“Daring ideas are like chessmen moved forward; they may be beaten, but they may start a winning game.” (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)

Update:  8-11-15 @ noon:  Another Iowa caucus poll was just released and was in the field one day longer which showed an expected result-  The reaction from the debate appears to be confirming as discussed in the original post but the reactions are more muted and Rubio should be listed as a “winner.”  Further, the “Bubble” I discuss may be on the verge of disappearing.  Fiorina moves into the top tier debate and Christie falls back.

Additionally, there are two other pieces of news today that may be illuminating.

  1. Rick Perry has run out of cash and has asked his paid South Carolina staff to become volunteers.  Because he has concentrated this in the 3rd state (after Iowa and New Hampshire), it tells me he is hopeful to turn things around and/or he has decided to stay in the race as an “issues candidate” (see below) and that issue might just be Donald Trump.
  2. Rand Paul has decided to strike out at Donald Trump.  After Bush, Paul may have the strongest/smartest campaign team, he has plenty of money, and is likely spending money on polling/focus groups so this is not likely an action of desperation.  It has a purpose but I’m not sure what it is.  Veep Cred?  Believe Trump supporters would otherwise support him as “another kind of Republican?”  Precursor to choosing to run for re-election for US Senate and not wanting Trump at the top of the ticket?

I want to stress the following:

  1.  I don’t think any of this is predictive of who will be the nominee or who will still be viable once the elections start.  However, those in the bottom tier may have only one more chance to break-out and they may have to do it in the next debate.  
  2. In my mind, the value is what will happen with undecideds and to the support for the bottom 7-10 candidates when they disappear over the next 6 months.  This is roughly 30% of the primary voter population.  The candidates who pick up chunks of this will find higher viability via fundraising and ability to attract organization for when the elections start.
  3. This is Iowa and not the nation as a whole.   My main point was to attempt to assess movement and reaction to the debate as well as try to discern strength/weaknesses and future direction/discern of the individual campaigns.

However, this poll gave some interesting new information:

  1. Top 5 candidates as 2nd choice after their first choice (in order):  Carson (12%), Rubio (12%), Cruz (11%), Walker (10%), Fiorina (9%).  Personally, until and through the Iowa Caucus & New Hampshire primary, I think this is a critical component of staying in the field as it winnows down.
  2. Top 5 candidates with a favorable impression (in order):  Carson (78%), Walker (73%), Rubio (72%), Fiorina (70%), Huckabee (69%).  Lowest is Cristie (37%)
  3. Top 5 candidates with an unfavorable impression (in order):  Christie (43%), Paul (41%), Trump (37%), Bush (36%), Huckabee (19%).  Lowest is Carson (7%).
  4. Of those who watched the debate second debate (Fiorina got 83% in the first debate), Top 5 who made a favorable impression (in order):  Rubio (23%), Carson (22%), Cruz (11%), Trump (11%), Kasich (8%)
  5. And, finally, after watching the debate two Trump impressions:  56% are less comfortable with Trump as a candidate and 32% think Trump doesn’t show appropriate respect for women.

Original post:  At this stage of a campaign, I don’t put any stock in polling with regard to predicting who the nominee might be.  There are way too many variables, especially when you consider the current size of the field.  Too much can happen plus we don’t really know the voter’s second and third choices which is relevant as first choices fall out.  In a few months, the most relevant polling information will be candidate’s favorable/unfavorable numbers.  A candidate has negatives above a certain level is not longer viable (too unlikeable-think Gingrich). Similarly, a candidate who can’t stimulate a favorable number above a certain level is not going to be viable (not likable- think John Edwards).

However, I do think where polls are informative at this stage is they give understanding about what is moving people’s impression at particular stages of a campaign.  Most recently, we had a debate which was watched by a record number of viewers.  And, today we got the first post-debate scientific poll  measuring a highly informed group of voters (Iowa Republican caucus goers).  Yes, they are generally considered more conservative than the average Republican primary and general voter.  However, they are those most likely to be monitoring current developments and how they move can be a glimpse into what is happening or will happen in the general public.

So, comparing it to a similar poll of the same voters, what happened from before the debate and after the debate?

Apparent “winners;”     Fiorina (+7%), Trump (+6%), Bush (+5%), Carson (+5%), Cruz (+2%)

Apparent “losers:”       Walker (-10%), Jindal (-2%), Paul (-2%)- Editorial comment-  Walker might not really be a “loser” as his number settled to a level comparable to his national numbers.

Everybody else:          Between +1% and -1% which is really no movement.  Maybe a case can be made that no movement is a move backwards but, at this stage, I think treading water keeps them in the game unless they are near the bottom.

If these numbers extrapolate to the nation at large in national polls:

Practical Impact #1 for the CNN debate on September 16:

In top 10:  Bush, Carson, Cruz, Fiorina, Huckabee, Rubio, Trump and Walker

Bubble:    Christie, Kasich, Paul, Perry (two will make it, two will not)

The debates after the the CNN debate have not announced the selection criteria yet.  Thus, we don’t know whether the debates will have all remaining candidates or will have a limit on the number of candidates.   If the debates are limited to 7-10 candidates on the podium, I suspect we might see more fireworks with the lower tier candidates trying to stand-out.

Practical Impact #2 on fundraising:  Florina has reported a big spike in fundraising.  Cruz and Bush are rumored to have had a good weekend.  Graham, Jindal, Pataki & Santorum are likely going to see raising money very difficult.  Unless they are the break-out candidate (ala Fiorina) in the next debate, their reason for remaining in the race is down to two purposes:

  1. Be a “happy camper” and hope to be selected as Veep (ala Biden in 2008)
  2. Be an issue candidate hoping to frame an issue in the minds of voters (ala Gene McCarthy in 1968)

Practical Impact #3 on strategy:  

  1. Bush, Carson, Cruz, Huckabee, Rubio & Walker (assuming Walker’s support nationally doesn’t drop as it appears to have done in Iowa) are likely to continue to do what they have been doing.  They don’t have to be aggressive or throw any bombs.  They should just keep raising money and meeting with voters in low-volatile formats with an occasional policy speech or announcement to add to their gravitas.
  2. Fiorina is hot right now and needs to try to get one more bump to firmly get herself in list above.  Candidates who get hot risk flaming out.  If I were her, I’d maximize fundraising as money presents viability and hammer exclusively on Clinton to engender greater bona fides as a politico.
  3. Trump is rumored to be considering making a pledge to not run as an Independent and to support the GOP nominee.  While it might not be politically critical (I think it is) at this stage of the election, it will become practically critical prior to state primaries because the national and state parties will not make available voter lists and other data available to a candidate who hasn’t made such a pledge.  Additionally he needs to find a way to make amends with women, he might be able to reverse his current high unfavorable rating where he only trails Graham (40%) and Christie (36%) with 35% of the GOP primary voters having an unfavorable opinion of him.    Finally, with the exception of building a wall on our southern border, Trump has been high on rhetoric and low on policy.  At minimum, he should unveil 2 or 3 policy specifics.
  4. Bubble candidates have two choices:  Throw bombs and hope to move up while risking they blow themselves up.  Christie and Paul appear to pursing this strategy.  Or, do as Floriina did-  steadily and seriously talk about issues with voters and hone their message.  Perry and Kasich appear to moving in this direction.
  5. Bottom tier candidates have one realistic hope- be the next Fiorina in the CNN September debate.

Practical Impact #4 on organizational emphasis:  You might be wondering how the Fox debate influences organization priorities?  The top candidates (poll standing or money) have the luxury of looking forward to the blocking and tackling of preparation to an actual Election Day.  By the time the campaign moves to South Carolina, it is likely the field will be reduced to only 4-5 candidates at most.  Right now, NO CANDIDATE is assured of being in the top 5 after New Hampshire and there will be only one winner in Iowa.

  1. Iowa:  This state is famous for picking candidates who disregard perceptions of national viability or conventional wisdom (Santorum in 2012 or Huckabee in 2008) or are regional favorites (Dole in 1988 and 1996).  This state is ripe for someone to make a statement and catapult up in standing.  This is where Cruz, Rubio, and Walker can shine.  Trump and Fiorina have real problem here because of its intense retail politics, with which they have little experience.  Nobody has ever won here without being excellent retail politicians.
  2. New Hampshire:    Because this is almost a home state for the Bush family and they have most of the political leaders in their camp, this is a place where Bush must do reasonably well (yet currently is polling below his national standing) and someone can land a knock-out punch.  Carson, Paul and possibly Kasich can be that candidate as they appear to be polling well so far.  Trump also seems to have captured the imagination of NH voters above his national standing so he should attempt to build on his standing there.

New ED for @SoDakDems given big thumbs down on first public outing

Is the GOP going to maintain impossibly high election numbers again in 2016?  From the sounds of it, it isn’t looking good for Dems as they roll out their new Executive Director in her first public appearance representing their party:

Hey kids! Let’s put on a show, and pull old lists and stuff!

I wanted to ask Suzie what she would do to get more registered Democrats. James Abourezk beat me to the punch. After himming and hawing for a moment, and pausing, Jim asked again. Suzie said she was going to “pull old lists and start contacting those people” then rambled about Gregory County or something. I left early.

Read that here.

That sounds ….awful.

Democrats have had a tough time when they’ve had seasoned professionals at the helm. And it sounds like the new director is anything but. You know it’s bad when one of their few former statewide elected officials starts grilling her and putting her on the spot.

It’s a good indication that Chairwoman Ann Tornberg and crew have no experience, no message, and definitely no plan to do anything this next election but lose, and lose badly.

Robot bee lady claims that @MegynKelly is proven to be a GOP Shill because she told Annette Bosworth she lost

Every once in a while, I have to look at stuff I know to be absolutely off the wall nutty.  It’s probably a lot like people driving by a car accident or storm damage, where you want just enough information to go “wow, that’s really bad.”

Well, I did it again. I got my fix of looking at “storm damage bad” in a political sense by going to former Secretary of State Candidate Lori Stacey’s web site.  You remember Lori. She’s the one who thinks that there’s a plot to kill off bees, so they can be replaced by government controlled robot bees.  And today, she’s taking on Megyn Kelly.

People should not be shocked about the outrageous questions posed by Fox News moderators at Thursday night’s prime time debate. The event was more like an evening of multiple-candidate gotcha interviews in prime time rather than a formal presidential debate.

With the enormous backlash brewing against Megyn Kelly which largely stems from her attacks on Donald Trump, some might almost start to feel sorry for her. Well, not so fast. It turns out that this is certainly not the first time Megyn Kelly has sucker-punched a candidate for the Republican establishment.

Back during the 2014 Republican primary in South Dakota, Megyn Kelly played dirty tricks on a US Senate candidate that embarrassed the establishment by miraculously raising more money than the obvious GOP establishment’s pick in the primary.

Read the car accident article here.

Um, what?  Somehow Megyn Kelly played a dirty trick on Annette Bosworth by informing her that she lost? As if all those polls, pundits, and practically everyone else in South Dakota not supporting her weren’t an initial clue?

And according to robot bee lady Lori Stacey, taken alongside the questioning of Donald Trump over some fairly misogynist comments he’s made, it’s somehow proof that she’s in the bag for ‘establishment Republicans?’

There’s a reason why Lori Stacey’s thought processes are “car accident bad.” They lack a basis in credibility.

No one is persecuting Annette Bosworth. It’s all been self-inflicted, as there are consequences for her actions. Same with Donald Trump. When you say inflammatory things, there’s a good chance that you might get burned by them.

And I don’t think either one of them can conjure up an alleged sympathy for the Republican establishment on Megyn Kelly’s part to blame.

They managed to do it all by themselves.

New Dem ED already sounds silly.

In her first media outing, the new Democrat ED is already sounding hilariously silly, as if she’s only partway through her “Hooked on Talking Points” reading program:

South Dakota Republicans threw a presidential debate watch party to see who has what it takes for the GOP to take back the White House in 2016.

“I think it’s very exciting. I think we have a very strong Republican field, and I’m looking forward to seeing more debates,” Roetman said.

Watch Out GOP. I’ve memorized “extreme.”

The executive director of the South Dakota Democratic Party is not quite convinced.

Suzanne Jones Pranger said “I think the candidates have presented themselves in this Republican primary have taken very extreme positions, and the Democratic Party is absolutely fine with those candidates taking those extreme positions because it’s only going to help the Democratic Party.”

Read it all here at KSFY.

Next, is she going to accuse Republican candidates of being extreme extremists?

Maybe by the time she reads her next chapter, she’ll be up to calling us radicals. (So much for that Law Degree.)

After ignoring Hawks Rollout, Dems confirm new ED and “compliance director.”

After there was no evidence that a candidate announced to represent their party in the race for South Dakota’s lone congressional seat the South Dakota Democratic Party did note that they’ve talked someone into making sure the lights get turned off at 5pm:

“We are excited to welcome new staff to the Party,” Ann Tornberg, Chair of the South Dakota Democratic Party said. “Suzanne Jones Pranger is an attorney with experience in Democratic political campaigns and issues. A proud fifth generation South Dakotan, SJPJones Pranger will bring political experience, an exceptional work ethic, professionalism, and passion for the values of our Party to the Executive Director position. Samuel Parkinson will take on compliance duties. He too has a political background having worked as an intern for Democratic Legislators in Pierre. We are pleased with our ability to expand full time staff in preparation for the 2016 Election.”

Suzanne Jones Pranger holds a Juris Doctorate, a Master of Arts in Political Science emphasizing American Politics and Public Policy, and a Bachelor of Science degree, all from the University of South Dakota. Jones Pranger has worked extensively with high ranking Democrats at the state and national level as staff to Senate Democrats in the State Legislature, through internships in Senator Tim Johnson and Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin’s Washington, D.C. offices, as an intern for Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin’s Congressional campaign, and as a volunteer for numerous state and local campaigns. Jones Pranger was selected as a 2014 Democratic National Committee HOPE Fellow for her work with the Democratic Party.

Read it here.

Since Suzanne Jones Pranger has her Juris Doctorate, and is working as the ED of the South Dakota Democratic Party…. Does that mean she’ll be well educated on the butt kicking state Democrats are going to experience this next year?  Or that the fix will be in for Stephanie Herseth Sandlin’s return to the SDDP?

South Dakota Republicans are currently in the process of recruiting for a new ED themselves, with former ED and long-time activist Jason Glodt filling in on an interim basis while that process is taking place.

Paula Hawks’ campaign still a work in progress with rewrites and new exclamation points.

Remember the other day when I released Paula Hawks’ bio from her web site (about a week before she would admit running). Since then, many things have changed.

now with excitement

Since that day, her “I am running for US House” titled video had an exclamation point added to it to make it appear as if she’s enthusiastic about the process.   I can imagine that after it got out looking unenthusiastic and boring, her “get” from the SDDP, Zach Nistler, took her aside and said Paula – this video with the twinkling lullaby piano music just isn’t exciting enough. I have an idea which will put you over the top of those Republicans. Add an exclamation point to the title!! And if that doesn’t work, we’ll pull out the big guns AND GO ALL CAPS on them!!

As I said, I can only imagine that was the conversation.

In a similar manner, Hawks’ bio which we’d noticed after her brain trust put it up live a week before the announcement also seems to have been completely re-written.

But, now that the announcement is out, they aren’t re-writes for an already floundering campaign. They’re the “New Exciting Version!”


Hello, I am Paula Hawks and I am running to represent South Dakota in the United States House of Representatives.

While growing up north of Flandreau, I was exposed at an early age to the hard work, dedication, and state pride that makes South Dakota such a unique home. My parents, Hugh and Jane Hagel, raised four children on our family farm. We learned early on that to keep the farm running we each had to share the workload. We raised hogs and cattle, and planted and harvested alfalfa, corn and soybeans.

New Exciting Version:

Growing up on the family farm north of Flandreau, I helped with the cattle and the hogs, baled hay and harvested corn and beans with my sister and brothers.  The 80s farm crisis hit us hard, but we kept the farm intact, though not without experiencing serious financial hardship.  That struggle left an indelible mark on my life and development.  I developed a deep understanding and respect for the incredible dedication and hard-work it takes to make a family farm work in South Dakota.

Reason for the change?

It seems as if Hawks is trying to make herself look “faIMG_1941.JPGrm-ier” than Kristi Noem who has a far more compelling Ag background, in addition to being one of the people who brought home the farm bill. The new version also sounds better to people in the Ag industry than I grew up on the farm.But I still kind-of farm in my backyard.


Having grown up in rural South Dakota, I knew how transformative teachers could be to the students of their communities, so I attended college at South Dakota State University where I graduated with my Bachelor of Science in Biology along with my teaching certificate.  While I was at SDSU, I was lucky enough to meet my husband, Steve Hawks, a young rancher from Faith South Dakota. We married in 1997 and are now raising our children in Hartford, South Dakota.

After teaching at West Central High School in Hartford for 10 years I realized that the life I had built with my husband and my career as an educator were being impacted greatly by the decisions taking place hundreds of miles away in Pierre. I decided to lend my voice to the process by running for the South Dakota House of Representatives.

New Exciting Version:

My high school science teachers really inspired me to follow my passion for science and when I graduated, I chose to study biology in college.  Following in my father and my sister’s footsteps, I headed to SDSU to earn my degree.  While attending SDSU, I worked part-time as a nursing assistant at the nursing home in Brookings.  Working with the seniors in my care, I developed strong relationships with them and learned to appreciate the special concerns faced by our senior citizens.

I met my husband, Steve, at SDSU, where he was a physics major.  Steve grew up on his parents’ ranch near Faith.  We got married on my parents’ farm, and started our life together as we were finishing our last year at State. After our first daughter, Ruby, was born I got my teaching certificate.  I spent 10 years teaching at West Central High School.  During that time our son, Tristan, was born.  Also during that time, I attended USD to get my master’s degree in Technology for Education and Training.  I lost my mother to cancer just months before I finished my degree and three years before our youngest daughter, Amelia, was born.

I left my classroom in 2012, and decided to run for the South Dakota State Legislature.  I have served in that role for three years now, and have worked diligently for my constituents in District 9, and for all of South Dakota.  Because the legislature is a citizen-legislature and not a full-time job, I also work as a training specialist in the banking industry.  I develop and deliver compliance and leadership training, as well as federal banking regulation training.  This experience in the business world has rounded out my understanding of the many facets of the South Dakota economic landscape.

Reason for the change:

I suspect this portion of the bio got far longer after I’d busted her out over skipping over her current job as corporate trainer for METAbank, where she likely sets up people behind a computer screen and has them run through an online tutorial on banking regs.

I had to laugh at the part where she makes it sound to her Democrat base that she was forced to work for the dirty bankers when she says “Because the legislature is a citizen-legislature and not a full-time job, I also work as a training specialist in the banking industry.”  So, if she had her druthers and could work full time as a legislator, she wouldn’t imagine working for the dirty bankers.

She also puts some filler in there about a college job to make the paragraph bigger.


I believe that the strength of America starts with hard working people and that our economy grows when hard working South Dakota families are given the chance to succeed. I have never been one to shy away from a challenge, and I firmly believe that for our state to prosper in the adverse conditions we are facing as a nation, we need a strong voice in our Nation’s Capital. We need a representative who is not afraid to be an independent voice for our state and we need a representative who is willing to cross the aisle to work for solutions, instead of working to secure political points for the next campaign.

South Dakotans have been telling me that our politics in Washington are broken, and honestly, I agree. But, when machinery was broken on our family farm, we knew that it was worth trying to fix before scrapping it all together. I am announcing to you today that I am ready to get to work and that I am prepared to give it my all to fix the mess. It may not be easy, and it may not be fun, but it is necessary. Join our team today. Working together we can bring much needed leadership to Washington D.C.

New Exciting Version:

I am running for the U.S. House because I believe it is imperative to restore opportunity and fairness to our system of government. A system that has gotten off course, and needs to be redirected so it can work for all of us.  A system that works for my father in his older years and for my children as they grow.  A system that works for my husband and me and the rest of the hardworking South Dakotans making their lives in our great state.


Reason for the change:

WOW! That portion with her raison d’être on why she’s running in the first place got pared down fast. Any direct reasoning got much, much shorter.

She had claimed that we need a strong voice in our Nation’s Capital ….And then that part went away.

Was it the fact that she realized that there’s no way on earth she’s going to be seated on the Ways and Means Committee or have a front row seat on the farm bill as Kristi Noem did that had her suddenly ignoring that whole “strong voice” line which there was no way she could deliver on?

And how about “South Dakotans have been telling me that our politics in Washington are broken, and honestly, I agree.“?   I had jested that ‘Mike Rounds called, and wanted his campaign theme from 2014 back.’  He must have actually put that call in, because his theme is no longer being aped by Hawks.

And by the time all that was done, the “New exciting” justification as to why Hawks is running found itself evaporated down from 2 big paragraphs of direct statements to one with offhanded, throw away lines.

Between all the revision, and drinking the ultra-liberal Democrat Kool Aid on issues (See standing with Planned Parenthood while they’re harvesting body parts) it’s going to be a long campaign for Paula Hawks, But not necessarily a successful one.

Hawks exhibits ignorance of important issues right out of the gate.

From the Capitol Journal, Paula Hawks is already shooting her mouth off to the media without having the benefit of having her brain engaged:

“The basic thought for me is that South Dakotans deserve better representation, and Hawks_videothey deserve somebody who is going to listen to them and to hear what they have to say, and to act on that rather than answering to the party and the highest bidder,” Hawks told The Associated Press. “There’s a distinct population in South Dakota that doesn’t feel represented, and I know that I’m the person that will represent them well.”


Hawks said that Noem’s bank account highlights that her priority has been fundraising, and “that has shown in the lack of solid legislation that she has brought to support South Dakota.”

Read that here.

Gee, where have I read something completely different to that assertion:

But the farm bill is different. This is an issue of critical importance to South Dakota, and the nation. And Noem is right at the heart of things.

She was a member of the House Agriculture Committee that passed a farm bill after months and months of increasingly intense negotiations.

And she’s a member of House leadership at a time when the decision about when or whether to bring that farm bill to the floor rests with House Speaker John Boehner.

Noem’s not just one of 435 on this.

If the farm bill passes, she can claim it as a legitimate triumph. If it goes down in this Congress’ increasingly typical dysfunction, she won’t be able to dodge the blame.

Read that here.  And…

On February 7, 2014, 2014 Farm Bill was enacted.  I was privileged to serve as a member of the Conference Committee that negotiated the agreement and gave South Dakota a voice throughout the negotiations.

The USDA now has the responsibility to implement the legislation, but I am monitoring the process closely.

You can review the bill in its entirety here or check out some highlights below:

  • Saves More than $20 Billion.  The Farm Bill will reduce spending by more than $20 billion.  The savings were found through a series of reforms throughout the Farm Bill, including the elimination of direct payments and reforms to the nutrition program that help uphold the program’s integrity while saving around $8 billion.

  • Strengthens Livestock Disaster Program.  The Conference Committee based the Livestock Disaster Program off the House’s language, which was authored by Rep. Noem and offers a higher reimbursement rate than the Senate version did.  As a result, the program would reimburse producers up to 75% of the fair market value.  Additionally, the program will be retroactive for 2012 and 2013 and extend through the life of the Farm Bill.  Finally, the legislation raises the cap to $125,000 for a single producer and $250,000 for a married couple.

  • Gives Additional Tools to Combat Pine Beetle Crisis.  As urged by Rep. Noem, the agreement helps get boots on the ground faster for pine beetle mitigation efforts.  It does this by streamlining lengthy environmental red-tape on insect and disease infested areas of forests throughout the United States at the request of a state’s Governor. It also includes a categorical exclusion of 3,000 acres.  In November 2013, Rep. Noem hosted U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell in the Black Hills to show him the damage.  While there, he stated that we need to start dealing with thousands of acres rather than hundreds.  This Farm Bill allows for that.

  • Reauthorizes the Sun Grant Initiative.  The Farm Bill maintains the Sun Grant Initiative, which has created a network of land-grant universities, including South Dakota State University, that work together to further establish a biobased renewable energy economy.

  • Establishes an Office of Tribal Relations in the USDA.  The legislation permanently establishes an Office of Tribal Relations within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to help improve communication between the USDA and Tribal nations.  Rep. Noem originally authored the provision in the House version of the bill.

  • Renew PILT Funds.  The legislation renews funding for Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILT), helping states fix roads, hire teachers, pay police officers and provide other vital services.  This is especially important to rural communities throughout South Dakota.

  • Includes Noem’s Protect Our Prairies Language for Certain States.  The Farm Bill includes the Protect Our Prairies Act, which was written by Rep. Noem.  The legislation encourages conservation of native sod and grassland by decreasing crop insurance support for the first four years after the sod/grassland is broken.  This provision only applies in South Dakota, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska and Iowa.

Read that here.

If Paula Hawks can’t recognize that the Farm Bill was important, and that Congresswoman Noem played a critical role in this legislation, which was vitally important to SOUTH DAKOTA and OUR NATION, then she needs to go back to school, and study South Dakota.  Because her education on the topic of what’s important to South Dakotans is woefully inadequate.

And that distinct population who feels under-represented? It must consist exclusively of Democrat Party insiders. As evidenced by Noem’s 30 point victory over her last opponent.

The worst campaign roll-out in state history continues…. Hawks finally gets around to sort-of announcing it.

From my e-mail, it looks like Paula Hawks is getting around to announcing what we have been chronicling for a while, as she’s been stumbling around trying to figure out how to make a splash:

From: “Paula Hawks” <[email protected]>
Date: August 3, 2015 at 9:55:46 AM CDT
Subject: I’m running for U.S. House!
Reply-To: [email protected]


I am running to represent South Dakota in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Take a moment and watch our first video to hear why I am getting into this race.

South Dakota needs a Representative  who will work for them each and everyday in Washington. A representative who fights for the interests of everyday citizens.

We have a way of life worth fighting for here in South Dakota, but the fight won’t be easy.  But when machinery was broken on our family farm, my dad taught me that it was worth trying to fix before scrapping it all together. It’s time to restore real opportunity in America – it’s time to make government work all of us, not just for some of us.

Please join me to bring opportunity and fairness to the middle class.

Paula Hawks

And that’s it.  Really?

I think that could actually count as being worse than Corinna Robinson’s announcement.

An e-mail sent around to sort-of supporters is her big splash? Even the Dem Blogs aren’t trumpeting this out there. They had more fanfare for Rick Weiland’s more interesting brother when he was talking about taking on Stephanie Herseth.

Talk about a non-event.  I especially like the blank web site home page that visitors are now greeted with, with a blank twitter feed:

Untitled-1How could anyone resist an empty page?   Better get ready to hold the rushing crowds back….

**Update**– As they finally get around to it after being out there a week, the dems blogs are starting to poke at her boring, somnambulistic announcement:

Now, if Hawks wants people to listen to that message, let’s have a minor musical critique: the background music in this video sounds more like Erik Satie or a lullaby than campaign launch. Call it style, but I need a little more thunder in my campaign openings. Democrats won’t win back Congress playing lullabies.

Read it here.

And a thought for the media. If you do get around to waking up after watching her video, why not take her off-script, and ask what this “favorite pro-choice candidate of NARAL’s” thinks about the effort in Washington to de-fund planned parenthood?

Hmmm… Where did we last have an awful campaign rollout from a Democrat for Congress…..

Hawks_videoIf you were reading below and caught the Paula Hawks video (which was quickly taken down), you’d probably agree that this is one of the worst campaign rollouts of a statewide race that we’ve seen.

But as a reader reminded me, wasn’t there another awful campaign rollout that we’ve witnessed recently……..

That’s right! It was about two years ago in October – January that we witnessed another campaign rollout debacle – Corinna Robinson!

Her campaign started out with her going on about terrorism being caused by the minimum wage, declaring for office on October 13th…  a campaign kickoff in November… and February….  and about five different campaign managers in about as many months.

So, our sincere congratulations to Paula Hawks for so far having the best campaign rollout from a South Dakota Democrat for Congress since Corinna Robinson!

Good luck and best wishes to this election’s Democrat sacrifical lamb for Congress.

Paula Hawks continuing to move towards announcement. Posts YouTube video titled “I am running for US House.”

The biggest non-secret in South Dakota continues to move forward to it’s non-reveal.

One of the Abortion group NARAL’s Favorite State Legislators, Paula Hawks, has posted a video out to the Internets titled “I am running for US House.”   Despite her making no announcement, or filing FEC papers yet, it’s a pretty good indicator that she in fact, is running to be the Democrat’s sacrificial lamb for the US House race.

Here’s her sleep-inducing video, if you can stay awake through it.

In it, METABANK corporate trainer Hawks continues to portray herself as a teacher, despite leaving the profession to instruct bank tellers how to use the latest permutation of their banking software.

UPDATE – AAAnnnnnnd they yanked it down already. Although, here’s a screen shot to prove it was the real deal: