The most important political office is that of the private citizen. ~Louis Brandeis

Today is primary election day in South Dakota. Every year, there is a surprise. What are your predictions for a surprise?

Here are some contested GOP legislative races:


Does Rausch beat the incumbent Begalka?

Can Otten beat Mr. Law Enforcement Abdullah?

Does Hubbel beat incumbent Peters?

Or how about blogger Sibby beat Vehle?

Is it possible that Don Haggar can beat former SFalls Mayor Dave Munson?


Who is odd man out in the Alvine/Mickelson/Westra race?

Who wins the two seats open in District 19 between Hofer/Nelson/Putnam/Schoenfish?

What say you?

And, when is it over, will all accept the collective judgment of the Republicans in these districts and quit with the Rino talk?

30 Replies to “The most important political office is that of the private citizen. ~Louis Brandeis”

  1. anon

    I’m taking Rausch, Abdallah, Peters, Vehle, and Munson in the Senate races, and Alvine losing, Putnam and sadly Nelson winning in their race.

    I also think Daugaard goes five-for-five with his endorsements… at least I sure hope so!

    Too bad there wasn’t a stronger candidate against Stace… Should have put VanGerpen in there too, and let Frank have the win… I’d rather have him than Nelson. At least Frank is smart enough to know when to shut up!

  2. Steve Hickey

    Looks like we may have record low voter turnout at least in some population areas like Sioux Falls. To me it means there is no zeal for the top of the ticket – Mitt, Paul, whoever, whatever, Obama or Obama-lite – might as well just stay home.

    Perhaps it also means there is confusion out there – who’s conservative and who is not?? …I certainly don’t want to vote for A but I’ve heard some things about B… When people can’t decide they stay home and let other people decide.

    1. Troy Jones Post author

      Steve, I’m at a loss on what Romney/Paul really have to do with turnout. Regardless who you support, you know who will win and be the nominee. Only those motivated to make a statement vote will be going to the polls for this race. To me, the low turnout, if it ends up that way, is related to motivation on the legislative races.

      1. Anonymous

        Mr Jones:

        The Tea Party has already shown it’s fidelity to GOP candidates. The TP turned out in 2010 in SD for the GOP.

        The only question after tonight is: “Will Republicans like Troy Jones and other establishmentarians turn out this fall to help Tea Party candidates chosen by the voters tonight?”

        If you have been paying attention, I respect the choices of my Republican colleagues. If one registers Republican and are nominated, I consider them Republicans. Period. Troy

        1. mhs

          Steve’s right, simply awful turnout in Sioux Falls, but, I don’t think it’s the top of the ticket. Peters / Hubel turn out under 800 total? Otten / Abdallah under 1,300? Only the Haggar / Haggar (so cool, I’ve known Donnie even longer than Troy) Munson vote totals make sense as that’s such a Dem district.

          Seeing’s how Mark Mickelson racked up over 2,000 votes just himself tells me its the local candidates, not the top of the ticket that is the problem. Not a good way to point to November.

          Actually, Republican turnout is about 50% more than Dems and they had a statewide primary for Congress.

          1. mhs

            “In those districts” I should have clarified, well knowing everybody else would immediately understand without a doing a two standard deviation analysis.

        2. Anonymous

          Mr. Jones:

          The simple act of respecting the choices of fellow Republicans, considering a TP candidate a Republican, is markedly different than enthusiastically supporting the TP candidates that were handed victory by GOP voters last night.

          The question remains on the table, and still unanswered by yourself, will you support the TP candidates in the same way you would support the establishment candidates that lost?

          A simple question deserves a simple answer.

          Yes. Since we are asking each other “simple questions”, can I ask you something? Do you consider a registered Republican nominated by the Republicans of a district a Republican or can they still be RINO’s?

  3. Anonymous

    I like Begalka. I like Rausch. But I would vote for Begalka because he is the current senator. BOTH are GREAT GUYS!!!!!

    I would like to insert Rausch into district 9 inplace of Hubbel and Peters (not in favor of either). But having to choose between the two I would choose Peters purely because I am upset with Hubbel’s accusations.

    Adallah over Otten. – easy choice.


    I predict Munson will win but would rather see Don Haggar get in the legislature.

    It would be a stunner if Mark Mickelson didn’t get in. Talk about a stunning loss if he doesn’t get in. People are already saying this guy is the next Governor.

    Stace Nelson dominates district 19 landslide style. BOOO!!!

    For the most part the election is a wash. After this set back the TP goes out and discovers a new tactic. They never admit defeat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  4. No surprises

    Did you see Mickelsons campaign finance report? That deserves to be a war college blog post in and of itself .

    The only true surprise tonight would be Sibson winning or Stace Nelson losing and that won’t happen though many wish it would. Maybe Abdallah loses because it’s a new district for him and he was torpedoed with postcards.

    What if incumbent Haggar loses her seat to her dad? That whole deal is bizarre to me. Who runs against their daughter?

  5. ValleyGirl

    A lot of people think it’s just a democrat election. That’s the way the Argus makes it look in their headline. Of course, if they informed themselves/read further, they’d know, but you can’t trust the masses to do their diligence.

  6. betchya $5

    all these snarky comments the last couple days are from the governor’s minions?

    enjoy your bile while you can our little clintonesque crew.

  7. Anonymous

    Low voter turnout probably helps the howie candidates. They aren’t really his candidates but he claims credit for them all. His followers statewide are few in number but rest assured they have voted today. If those candidates win tonight it is because of low voter turnout. But watch Howie interpret any wins as a massive uprising of the people against rino’s when actually only his kind bothered to vote today.

    If Howies candidates lose even during low voter turnout that proves he had at fewer followers than we thought and confirms he is to be ignored as irrelevant. But as for your question will this stop the talk about RINOs, no. Gordon is possessed with bitterness that he is not governor and every day he posts anti-daugaard crap on his nationally syndicated media empire blog sites. This will no doubt continue.

    1. anon

      That’s spot on, and helps explain the real danger the wingnuts create…getting more democrats elected.

      There is a strong chance that some of the Howie radicals win tonight just because the 12% turnout is the wingnuts… Then November rolls around, the real voters show up, and bingo, the republican candidate is just too offensive to support, so democrats gain seats… Like I’ve said many times, the dems don’t need to work very hard to gain seats this year, they’ve got Howie and Nelson doing all their work for them.

      1. Bob Ellis

        Apparently you RINOs never learn. 1996 didn’t teach you a thing. Blowing control of congress in 2006 with your liberal proclivities didn’t teach you a thing. Blowing it again with another RINO in 2008 didn’t teach you a thing. Conservatives handing the party control of the House back in 2010 still didn’t teach you a thing. And now you’re doing your best to shoot the GOP in the foot yet again. As soon as the voters catch on that an “R” after your name doesn’t mean jack squat in South Dakota anymore, the state will go the way the GOP has at the national level.

        With that kind of obtuseness, one really has to wonder if the RINOs aren’t just flat-out working for the other side.

  8. Anonymous

    Republican voter turnout in district 13 for the Mickelson race was 51%. Republican voter turnout in district 9 for the hubbel peters race was 14%. What does that tell us? Hubbel is saying there are hubbel votes in a suitcase in the back of someones car. Or these results tell us district 9 voters didn’t like either candidate very much. Hubbel is the reason Hubbel didn’t win and Peters would probably have lost if her opponent was anyone besides Hubbel.

  9. Bree S.

    What is the author’s viewpoint on the implications of the Monroe/Perry race for State Senator in District 24?

    I don’t know the implications. Despite being from Pierre, I have no idea what drove the election but it was certainly close.

    1. Bree S.

      I was personally flabbergasted by Perry’s voting record. Due to his history as the head of the political science department of a very liberal university in Indiana as well as that organization’s lobbyist in the early 80’s, I personally had no doubts as to his political leanings. However, I expected him to vote more moderately. For an apparently intelligent man I’m surprised he didn’t realize that it is counterproductive to his cause to vote as a liberal on bills that have no chance of being passed into law.

  10. Come on man!

    This is really getting out of control and very annoying. I mean honestly, we need to stop with all of this RINO talk. It is a talking point that the ultra right wing conservatives have spread around like the plague. Having an R by your name doesn’t mean anything in SD anymore? How about having no letters by our name? People need to be held up for their ideas on how to improve society, not what letter is next to their name. I have news for you, good ideas can come from anywhere or anyone, regardless of party affiliation. You all have taken political parties too far. We are at the brink. We are so polarized that we have started calling eachother out for not being “Republican enough.” When will people learn that it is not about being “Democrat enough” or “Republican enough”? It is about being a statesmen. Elected office should be one of the most selfless things a person can undertake. Putting the betterment of society ahead of personal gain. But that isn’t the case right now. It is just the opposite, in fact. We are fighting too much about WHO is right that we have lost sight of WHAT is right.

    1. Bree S.

      Well let’s talk in circles and ignore the truth. Your conclusion is laughable. Not vetting our representatives on the issues i.e. “WHAT is right” is the cause of all this corruption. So by vetting our candidates we are “putting the betterment of society ahead of personal gain.” Also, I think we’ve already proven that the “ultra right wing crazy” label isn’t going to stick so I suggest you come up with a new talking point. Are we still trying the “too polarized” tactic? That’s so last year.

      1. Anonymous

        Laughable, huh? The corruption comes from those that are unwilling to relent in slightest, worrying about re-election and thus losing their “political career.” It has gotten to the point that elected officials will in no way compromise on anything. They are too worried about being right. Nobody ever gets everything they want; but, you can work together to find a solution that will still benefit society. You can’t ignore the stalemate that still exists. To say that the polarization we still experience is “trendy” is irresponsible and makes you look ignorant. The “crazy right wing” moniker was based on the original post since we were talking about who is “more Republican.” Those falling off the left side of the spectrum are to blame as well. It’s the same wine in a different bottle. It isn’t a talking point, it’s the truth. Read a paper.

        1. Bree S.

          From reading your ramblings, it appears you do not understand the organizational value of a premise, followed by supporting statements, and then a conclusion. It’s also useful if those statements actually have anything to do with one another. In other words, there should be some kind of logic that actually ties them together. “Polarization” is a liberal catch phrases that is often regurgitated by people inappropriately and without any facts to back up the statement. You will often find such catch phrases, as well as adjectives that have a negative connotation, splattered about the pages of the newspapers you think I should read in order to cure my ignorance.

          1. Anonymous

            My statements have been perfectly coherent, thank you. You accuse me of regurgitation yet your response is nothing but that, a regurgitation of a talking point. This thread only serves to prove my point. So, thank you. I have no idea what is in your head; but, I will make the assumption that you think I’m some liberal attacking the right (again this is only my assumption). If my assumption is correct, then you would be wrong. I am a loyal Republican. The fact of the matter is I can see when something is broken or not working. This is the case we have right now. It has absolutely nothing to do with being liberal or conservative, left or right, Democrat or Republican. It is not a talking point. It is an intelligent observation. Thank you for your input. God Bless.

  11. Anonymous

    The powers what and have total control. The politics of today is driven by secrecy and power……. If we could be a mouse in the corner of some meetings we would crook. The people in power want control. They can not stand loosing and the control factor is the way they keep from loosing. They hate themselves and hate others. So control is the way they live……….


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.