South Dakota Democrats only able to put together 2 legitimate victories out of 105 seats.

So, about those South Dakota Democrats…

Do you realize that in the Senate, they did not win a single, solitary race. Only uncontested ones. And in the House of Representatives, of the ten seats they won, six were uncontested, 2 were contested against Independents, and only two wins out of 70 seats – one in D17 (Ray Ring over Debbie Pease), and one in D25 (Dan Ahlers over Roger Hunt) were head to head runs against Republicans.

Think about that.

The Democrat party was only able to put together legitimate head to head victories over Republicans in only 2 out of 105 seats.  That’s just staggering for a political party who, not much more than 20 years ago in the 1992 election was able to capture a majority in the State Senate.

The intervening years have not been kind to the opposition, but in many cases, they’ve brought it onto themselves.

As opposed to recruiting and running a full slate of candidates, they’ve relied on the stopgap placeholder to put a warm body into candidate positions with hopes of filling it later, in all too many instances.

As opposed to trying to appeal to the middle in center-right to conservative South Dakota, they keep pushing farther and farther left. When you bring in candidates for the head of your ticket who want to raise taxes all over the board and tell us we need to stop oil production, farmers who might possibly be sympathetic to your cause are just going to shake their head and pull the lever for the GOP that much more earnestly.

As opposed to party building, the Democrats have fallen into this trap of working ballot issues, thinking that they’re going to build their potential mailing lists, and the electorate is going to reward them for their ideas they can’t get pushed through during session.

Now that they’re at their lowest point of elected officials IN OVER 50 YEARS (since ’53), you would think that maybe they would get the hint that their path which meanders towards extinction isn’t working for them anymore.

But somehow, I just don’t think they get it.

IM 22 passes…. and the GOP elected in a landslide.

Expanding on the thoughts in the prior post about Initiated Measure 22, “a measure to revise state campaign finance and lobbying laws, create a publicly funded campaign finance program, create an ethics commission and appropriate funds…”

The premise of the measure was that allegedly Pierre is roiling in corruption. (Which we all know to be utter BS). Yet, at the same time, the majority Republicans were not just elected, but we had our numbers strengthened.

What’s the message we should take from that?

About those ballot issues…

Last night was one of the wildest rides I can remember in a while. As a Republican, I felt good about going into election night… and I felt even better this morning when I saw that the GOP actually picked up seats. I’ve always operated under the assumption that political balance is a pendulum, and it would swing back to fewer Republicans, so it’s important to work to create a bulwark against that.

Except, one factor I have forgotten to take into account is the South Dakota Democrat Party giving up any illusion of running candidates for office. And so the new normal is 10-15 House members, and 5-10 Senators. The question for the GOP is whether they’re able to keep Democrat numbers down, and hold the caucus together.

What was more in doubt last night were the ballot issues, and we ended up with some surprising results.

AMENDMENT R – The Tech School change fared more poorly than a measure with no true opposition should, although it still won at 50.6% to 49.4%

AMENDMENT S, or Marsy’s Law won handily on a 60-40% basis. Call it the Kelsey Grammer effect. It was a good ad.

AMENDMENT T for redistricting, which I had pegged as winning, lost 57-43%. It had only token opposition, but maybe that’s all it needed.

AMENDMENT U, placing statutory interest rates for Loans into the constitution fared poorly, losing 63-37%

AMENDMENT V which hid party label on the ballot went down 55-45%.

INITIATED MEASURE 21 was a blowout at 76%-24%, placing maximum finance charges on certain licensed money lenders. This was a bit surprising to me, as South Dakotans aren’t apt to ban entire industries, but apparently, they are.

An even bigger surprise is INITIATED MEASURE 22, which creates a publicly funded campaign finance program, won 52-48%. Of the three measures coming from Rick Weiland, this and Amendment V had the fiercest and most direct opposition, and most of us thought T would be the one to pass, not IM22.

Before it’s implemented, I suspect IM22’s public campaign component will face opposition and removal. It’s kind of hard to even think of programs such as Medicaid expansion when $12-50 million is stripped from the budget for politician’s political campaigns…. But, we’ll see.

INITIATED MEASURE 23 to allow Unions to force membership fees went down hard. 80-20%.

And no one cared about the other two on the ballot by this point, so expectedly Referred Law 19 & Referred Law 20 both lost.

What are your thoughts on these ballot issues?

D3 Senate finally in; Novstrup in a landslide (Updated)

Update:

After being silent for the night, Cory makes a statement about his loss. In probably the most ungracious and bitter manner possible:

…For all my cogitation over the past decade-plus of blogging, for all my efforts to inspire by example and run a smart, efficient, principled, and fearless campaign, I couldn’t break 40%, either, against a petty man who sits around the last days before an election watching football and stoking fears of Sharia law. I did everything I thought would provide a model for Democratic success, and I produced failure, just like every other new Democratic candidate (and several more experienced colleagues).

Beating the self-serving ignorance of the Republican Party should not be hard. Yet somehow, for us South Dakota Democrats, it is.

Read it here.

I did have a moment to chat with Senator-elect Novstrup this morning and oddly it sounds that while Heidelberger had enough time to compose a post where he called Novstrup names, he couldn’t find a moment to physically get on the phone, call Al, and congratulate him in his race.  Unlike Hoerth. Or Dennert. Or Elliot, who all managed to have enough class to do so after their hard fought battles.

So much for losing with dignity.

Senator Rounds’ Statement on Election Results

image1

MikeRounds official SenatePIERRE – U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) issued the following statement on the election results:

“Congratulations to Sen. Thune, Rep. Noem and all of the other candidates who have won their elections tonight.  It is a pleasure to work with Sen. Thune and Rep. Noem and I look forward to our continued efforts to improve the quality of life for hard-working South Dakotans.”

“I would also like to congratulate President-elect Trump. President-elect Trump’s victory isn’t a surprise if you’re connected and listening to real Americans, although I’ve always said he will have an uphill fight. I have  traveled all over South Dakota and the sense of frustration with the federal government is at an all time high. I share that frustration. Mr. Trump has successfully tapped into that emotion by relating to voters’ frustration with their government. Since arriving in the U.S. Senate 22 months ago, I have been frustrated by the lack of focus on the big issues: debt, tax reform, mandatory payments, out of control healthcare costs, and regulatory overreach.  I believe this election sends a message and it is time to get to work on the issues that matter.”

“While we may not agree on every issue, we should all agree that we want American families to prosper and to provide the next generation every opportunity to achieve the American dream. We have serious issues challenging our country.  It will take leadership and cooperation to address these challenges.”

“In 2026, just ten years from now, on the 250th birthday of America, 99 percent of the federal government’s revenue will go toward two categories: interest on the federal debt and mandatory payments. Now that the election is behind us, I stand ready to work with President-elect Trump and my colleagues in Congress to address these problems head-on.”

GOP House members up 2

After last night’s election, the South Dakota GOP is moving from a 58-12 split to 60-10, with Democrats losing another 2 seats in the State House on top of their loss of two in the State Senate.

Make no mistake, In South Dakota, Democrats lost big last night!

GOP to pick up 2 seats in the State Senate

South Dakota Republicans are enjoying a good night tonight, and in the State Senate are set to gain 2 seats over their current split of 27-8 and turn it into a 29-6 split.  The GOP is picking up formerly held Democrat seats in Districts 4 & 8, while Democrats are not picking up any of their own.

John Wiik decimated Kathy Tyler in her bid to keep the Seat Democrat, and in a squeaker, Jordan Youngberg ousted Scott Parsley from his Senate Seat to mark the end of Democrat control of the seat, returning it to the GOP column.

The House has some races that are too close to call, still with results out. But hang on, I’ll get it in the AM..

Is this happening?

Are we really going to win many of our toss-up races?!

Youngberg won in a squeaker. Wiik won assertively. Langer is winning. Mike Clark is ahead of Saba, Jensen spanked Tornburg by 1500 votes, Pischke has a commanding lead, and Hunt is ahead of Ahlers….

If these numbers hold, this is almost like a wave election against Democrats..

Stay tuned.