Oddsmakers up GOP chances in SD from 90 to 95% with Rounds win

The website Five Thirty Eight Politics have been tracking the US Senate Races Nationwide, and they just upgraded Republican’s chances at winning the US Senate seat from 90 to 95% certainty that the GOP will win in the fall:

We last issued a U.S. Senate forecast in mid-March. Not a lot has changed since then.

The Senate playing field remains fairly broad. There are 10 races where we give each party at least a 20 percent chance of winning,1 so there is a fairly wide range of possible outcomes. But all but two of those highly competitive races (the two exceptions are Georgia and Kentucky) are in states that are currently held by Democrats. Furthermore, there are three states — South Dakota, West Virginia, and Montana2 — where Democratic incumbents are retiring, and where Republicans have better than an 80 percent chance of making a pickup, in our view.

So it’s almost certain that Republicans are going to gain seats. The question is whether they’ll net the six pickups necessary to win control of the Senate. If the Republicans win only five seats, the Senate would be split 50-50 but Democrats would continue to control it because of the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Joseph Biden.


Finally, in South Dakota, the former Republican Gov. Mike Rounds won his primary last week. He’s the far stronger candidate than the Democrat, Rick Weiland, who lost election attempts to the U.S. House in 1996 and 2002. Plus, South Dakota is a red state. We give Republicans a 95 percent chance of victory, up from 90 percent before.

Read it all here.

Is Wismer’s 35% an artificial number?

I just had this pointed out to me in the wording of the Rassmussen Reports poll under the questions:

South Dakota Survey of 500 Likely Voters

Conducted June, 2014
By Rasmussen Reports

 4* If the 2014 election for governor of South Dakota was held today, would you vote for Republican Dennis Daugaard or Democrat Rick Weiland?

So, was Wismer’s name even asked? Or was this just a typo in what they put online?  I’m wondering if it was an error, as given that Weiland has been running for months and was on television a fair amount, I would expect that he would run stronger than Susan Wismer in a head-to-head.

Wismer may actually be weaker than this poll portrays.

(And if that’s the case, it also confirms that with Pressler in the mix, he’s taking a chunk out of Weiland’s total.)

Rasmussen Reports Poll – Rounds holds huge lead on Weiland (44% to 29%). Gordon who?

I’ve gotten a hold of the rest of the polling information from Rasmussen reports, and it isn’t looking good for Rick Weiland. In fact, his hold on Democrats is worse than Wismer’s:

3* If the 2014 election for U.S. Senate was held today, would you vote for Republican Mike Rounds, Democrat Rick Weiland or Independent Larry Pressler.

44% Rounds
29% Weiland
18% Pressler
2% Some other candidate
7% Not sure

Read it here (subscription required).

Considering Weiland has been running without being hindered by the uncertainty of whether or not he will be the nominee, you would have thought he would have been polling in the 35% range as Wismer is. But it seems that the more he speaks about expanding Obamacare, killing jobs, and killing the Keystone XL pipeline, the more ground he loses.

If Pressler is pulling from anyone, it would appear that he’s pulling from both candidates equally, given both his former tenure in office as a Republican, balanced against his high profile support of President Obama in both elections.

And with Gordon Howie being polled as “other,” it’s a pretty inauspicious start for his spoiler campaign.

Rasmussen poll: Daugaard 55%, Wismer 35%. Democrat chances…. Well, it’s not looking good for the “D” team.

From Rasmussen Reports, we’re getting a sense that this Gubernatorial election is going to be another blowout for Daugaard, on par with his shellacking of Scott Heidepreim in 2010.

Republican incumbent Dennis Daugaard posts a 20-point lead over Democratic challenger Susan Wismer, the winner of her party’s primary last Tuesday, in South Dakota’s race for governor.

A new Rasmussen Reports statewide telephone survey finds Daugaard picking up 55% of the vote to Wismer’s 35%. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, while seven percent (7%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)


The survey of 750 Likely Voters in South Dakota was conducted on June 4-5, 2014 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Read it all here.

It also looks like they polled the US Senate in this go around, and will be giving us a glimpse into those results shortly.

Fake Internet troll who purchased followers not as good as his word? Imagine that.

In the aftermath of last Tuesday’s election, several things have been happening behind the scenes.

Stace Nelson is still giving sore loser interviews as quickly as the Mitchell paper will print them, while the rest of the GOP coalesces around Mike Rounds as it’s nominee. The State Republican Party is gearing up for convention in Rapid City. And we find that internet troll @rinomikesd might not be as good as his word.

The rinomikesd.com website has been around since last year attacking (now GOP Nominee) Mike Rounds, and curiously, the website which we’d identified previously as coming out of Texas has now gone dark, while the twitter presence remains online. The twitter account was the one we’d identified months ago as having purchased 3000-3500 of its twitter followers.

I bring up a notation that @rinomikesd might not be as good as his word, as last year, in an attempt to prove that it was an authentic account written by a real republican, this twitterer loudly boasted that he’d support the GOP nominee:


(As captured by Homefront Politics @SDHomePolitics on twitter)

But fast forward to this week….


And the focus has not gone to supporting the GOP Nominee, but to Independent candidate Gordon Howie. Which seems to curiously be continuing the battle plan of divide & conquer which was attempted in the primary to give the GOP the weakest candidate.

This should come as no surprise, considering that the ultimate end game of this character is not to support Republicans, but to beat them in November. And as David Montgomery of the Argus Leader had written, he believes that the man throwing mud from behind the curtain is Democrat consultant & Lobbyist Mike Chapman of Texas & Washington DC.

So, a fake Internet troll who purchased followers might not be as good as his word, and might be a democrat trying to beat Republicans?

Imagine that.

Rick Weiland going full on liberal in US Senate race. Obamacare doesn’t go far enough, raise minumum wage, kill Keystone XL.

Rick Weiland was on the liberal leaning Ed Schultz Show on MSNBC the other day, and interestingly, didn’t hold back. He went full on liberal in his views, and gave Republicans great fodder for the  upcoming fall election:

SCHULTZ: Rick, do you run on obama care? do you run on the affordable care act? does that play well in that state?

WEILAND: you know, it’s so interesting. one of my opponents, my likely — well the republican opponent sells insurance. that’s how he’s made his living and i respect him for that. But I came out very early on and i think what’s missing in obama care or the affordable care act is it’s simply not affordable enough. I think we need to add medicare to obamacare, that will fix it. people should have a choice to buy into medicare or buy private insurance if that’s what they want. i think that will bring down the cost of insurance. these $50 million ceo’s running these health insurance companies that’s just not right. when people can’t afford to buy health insurance. so i think give them a choice, i want to have that debate. i’ve been having medicare town hall meetings since i got into this race 12 months ago and i think that’s where all democrats should be. give people a chance to let people buy in.

SCHULTZ: Medicare for all. that’s actually the next round. that’s being, i think, very futuristic. Your opponent, Mike Rounds, labels you as the liberal. i want you to describe your politics. are you a liberal? do you run from that term? or do you embrace it?

WEILAND: You know, i’m a populist, ed. always have been. i think that’s why states like south dakota from time to time, will send populist progressive thinkers to washington who are womening to stand up to big money special interest. look at the history in the midwest. a couple of great guys up there in north dakota. conrad. We’ve had johnson. humphrey, harkin. all over the midwest. and wellstone. don’t forget paul wellstone. that’s the kind of race we’re running and that’s the kind of race that i think will connect with the voters.

SCHULTZ: that would be very progressive. there seems to be a tremendous amount of conversation, at least there was in this past super tuesday we had earlier this week, about economic populism. when you talk about minimum wage in south dakota, what kind of response do you get? when you talk about energy issues, what kind of response do you get?

WEILAND: well, listen, we’ve got a minimum wage ballot initiative on the fall ballot. I helped collect the signatures last fall to make sure it got on the ballot. Of 2,000 South Dakotans are going to show up to vote to give themselves a raise and a better chance at a better life. i’m a small business owner. i’ll be the first to tell you, i think it’s a job creator. not a job destroyer. you give a working family another buck and a quarter an hour and you think they’re in going to invest that in offshore bank accounts? they’re going to be buying gs and that demand will created a supply and it’s going to juice the economy.

SCHULTZ: and finally, rick, as the democratic candidate, where do you stand on the keystone xl pipeline. if you adviced the president tonight on what to do, what would you say?

WEILAND: well, that’s nothing in my opinion that’s nothing more than a big money con job. the only one that will come out on top of that is transcanada. and their investors including the koch brothers. there’s no jobs per se. it’s an export pipeline. that oil is going overseas. their arguments about big job creation and energy security is bogus. they’re going to make billions of dollars over the course of the lifeline of that pipeline and i just don’t buy it.

SCHULTZ: so, i take that as a direct no. you do not support the keystone xl pipeline?

WEILAND: that’s exactly right. no jobs. no energy. no way.

View it here.

That interview was eye opening.

Weiland’s goal isn’t to stop Obamacare. It’s the opposite. He wants to expand it into complete socialized Medicine.

Weiland admits he had a direct hand in circulating the job killing ballot measure to tell business owners that they have to pay high school kids more an hour, and vastly increase  business labor costs.

Weiland says No to Jobs. No to Energy, and “No Way” to the Keystone XL pipeline, which even members of his own party support.

And at the same time he goes full on liberal, he tries to weasel out of wearing the label around his neck. Shultz asks him ” i want you to describe your politics. Are you a liberal? Do you run from that term? Or do you embrace it?”  And Weiland can’t even say the word. He refuses to let it leave his lips.

Here’s one for the state’s media. Ed Schultz can’t get him to answer the question about being a liberal, Whether he runs from or embraces the term.  The question is – if he’s going to walk like a duck, quack like a duck, and fly like a duck… why won’t he admit it?

Gordon Howie’s goal in running – act as a spoiler and give Obama another vote in US Senate.

I see Gordon Howie is out on youtube today claiming he can win in the fall. Which, if you look at the evidence, is little more than a RINO fantasy cooked up in his own mind.

In those times Howie ran as a Republican, in 2010, Gordon received the greatest number of votes that he’s ever received in any election, 10,426 votes, which curiously provided him with only 2300 or so more votes than he’d received when running for the Legislature in his legislative district. In 2008 he only received 8063 votes in the race for State Senate. (5833 votes for House in 2006, and 6671 votes for house in 2004.).

In fact, his home district provided him with about a quarter of the votes he’d received on a statewide basis, and were among the areas he’s polled the strongest in. His support fell off quickly after that. But even in those districts, he couldn’t defeat the front running Republican, Dennis Daugaard.  In only Fall River County could he approach 25% of the vote, and in his home county, he couldn’t break 20%.

County Howie #VOTING %
Todd 67 182 36.81%
Fall River 375 1532 24.48%
Meade 619 2841 21.79%
Bennett 61 280 21.79%
Harding 76 350 21.71%
Custer 322 1528 21.07%
Jackson 74 359 20.61%
Perkins 88 454 19.38%
Pennington 2040 10761 18.96%
Mellette 56 298 18.79%
Haakon 125 693 18.04%
Tripp 154 862 17.87%
Sully 53 311 17.04%
Butte 208 1246 16.69%
Shannon 9 55 16.36%
Hanson 89 551 16.15%
Jones 40 265 15.09%
Buffalo 11 74 14.86%
Lawrence 468 3266 14.33%
Davison 173 1237 13.99%
Minnehaha 1761 13433 13.11%
Yankton 205 1623 12.63%
Beadle 161 1289 12.49%
Faulk 39 317 12.30%
McCook 69 567 12.17%
Lincoln 454 4065 11.17%
Lyman 58 534 10.86%
Turner 158 1463 10.80%
Bon Homme 64 598 10.70%
Edmunds 36 340 10.59%
Stanley 71 673 10.55%
Union 165 1706 9.67%
Moody 51 543 9.39%
Hutchinson 114 1221 9.34%
Ziebach 10 110 9.09%
Potter 63 695 9.06%
Clay 68 761 8.94%
Deuel 39 452 8.63%
Miner 18 213 8.45%
Hyde 37 443 8.35%
Brown 267 3291 8.11%
Spink 79 975 8.10%
Marshall 34 429 7.93%
Lake 81 1045 7.75%
Grant 90 1163 7.74%
Day 37 482 7.68%
Hand 41 535 7.66%
Douglas 63 891 7.07%
Kingsbury 64 932 6.87%
McPherson 42 614 6.84%
Dewey 16 239 6.69%
Campbell 26 391 6.65%
Corson 12 181 6.63%
Hughes 238 3619 6.58%
Sanborn 16 248 6.45%
Gregory 31 481 6.44%
Roberts 43 716 6.01%
Brookings 153 2643 5.79%
Aurora 19 331 5.74%
Charles Mix 48 855 5.61%
Hamlin 47 844 5.57%
Codington 118 2273 5.19%
Walworth 64 1237 5.17%
Brule 21 435 4.83%
Jerauld 8 227 3.52%
Clark 19 549 3.46%
TOTAL 10426 83817 12.44%

In fact, in over half of South Dakota counties, Howie failed to break 10%.  

In his own electoral history, suffice it to say that US Senate candidate Mike Rounds polled far, far stronger than 4th place finisher Howie ever could hope to. Then and now, Howie lacks the appeal, statewide organization, the money, and with his past tax troubles & legal issues, has baggage that far exceeds that of any other candidate in the race.

The problem with Howie’s delusions of grandeur, is that in the face of the impossibility of his win, he’s acting as nothing other than the unwitting pawn of Democrats who are seeking to roll the dice, and pick up an otherwise impossible win. And if he doesn’t know that, he should.

In 2010, Dennis Daugaard came out of the race against Howie tremendously strong, and defeated one of the stronger candidates Democrats have offered to date, Scott Heidepreim.  Daugaard won 61.5% to 38.5%.  Mike Rounds’ 55% win in the 5 way US Senate primary was even stronger than even Daugaard’s own decisive 50.4% win in his 5 way primary.

But in the fall contest this year there’s no straight head to head contest. We have the party nominees, as well the two independents, Gordon Howie, and former Republican US Senator Larry Pressler.

Democrats were quick to assist Larry Pressler with petition circulation, since philosophically he’d gone over to their side long ago, and was the highest ranking former public official endorsing President Obama in both election.  Of course they would help to get him on the ballot – he was one of theirs now.

But the case for Howie to try to hand the seat over to Democrats is far odder. He claims to be conservative. He claims to be Republican. But his actions speak otherwise by actively trying to deny the Republican nominee the seat.

History shows he has a very limited electoral base, and accordingly, absolutely no chance of winning whatsoever.

The only purpose he serves in the contest is to attempt to pull more votes away from Republican Mike Rounds.  And Howie knows it, but chooses to ignore it. He claims to be Republican, but is running as an independent solely to be a spoiler in the race for Republicans, and to give Obama another vote in US Senate.

Gordon Howie is registered as a Republican, but is running as an independent. And his actions are all designed to put a Democrat in office. A Democrat who will not only support Obama, but in Rick Weiland, one who doesn’t think Obamacare goes far enough.

I hate to say it, but if ever there was someone in a political race who was Republican-In-Name-Only, that person would be Gordon Howie.

Rino-Gordon-HowieGordon might claim he’s the conservative in the race, but he’s not. He’s Democrat’s best friend.  Gordon Howie’s goal in running isn’t to win. It’s to act as a spoiler and give Obama another vote in the US Senate.

Bosworth press conference coverage seems a bit damning.

From the Argus Leader article, one wonders if she should plead this out quickly and quietly, since it seems her public statements already allude to an admission of the conduct she’s being accused of:

At her news conference Friday, Bosworth declined to answer questions about the substance of the charges, citing legal advice. Specifically, she wouldn’t say whether she didn’t read or understand the oath she signed that people were signing her petitions in her presence.

Bosworth has admitted that multiple people signed her petitions when she wasn’t there, despite signing the oath to the contrary. She said on Friday that she hadn’t realized she was doing anything wrong.

“These were real people who were supporters of mine. They aren’t fake, and they aren’t dead,” Bosworth said. “Why would I knowingly and intentionally perjure myself to obtain signatures of legitimate voters and supporters?”

Read it here.

“Bosworth has admitted that multiple people signed her petitions when she wasn’t there, despite signing the oath to the contrary. She said on Friday that she hadn’t realized she was doing anything wrong.”

You ever watch the reruns of the “Law & Order: Criminal Intent”
Television Series? Some of the unintentionally hilarious parts are where they have the accused in the interview room and they admit the crime, while their attorney sits next to them.

Since I don’t believe her criminal attorney is in attendance at these press events, I can only imagine that he’s is in his office, shaking his head in disbelief that she’s holding press conferences, attacking the prosecution, while publicly fielding questions that could incriminate her.

I think she’s missing the point.

Oh my. Annette Bosworth held a press conference today, taking aim at Marty Jackley for bringing charges against her for falsely certifying that she was the person who circulated several petitions:

bosworthDuring an afternoon news conference Friday, Bosworth said Jackley’s charges are politically motivated since she was running against former Governor Mike Rounds – who appointed Jackley as the attorney general.

Bosworth also believes that the charges are part of some sort of revenge Jackley is attempting to seek after the state failed to take away her medical license in 2012.


Bosworth says all the people who signed her nominating petitions wanted her name on the primary ballot.

“Those were real people who were supporters of mine. They weren’t fake and they weren’t dead,” Bosworth said.

Read it all here.

The allegations that have her in dutch aren’t that they’re not supporters, or that they didn’t sign it.  It’s over whether or not she was the person who physically circulated the petitions, and if she actually witnessed the people signing them.

It wouldn’t matter if it was her sister who signed it (and in this case she was one of them) it’s whether Annette physically was in the person’s presence witnessing her sign the document.

That’s why I’m a little surprised at the kerfuffle on her part over it. Among politicos in South Dakota, those are very long standing, and well understood requirements of South Dakota law.

As you will note from the language on the image of one of Curtis Strong’s petitions (that were fine, he just didn’t have enough signatures), I happen to have a scan of (click to enlarge):

it-was-me“I, under oath, state that I circulated the above petition, that each signer personally signed this petition in my presence, and that either the signer or I added the printed name, the residence address of the signer, the date of signing, and the county of voter registration.”

The oath is key to what Annette is being accused of, that allegedly she didn’t circulate some, and she allegedly attested that they signed in her presence, when they didn’t.

It’s not mine to prove or disprove, but to say it’s the result of a vendetta on Jackley’s part is a bit of a stretch. She either followed the rules, or she didn’t.

There’s not a lot of middle ground.

South Dakota's #1 Political Website