Category: Uncategorized

Jeez… the more I look at it, the more I think the election in South Dakota is going to be an electoral disaster for Democrats.

District	Race	Name	Party	Predictions	Notes
District 01	State Representative	Steven D. McCleerey	DEM	Dem Over
District 01	State Representative	Susan Wismer	DEM	Dem Over
District 02	State Representative	John Graham	DEM		Graham against 2 incumbents. GOP should do well.
District 02	State Representative	Lana Greenfield	REP	GOP
District 02	State Representative	Burt Tulson	REP	GOP
District 03	State Representative	Nikki Bootz	DEM		This was never a race.
District 03	State Representative	Brooks Briscoe	DEM
District 03	State Representative	Drew Dennert	REP	GOP
District 03	State Representative	Daniel Kaiser	REP	GOP
District 04	State Representative	Matt Rosdahl	DEM		Democrats didn’t run a race. At all.
District 04	State Representative	Peggy Schuelke	DEM
District 04	State Representative	John Mills	REP	GOP
District 04	State Representative	Jason W. Kettwig	REP	GOP
District 05	State Representative	Michele Alvine	DEM
District 05	State Representative	Charles “Chuck” Haan	IND
District 05	State Representative	Hugh M. Bartels	REP	GOP
District 05	State Representative	Nancy York	REP	GOP
District 06	State Representative	Clara Hart	DEM		Latterell and Otten will win. This is not a contest. Hart was loaded with cash, but I don’t know if it was evident.
District 06	State Representative	Kyle Rogers	DEM
District 06	State Representative	Isaac Latterell	REP	GOP
District 06	State Representative	Herman Otten	REP	GOP
District 07	State Representative	Linda A. Brandt	DEM		Reed will win, and Hawley will win. It’s the Brookings way for the State’s biggest swing district.
District 07	State Representative	Spencer Hawley	DEM	Dem
District 07	State Representative	Tim Reed	REP	GOP
District 08	State Representative	Kory Rawstern	DEM		Word is Unger is running stronger than expected, but I expect Heinemann as incumbent to be safe.
District 08	State Representative	Jason Unger	DEM
District 08	State Representative	Leslie Heinemann	REP	GOP
District 08	State Representative	Mathew Wollmann	REP	GOP
District 09	State Representative	Mark G. Guthmiller	DEM		This is a toss-up district. Saba spent money, but Clark is well thought of.
District 09	State Representative	Michael Saba	DEM	Toss up
District 09	State Representative	Michael Clark	REP	Toss up
District 09	State Representative	Wayne H. Steinhauer	REP	GOP
District 10	State Representative	Dean Kurtz	DEM		This District will remain strong GOP.
District 10	State Representative	Paul Vanderlinde	DEM
District 10	State Representative	Don Haggar	REP	GOP
District 10	State Representative	Steven Haugaard	REP	GOP
District 11	State Representative	Leona Weiland	DEM
District 11	State Representative	Paul Schipper	DEM
District 11	State Representative	Chris Karr	REP	GOP
District 11	State Representative	Mark K Willadsen	REP	GOP
District 12	State Representative	Bob Benson	DEM
District 12	State Representative	Susan Randall	DEM
District 12	State Representative	Arch Beal	REP	GOP
District 12	State Representative	Greg Jamison	REP	GOP
District 13	State Representative	P. James Eckhoff Jr	DEM		.
District 13	State Representative	Ellee Spawn	DEM
District 13	State Representative	G. Mark Mickelson	REP	GOP
District 13	State Representative	Sue Lucas-Peterson	REP	GOP
District 14	State Representative	Valerie Loudenback	DEM		LaPlante was a good substitution, but Holmes & Zikmund are good campaigners. Advantage GOP.
District 14	State Representative	Michael LaPlante	DEM
District 14	State Representative	Tom Holmes	REP	GOP
District 14	State Representative	Larry P. Zikmund	REP	GOP
District 15	State Representative	Jamie Smith	DEM		Leggett has had a go around before, and ready to go this year. Myers apparently moved to Minn.
District 15	State Representative	Karen Soli	DEM	Dem
District 15	State Representative	Eric Leggett	IND	Indy
District 15	State Representative	Mike Myers	IND
District 16	State Representative	Ted Curry	DEM		I don’t have a good enough read, but my people down there indicate Tornberg hasn’t run half the race she did last time.
District 16	State Representative	Ann Tornberg	DEM
District 16	State Representative	Kevin D. Jensen	REP	GOP
District 16	State Representative	David L. Anderson	REP	GOP
District 17	State Representative	Ray Ring	DEM	Dem	The incumbents will be tough to beat.
District 17	State Representative	Mark Winegar	DEM
District 17	State Representative	Debbie Pease	REP
District 17	State Representative	Nancy Rasmussen	REP	GOP
District 18	State Representative	David Allen	DEM		Hunhoff & Stevens will dominate the race.
District 18	State Representative	Peter Rossiter	DEM
District 18	State Representative	Jean M. Hunhoff	REP	GOP
District 18	State Representative	Mike Stevens	REP	GOP
District 19	State Representative	Melissa Mentele	DEM
District 19	State Representative	Kent S. Peterson	REP	GOP
District 19	State Representative	Kyle Schoenfish	REP	GOP
District 20	State Representative	Lance Carson	REP	GOP
District 20	State Representative	Tona Rozum	REP	GOP
District 21	State Representative	Juile Bartling	DEM	Strong Dem	Another one for each party here. Even the Republicans like Julie (possibly because she votes with them on many issues).
District 21	State Representative	Gary Burrus	DEM
District 21	State Representative	Lee Qualm	REP	Strong GOP
District 22	State Representative	Carmen Dannenbring	DEM
District 22	State Representative	Joan Wollschlager	DEM
District 22	State Representative	Roger Chase	REP	GOP
District 22	State Representative	Bob Glanzer	REP	GOP
District 23	State Representative	John A. Lake	REP	GOP Over
District 23	State Representative	Spencer Gosch	REP	GOP Over
District 24	State Representative	Mary Duvall	REP	GOP Over
District 24	State Representative	Tim Rounds	REP	GOP Over
District 25	State Representative	David Haagenson	DEM		I want Pischke to win, because he’s a good guy, and a good candidate. But you can’t always get what you want.
District 25	State Representative	Dan Ahlers	DEM	Toss Up
District 25	State Representative	Roger Hunt	REP	GOP
District 25	State Representative	Tom Pischke	REP	Toss Up
District 26A	State Representative	Shawn Bordeaux	DEM	Dem Over
District 26B	State Representative	James Schaefer	REP	GOP Over
District 27	State Representative	Jim Bradford	DEM	Dem	This is tough territory for the GOP, and conventional wisdom is that Liz May’s luck may have run out.
District 27	State Representative	Red Dawn Foster	DEM	Toss Up
District 27	State Representative	Steve Livermont	REP
District 27	State Representative	Elizabeth May	REP	Toss Up
District 28A	State Representative	Oren Lesmeister	DEM	Dem Over
District 28B	State Representative	Sam Marty	REP	GOP Over
District 29	State Representative	Thomas J. Brunner	REP	GOP Over
District 29	State Representative	Larry Rhoden	REP	GOP Over
District 30	State Representative	Sandy Arseneault	DEM		Dems are not elected in this District, but the county extension officer might give you a dollar for each tail you bring in. This race is over.
District 30	State Representative	Kristine Ina Winter	DEM
District 30	State Representative	Julie Frye-Mueller	REP	GOP
District 30	State Representative	Tim R. Goodwin	REP	GOP
District 31	State Representative	Timothy R. Johns	REP	GOP Over
District 31	State Representative	Charles M. Turbiville	REP	GOP Over
District 32	State Representative	Nik Aberle	DEM		This race is over.
District 32	State Representative	Susan Kelts	DEM
District 32	State Representative	Sean McPherson	REP	GOP
District 32	State Representative	Kristin A. Conzet	REP	GOP
District 33	State Representative	Jim Hadd	DEM		This race is over.
District 33	State Representative	Ethan Marsland	DEM
District 33	State Representative	Taffy Howard	REP	GOP
District 33	State Representative	David Johnson	REP	GOP
District 34	State Representative	Steve Stenson	DEM		This race is over.
District 34	State Representative	Dan Dryden/Dave Lust	REP	GOP
District 34	State Representative	Craig Tieszen	REP	GOP
District 35	State Representative	Dave Freytag	DEM		This race is over.
District 35	State Representative	Michael T Hanson	DEM
District 35	State Representative	Blaine “Chip” Campbell	REP	GOP
District 35	State Representative	Lynne DiSanto	REP	GOP

I don’t see any good news in the card for Democrats, as Republicans continue to maintain what would normally be impossibly high numbers of legislators.

After going through the past 2 legislative sessions with a count of 58 Republicans to 12 Democrats, in taking the thousand foot view of this years’ house races, I’m coming up with a count of 57 Republican Seats, 9 Democrats, 3 toss ups, and 1 Independent (Kudos to Eric Leggett, whom I hear has really gone after it this year).

If we give all the toss-up races to Democrats… that would leave them at 12, with Republicans losing 1 seat to an independent who would probably vote with them on most issues anyway.

Even if the GOP loses one or two that I’m counting in our column at the moment, there’s not a lot for Democrats to cheer about. They’ve taken their dismal number of legislators, and managed to maintain it.

Has the media called the election for Thune and Noem yet? What’s the hold up?

🙂

Marsy’s Law To Hold Election Night Party In Sioux Falls 

(Pierre, SD)—The Marsy’s Law for South Dakota campaign is holding an election night party in Sioux Falls on Tuesday, November 8.  The event will be held in the Revir Ballroom at the Downtown Hilton Garden Inn located at 201 E. 8^th St, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.  The public is invited.  The event will start at 7:00pm and last until 11:00pm.

Representatives from the Marsy’s Law campaign, including prosecutors, victims and victim advocates will be available for press interviews.

Representatives will also be available for phone interviews at 605-280-7767.

“We are humbled by the outpouring of support we have received across the state,” said Jason Glodt, former Assistant Attorney General and State Director for Marsy’s Law for South Dakota. “Volunteers have been working tirelessly across the state for months asking people to give equal rights to crime victims. On Election Day, we have the opportunity to make history for victim rights in South Dakota!” 

###

As of Friday, almost 40 million Americans have already voted and there will be roughly 80 million votes cast tomorrow. In other words, the election will very soon be over except for counting the ballots.  Within 48 hours, this thread will become moot.

According to realclearpolitics.com, average of all polls, Hillary leads Trump by roughly 3% with roughly 7% who are undecided.  This translates into a Hillary Clinton lead in the Electoral College Votes 301 to 237. 270 Electoral Votes needed to win. 269 Electoral Votes is a tie.

In other words, for Trump to win, he has to win states which total 33 electoral votes currently in the Clinton column (actually 32 as it would be likely the House would elect Trump if there is a tie).

Going into the election right now, Clinton has in the bank 203 Electoral Votes vs. 164 for Trump (“in the bank” is shorthand for leading in the polls by more than 5%).

The following is my cheat sheet. If a “Likely Winner” loses a state I’ve allocated to them, they must pick it up somewhere else.

• If Clinton loses Pennsylvania, Virginia or Michigan, she must win Florida. If she loses two of these three, call the election for Trump.
• If Trump loses Ohio or Georgia, he would have to win Virginia and New Mexico or Virginia and Colorado.   As winning Virginia is unlikely with Senator Kaine on the ticket, a loss in Ohio or Georgia calls the race for Clinton.
• If Clinton wins North Carolina and New Hampshire, Florida likely won’t matter.
• If Florida matters, we will have another infamous Florida re-count.

State	Polls Close (CST)	Electoral Votes	Likely Winner	Electoral College Votes	Comments
Maine CD #2	5:00 p.m.	1	DJT	203-165	DJT losing here could foreshadow NH
Maine Statewide	5:00 p.m.	2	HRC	205-165	HRC losing here could foreshadow NH
Virginia	6:00 p.m.	13	HRC	218-165	Sen. Kaine on ticket makes this likely HRC
Georgia	6:00 p.m.	16	DJT	218-181	DJT losing here foreshadows NC
Ohio	6:30 p.m.	18	DJT	218-199	Trump been holding lead for weeks
North Carolina	6:30 p.m.	15			Virtually tied
Florida	7:00 p.m.	29			Virtually tied
New Hampshire	7:00 p.m.	4			Virtually tied
Pennsylvania	7:00 p.m.	20	HRC	238-199	If Trump wins, he will win the election
Michigan	7:00 p.m.	16	HRC	254-199	If Trump wins, he will win the election
Iowa	7:30 p.m.	6	DJT	254-205	Trump been holding lead for weeks
Colorado	8:00 p.m.	9	HRC	263-205	Trump needs Independent candidates to do well
New Mexico	8:00 p.m.	5	HRC	268-205	Unpredictable with NM former Gov. on ballot
Arizona	8:00 p.m.	11	DJT	268-216	Trump loss foreshadows Nevada and NM
Nevada	9:00 p.m.	6		268-216	Virtually tied

There are some very interesting linkages because of similarities of the respective states.

• If Trump loses Maine CD#2, it becomes likely he will lose New Hampshire. Similarly, if Clinton loses Maine Statewide, it becomes likely she will lose New Hampshire. Either one could be enough to tip the scales one way or another so the election could be “over” before our polls close barring an upset in New Mexico.
• If Clinton loses Virginia, she will lose North Carolina. Similarly, if Trump loses Georgia, he will lose North Carolina.
• If Clinton loses Pennsylvania, she could very possibly lose Michigan and Wisconsin where it would be a run-away.
• If Trump wins New Mexico, he will likely win Nevada and a New Mexico win would negate a loss of Maine CD#2 and New Hampshire.

As you can see, Trump has to hold ALL STATES he leads by 3% or more and run the table on the states that are virtually tied (Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Nevada). If he runs the table but loses just Maine CD#1, we have a tied Electoral College and the House will select the next President of the United States.

The good news is Trump doesn’t have to win a state he is currently behind by more than 3% to win the election. The bad news is he has to win all the four closest states (FL, NC, NH, & NV).  In short, odds of Trump winning are the same as flipping a coin twice and both landing on heads.

The American body politic is deeply divided with roughly 45% on the liberal side and 45% on the conservative side.  There is about 5% which lean each way.  It is my opinion that this election will be decided by the very middle 5% of the American body politic.  These people usually confound the pollsters as they move generally in block on Election Day which explains Obama beating polls in 2008 and 2012 and Bush in 2004 or Reagan in 1980.

My gut:  Watch Maine CD#2 & Maine Statewide. If both go one way, I think it will foreshadow the winner.  That said, all of America is watching to see what happens in Florida.  Been there and done that for the last four elections.  Might as well keep it up.

P.S.  Sorry about the format.  Did the best I could in the time I had.  Not the graphics wiz Pat is.

Back towards the end of November in 2012, just after Thanksgiving, Former Governor Mike Rounds officially announced that he would be a candidate for the US Senate in 2014.

Former Republican Gov. Mike Rounds announced plans Thursday to seek South Dakota’s U.S. Senate seat, setting up a 2014 battle between two men who have never lost an election – a campaign that figures to draw widespread national attention as Republicans and Democrats jockey for control of the chamber.

Read that here.

It didn’t come as a huge shock, as Rounds had made an earlier announcement of it at a Lincoln Day Dinner in October, but it licked off the campaign and Rounds started raising money and campaigning in earnest.

Fast forward a couple of years, and we’re literally at that same point at the end of the 2016 cycle.

So, after the election, will we see Marty Jackley schedule a visit with the Sioux Falls media?  Will Mark Mickelson announce a press conference?

And what about Kristi Noem?

Noem is arguably the key driver in how 2018 will play out. If and when she jumps in for Governor, it sets the table for her successors to start showing their cards. If she decides to stay in Congress, it may be a largely mano a mano contest for Governor.  The outcome of tomorrow’s election will probably be the deciding factor in whether she chooses to stay in Congress, or run to be South Dakota’s next Republican Governor.

And once that decision is made, we still may not hear for several months.

It could be a wild ride over the next six months as to which candidates will and which won’t on the Republican side. We may see Mike Huether run on the Dem side, derided as a DINO, facing a far more liberal candidate.

And if there is a congressional opening, get ready for the real free-for-all.

I was speaking with one of our Statewide officials today about the ballot measures, when he brought up an issue I hadn’t considered on Amendment V.  The consequences of V dawned on me, because one of them is being used by a sponsor of Referred Law 19 as a reason to vote against that measure.

On the ballot position statement for Referred Law 19, opponent to the measure Cory Heidelberger notes that the measure needs to be defeated because..

RL 19 moves the deadline for candidate petitions from the end of March to the beginning of March. Candidates for Legislature would have to decide whether to run or not before the Legislative Session ends.

Candidates would lose most of the longer, warmer days of March to circulate petitions. In exchange, RL 19 gives them December, whose short days, cold weather, and holiday busyness make it the worst month for petitioning. These conditions mean fewer candidates will run for office.

Read that here.

Basically, aside from trying to tell us that liberals can’t collect petition signatures in the cold, the argument against it is that “Candidates for Legislature would have to decide whether to run for office before the legislative session ends.”

But take a look at Amendment V. In our discussion today, my statewide official friend pointed out thar among the many things V does is trigger and accelerate a race of general election proportions to take place at the time of the primary election – which will have the effect of starting the election process far, far sooner than it would have for many state offices currently selected at the political party conventions.

Ironically, those opposing RL 19 at the same time they support Amendment V ignore  the unalterable reality that Amendment V would trigger a widespread acceleration of all of the statewide races, including and especially constitutional offices, which had previously not had primary elections in early June.

If Amendment V passes, look for the election process for all of these offices to begin earlier than ever in 2017, with potentially earlier petition collection being sought by all of the statewide candidates, since they would want to have that process out of the way before they began their campaigns in earnest.

When it comes to the ballot measures, it’s ok to want the length of the election to stay the same. But, if that’s the case, you can’t oppose RL19, and support Amendment V.  Because the passage of either would have similar effects on lengthening the election season for South Dakotans.

Attorney General Jackley Joins Amicus to Protect Religious  Freedom 

PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today that South Dakota has joined 12 other State Attorneys General and the Governors of Kentucky and Mississippi in an amicus or “friend of the court” urging the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the religious freedom of students in the Birdville Independent School District (BISD).

“The framers of our South Dakota Constitution opened their sessions with a prayer in 1883, and our highest court has held that this practice may continue with our  legislature and other governmental bodies,” said Jackley. “The student expressions permitted by school board policy are the private speech of the student and prohibiting the students from presenting an invocation of their choice would be a violation of the students’ First Amendment Rights.”

American Humanist Association is challenging the BISD policy allowing volunteer student speakers to express a message of his or her own choosing at the start of     school board meetings. BISD established a policy in March 2015, which allows students to sign up for a random drawing to determined who will speak at the opening of the meeting. The students are responsible for the message and the content, some include religious message in their  remarks.

-30-

South Dakota Joins Wolf Release Challenge to Protect State Wildlife Management and Livestock Interests 

PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty Jackley announces that South Dakota has joined 16 other states in an amicus or “friend of the court” brief that argues the U.S.  Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) was properly enjoined by the Federal Trial Court from further release of Mexican wolves pending permits from the State of New Mexico. The brief was filed in the U.S. 10th  Circuit Court of Appeals.

“The release of wolves can have a devastating effect on wildlife management and livestock producers. The States have historically managed the wildlife within their borders and are better equipped to balance wildlife needs with  our  agricultural  interests. The federal government is ignoring the interests of our States by introducing wolves into the State’s wildlife system and then not allow the State to manage and balance wildlife and livestock interest,” said Jackley.

New Mexico denied the request by the USFW to release Mexican wolves, but did not permanently veto the wildlife release. New Mexico officials asked that the USFW prepare and submit a federal species management plan along with the permit  application so that state officials could determine whether the proposed releases would conflict with state conservations management efforts. The USFW failed to submit any such plan.

Federal regulation requires the USFW to adhere to state permit requirements prior to releasing wildlife under certain federal programs unless the state requirements impede the Secretary of Interior’s ability to carry out her responsibilities under the    Endangered Species Act. The brief argues that it provides an important check on  federal authority to intrude into wildlife management, an area that is generally the purview of the States.

There is no cost to the State of South Dakota to join this challenge.

-30-

Congratulations, Deb!

As noted earlier, the election is drawing to a close, and the liberals behind Amendment V are cranking up the advertising in an effort to try to convince South Dakotans that it’s a “bipartisan” effort. And that actually could not be farther from the truth. The Big Lie in this campaign is that this is a “non-partisan” effort.  If you take a hard look at it, it’s all being driven by the Daschle/Johnson machine.  

That’s why Slick Rick Weiland & Drey Samuelson sent out that e-mail appeal letter from Daschle and Johnson on October 24th (Which you read about here.)

And that’s why you have a rogue’s gallery of South Dakota liberals who donated to the effort to erase party labels from the ballot, and to remove Independents from the fall election:

• former Democratic Senator Tim Johnson put in another $50k
• former Democratic Senate candidate Rick Weiland $15k
• former Democratic governor candidate Scott Heidepriem $2500
• former Democratic state legislator Sandy Jerstad $1000
• Democratic Senator Tim Johnson’s chief of staff Drey Samuelson $50k
• former SD Democratic Party executive director Bret Healy
• liberal activist Cathy Piersol
• SD Democratic Party’s lawyer Jim Leach
• Democratic appointee Dallas Tonsager
• Jeff Navin (Democratic congresswoman Stephanie Herseth cheif-of-staff and Tom Daschle staffer)
• Daschle political operative Jody Severson
• former SD Democratic legislator Linda Lee Viken
• SD Dem national committeeman Bill Walsh
• Democratic fundraiser Christine Hamilton ($2k)
• Daschle staffer Peter Stavrianos ($1000)
• Democratic governor Kneip cabinet official Rich Garry
• Democratic mayor candidate for Sioux Falls Vernon Brown 

If you think this is a bi-partisan effort, don’t kid yourself. It’s not. It’s designed to hide party labels from the public, because Democrats haven’t put the time and effort into cultivating theirs over the years. So, it’s in their own interested to conceal their damaged brand from the voters.

Don’t be fooled.  On November 8th, VOTE NO on Amendment V.