In an article entitled “S.D. Democrats grasp for elusive path to gains” by David Montgomery this morning in the Argus Leader, I almost had to take some pepto bismol after reading all three pages of the most nauseating pablum I’ve read yet this election.
The spin is so bad, it’s giving people motion sickness:
After losing 14 seats in a GOP landslide in 2010, Democrats were waging an unprecedentedly aggressive and coordinated campaign to win them back. Republicans across the region were hit by punchy, professionally designed postcards with synchronized messages, criticizing them for their votes for budget cuts and the bills that became the unsuccessful Referred Laws 14 and 16.
For the most part, these ” punchy, professionally designed postcards with synchronized messages” were awful, and some of the worst kind of hack. As an example…..
Professional? This postcard does a poor job of using white space, and even went out with a glaring error on it (This November 6th, This November 6th….). Sorry, but it’s awful, and looks like it was done in-house by an intern. And then was approved by another one.
The state Democratic Party this year played a central role in legislative campaigns, essentially serving as campaign manager and support staff for any lawmaker who wanted it. The party designed and distributed political postcards around the state on behalf of candidates, instead of a more traditional arrangement where candidates and the party run separate mail campaigns.
Republicans saw things differently. They complained about a Democratic campaign they saw as negative, personal, and sometimes inaccurate or misleading.
?If that were the case, why did (Sen.) Mark Johnston win after (the state GOP) just attacked and attacked and attacked (Democratic nominee) Kent Alberty?? Nesselhuf said. ?If they felt that way, they wouldn?t use the same tactics.?
Is he kidding? “just attacked and attacked and attacked Kent Alberty?”Here’s where Monty needs to be scolded for not even bothering to do any fact checking. I have it on good authority that, one postcard was mailed against Alberty. But this was after he’d sent out at least SIX separate postcards against Mark Johnston.
“Attacked, and attacked, and attacked?” Ben must have been only channeling himself when he came up with that one.
And then was this comment from the legislator who set the gold standard for being ineffective:
Kloucek said his own failings contributed to his loss after 22 consecutive years of service.
?My opponent did not win, I lost it,? Kloucek said. ?I played defense and started answering his negative charges … instead of promoting my own agenda and campaign as I had intended. Once I switched to defense, it was downhill from there.?
Well, Frank, I’ll agree to a point. You do have failings.
Frank’s opponent wiped the floor with him, and beat him like a rented mule in this race. “Frankly,” it was a combination of factors. Bill Van Gerpen worked harder than any opponent had ever worked to date in challenging Kloucek, and ran a positive, issues oriented race.
If there was anything negative, it might have been that Frank has managed to be there 22 years, and has produced almost next to nothing. I did hear that his extended longevity had been brought up very simply by the challenger being in favor of term limits. Frank has never produced anything except aggressive campaigning, and district had finally tired of him.
It wasn’t handed to Van Gerpen – he earned it, and I doubt Frank will take him on again.
Now, in the article – I was glad to hear one thing from the Democrats:
Nesselhuf?s term as party chairman runs through December 2014, and he said he intends to fill out his term. He said that while the party may tinker its approach for the 2014 election, it largely will stay the course.
WOO HOO! A net gain of zero? Stay the course! Looking forward to 2014!