevant free-market issues, network with thousands of like-minded activists, and hear from top-tier speakers and panelists.

Read that here.

I’m kind of excited, as I’ll be attending as “media,” and should have opportunities to sit in on interviews and q & a with several of the people who are running as president.

If you think this might be something you’d like to take part in, you owe it to yourself to register today!

That was quick. The Trump implosion and Megyn Kelly’s “blood coming out of her wherever”

I was spending time watching TV with the family last night when the Trump Campaign ended. I’m just sorry I missed it, and had to read about it afterwards.

And it was just as Stu Whitney’s Argus Leader wordprocessor spit out a column pretending to be about politics. As you can see – it was trying to portray Trump as catching the wind:

Clarence Kooistra of Sioux Falls, a former state senator and Vietnam veteran who advocates for veterans and their families, told me Thursday that Trump is his choice for president.

“I’m going to strongly support him, because I like what he’s saying,” said Kooistra. “He speaks his mind and he’s an outsider, which is what Washington needs right now. I’m for him 100 percent.”


But Trump’s refusal to submit to the standard cycle of outrage and conciliation only enhanced his appeal, even after a less-than-polished performance in Thursday’s first GOP debate. Similarly, his dismissal of “political correctness” when confronted with claims of past misogynistic comments endeared him to potential voters who prize fearlessness over feelings.

Read that here.

Trump is Clarence Kooistra’s choice? I didn’t realize he switched back to being a Republican again, after abandoning the GOP, and wanting to run as a Democrat after losing the primary in 2006.

But getting back to Trump catching the wind – I’d be curious to see if all of these Trump loving people clamoring to tell Whitney why they want to put their name on the line for him still “like what he’s saying” after his comments Friday night.

Because instead of catching the wind, he’s catching a whole lot of other stuff.  From Yahoo Politics this morning:

Trump’s jaw-dropping comment Friday night that Fox News’ Megyn Kelly had “blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever” has sparked a backlash that will only build in the coming days.

Already, Trump has been disinvited from a prominent speaking gig at the main Republican event this weekend, the RedState Gathering in Atlanta.

“There are bounds of what’s acceptable in our discourse and they’re not different for you, or me, or someone else. I’m not going to have a guy on stage with my wife and daughter in the crowd who thinks a tough question from a woman is because of hormones,” RedState organizer Erick Erickson, a prominent conservative voice, told the Washington Post.


“This is just another example of weakness through being politically correct. For all of the people who were looking forward to Mr. Trump coming, we will miss you. Blame Erick Erickson, your weak and pathetic leader,” according to a campaign statement.

Read it here.

I think my immediate reaction was “Oh My God.”  And I’m wondering how former Senator Kooistra and other Trump followers are reconciling that comment and their support for the presidential candidate to their spouses, and explaining that it’s just another example of “political correctness” when they object to Trump’s derision of Megyn Kelly by saying she had “blood coming out of her wherever.

The reality is that it’s not political correctness. It’s profane.

But it’s nice to see that Trump will likely be forced from the race sooner than later, so we can get down to the serious business of electing a Republican to the presidency.

That’s a scary thought.

From Newsmax:

Donald Trump is surging in New Hampshire and is now in second place, just behind former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, according to a poll released Tuesday.

While many political commentators have predicted that Trump’s candidacy will likely be short-lived, the billionaire real estate developer and reality TV star is gaining popularity in the Granite State, according to the latest survey by the Suffolk University Political Research Center of 500 likely Republican primary voters conducted June 18-22.

Read it here.

Press Release: South Dakota Draft Jeb Bush Group Releases TV Ad

South Dakota Draft Jeb Bush Group Releases TV Ad

House Assistant Majority Leader Shoots Ad Using iPhone

Sioux Falls, SD— May 15, 2015 — Today Rep. Steve Westra (R-SD) announced the release of a  television ad urging Governor Jeb Bush to run for President. This is the first such ad by a South Dakota group for the 2016 election cycle. Rep. Westra, assistant South Dakota majority leader, along with eight other South Dakota state legislators formed the volunteer South Dakotans for Jeb Bush group earlier this year.

“Our draft Jeb Bush push has support across South Dakota, and we are pleased with the hundreds of South Dakotans that have come forward to urge Jeb Bush to run,” said Westra. “Jeb Bush shares the values of South Dakotans. From his support of a smaller less intrusive Federal government, protection of our Second Amendment rights, to lower taxes for small businesses and families, Jeb Bush will represent South Dakota values.”

The South Dakotans for Jeb Bush group has created a Facebook page that has gathered hundreds of names of South Dakotans that are urging Jeb Bush to run for the presidency of the United States. “This South Dakota group was the first in the nation formed to urge Jeb Bush to run for the office of the President,” said Westra.

The television ad was filmed entirely using an iPhone 6 plus using volunteers to assist in the production of the advertisement. This is the first time a South Dakota political ad was shot using an iPhone only. South Dakotans for Jeb Bush has set up a Facebook site at www.facebook.com/sdforjeb with over 500 names accumulated to date. The group will be sending Jeb Bush the names of South Dakotans that were early supporters of his campaign.