An old pro in campaigns said something to me on the 1980 Senate campaign: “After Sunday night, nothing a campaign says makes any difference. Minds are made up. The only focus left is Get Out The Vote. Nowwe just thank our supporters and motivate our volunteers to GOTV.” I think that is true for one reason: “What really can one say that will be new to the debate?”
So, for the next 30+ hours we are on the final stretch and will soon know who our Governor, US Rep. & legislative nominees will be. So, I’m interested for what hit for you during the campaigns. Good, bad, the ugly. Just so you know, if you are answering to try to sell a particular candidate, I will delete the comment. Selling is over. Its time to begin the evaluation period before we have results so we have a base upon which to judge against.
Why you went one way or another? Did you change your mind and why? What was your candidate’s biggest error (especially unforced)? What was the biggest decision point for you? What do you think is the biggest decision point in the campaign? I have my personal answers to these but I don’t want to answer to derail your thoughts. I’ll answer before the polls close for sure.
It’s a pretty open thread so long you aren’t trying to litigate the campaign. It’s over but we don’t know the results. I want to begin an analysis of what happened for you and globally. Thanks for playing.
21 thoughts on ““Don’t cry because its over. Smile because it happened.” Dr. Seuss”
While I enjoyed analyzing the campaigns, I appreciated both candidates. In the end, I know and trust one person a great deal who worked with both candidates, and I relied heavily on that person’s recommendation.
Thanks. That is the type of response I was looking for. Can I “bucket it” in a “personal recommendation” category? Can I ask if it was a recommendation which focused on an issue or personal attribute? You don’t have to be specific unless it is necessary. Troy
Sure, call it a personal recommendation or referral. I don’t want to say it was issue-based, or somehow imply that one person was lacking. I mean it when I say I respect both candidates, which made this a hard decision.
I’ve criticized the Jackley campaign for their poor response or preparedness to the “negative” campaigning, but that was only the fun of politics; their tactics, good or bad, didn’t weigh on my decision. Mailings, emails, etc. from either candidate had little to no impact.
I dont watch TV and know both personally. One I respect and admire. The other took the campaign exactly where I expected. At the end of the day I wanted to hold my head high win or lose and there was only one option in the gov race that made that possible.
I want a candidate with 2 or 3 principles they will not break to win an election. Say what you believe in and leave it there.
Living in D5, I will throw my two bits in. Lots of candidates locally as well as Gov and REP race.
Governor: Noem wins D5 because its her back yard.
Rep: Tapio’s back yard but came on late. Krebs by an eyelash.
Sheriff: Incumbent Howell hasn’t done anything to boot him.
Senate: Callies is a big underdog. Schoenbeck gave a black eye to Watertown when he quit, didn’t quit, got booted out of caucus, and called a fellow legislator pond scum but an upset if Callies pulls it out.
Commissioner: Johnson gets booted .
Amendment Y passes
It could be time to toss the crystal ball as obsolete.
I’ve always liked both candidates personally. In the end my decision was about geography.
CNN’s “glass ceiling” piece was the final data point I needed to help me make up my mind.
In the Governor’s race one of the candidates clearly projected a thorough understanding of the many issues a governor will face, because they have actually held those positions. The other knew all the buzz words and one liners, but appears to be a mile wide and an inch deep. I will vote for true experience in that race.
In the House race it was very clear early on that one candidate is a work horse and the other a show pony. The third candidate a “did not show.” I will vote for the work horse in that race.
In the Governor’s race, I know and have worked with each closely on issues and legislation. While both are solid, I am going with the one I believe will bring a fresh perspective to Pierre.
In the Congressional race, one stands out in terms of both breadth and depth of issue knowledge and the emotional intelligence to effectively defend our state’s interests. This race was a much easier decision.
For me, I had been undecided for a long time. Like them both and know them both.
I did not like either candidate when they weren’t authentic. Sometimes in these races, candidates aren’t themselves. They will say things or promise things they normally wouldn’t do in real life just to try to win a vote.
I also disliked the entire talk of ‘negative’ politics. Of course it was going to end up ‘negative’ but I found that BOTH teams engaged in it — from the lines they would use (Washington insider) and (government lawyer) — to the ads and mailers they put out. BOTH campaigns ran ads but one team’s strategy was to play victim and act like they were running a positive campaign. I have postcards that would prove differently!
Ultimately the Kaiser issue pushed me over the edge — I don’t like at all how that issue was handled years ago. Should never have happened and if handled appropriately, we would have never heard her name.
“BOTH campaigns ran [negative] ads but one team’s strategy was to play victim and act like they were running a positive campaign.”
Agreed. Noem’s “negative” ads included real people, with a real story to tell (whether you believe the stories or not). Jackley’s “negative” ads used his wife and kids to attack Noem for being connected to Washington, or simply being negative. Jackley’s “negative” ads were just bad on all levels, unless the only goal was to say “Washington” as many times as possible.
If Jackley loses, it’ll be because of his media strategy, or lack of a strategy, in these last couple weeks.
Did the same person do Krebs and Jackley’s ads?
Yes. I did.
What I don’t understand is how people complain about running negative ads, but then attack the other for not being Trump-y enough. Say what you will about Trump, he ran one of the most negative campaigns ever, changing the way we run campaigns (think all the attempts at creatively demeaning nicknames for opponents). You can’t have you cake and eat it too on this one, and that’s where I think Mr. Jackley really went wrong.
Anono at 11:08: The Kaiser issue most affected me, as well. Something tells me we’re not alone on that score.
I think the Kaiser issue really hurt Jackley. It put into question his motives and judgement. Mrs Kaiser came off as sincere and rightfully upset about her treatment bi Jackley. It was what I consider a game changer.
This was a tightly contested race for a long time. In my view, Noem began to create separation these past two weeks in both the debates, but more importantly the paid advertising. The simple truth is her negative ads are much more effective than Jackley’s. I think GOP voters won’t buy the “she didn’t fix Congress” line because it’s a nonsensical argument. In contrast, the attacks on Jackley’s credibility and job performance as AG have been well-documented and, in the case of the Kaiser ad, delivered with an emotional wallop. It seems as if Jackley and his team were caught flat footed. They knew they were vulnerable to these attacks and had months to prepare. What we needed was a Marty to camera ad where he strongly defends his integrity and provides us a rationale for some of his decisions. When we didn’t get that and when he didn’t deliver a powerful defense in the debates, we were left with a void. I think Noem gets 52% or even blows up to 55% come Election Day.
Great analysis and hope you are right wazzzupp
I asked my daughter who is too busy to watch TV or read newspapers what she thinks. She met Noem once, years ago.
So she told me that the only stuff they have received in the mail are the Jackley ads attacking Noem for going negative. Yet she hasn’t seen any examples of this. She and her husband are registered as Republicans but probably haven’t voted in primaries so they didn’t get on the other candidates’ mailing lists. This is an efficient use of voter data. It also suggests that if you don’t want a daily deluge of junk mail, don’t vote in the primaries. Just putting that out there, for those of you who don’t care who wins, you just want it to stop
A few thoughts…
-The Jackley campaign isn’t embracing technology and choosing to spend campaign money on mailers for those who likely won’t vote;
-Personal experience: I voted early in April and the only mailers I have received were from Jackley and that PAC going after Krebs. If that’s the case it tells me that Jackley or that PAC aren’t keeping their voting lists up-to-date by scrubbing from the list those who have already voted. By not doing so, they’re spending way too much money chasing votes that have long been cast.
This is only my opinion.
Don’t exercise your precious right to vote because you might have to throw some junk mail in the garbage? I sure hope people ignore your bad advice and continue to let their voice be heard.
What I find interesting is I really don’t know who will win the governor’s race.
I know who I want to win and why, but this is one of the rare times when I do think it could go either way based on turnout.
Not a lot of reliable polls in this race.
Tomorrow should be an interesting day from GOV, to US House to many Sheriff races like in Lincoln and Brown and Meade to the legislature with some interesting primaries (Russell win in 30? Holmes-Zikmond-Tornow in 14 or Pischke-Hansen-Enners in 25?; to Dist 1–will Susan Wismer get beat or surviv her 3 way primary on Dem side and many more) to precinct people indirectly for the AG race to the Amendment Y ballot measure to the civic center vote in Pennington.
Political junkies tomorrow is the Superbowl, make sure and vote! then either go to a candidate party or get back here and comment on the result!
Comments are closed.