DNC meeting in Minneapolis this weekend. And how much are they spending to keep the SDDP afloat?

Word is that a contingent of Democrats from South Dakota made a pilgrimage to Minneapolis to the Democrat National Committee meeting taking place this week.

Aside from the meeting itself, the “Why” is pretty obvious, as the SDDP desperately needs the pipeline of cash from the national committee to buoy them up… or else they’re not likely to stay afloat.  So, state Democrats have to attend to do some big ring (or lower) kissing.

SDDP August 2015 FEC

While Republican-hating weatherman Phil Schrek can only keep the South Dakota Democrat Party afloat $20 at a time on his salary….


…. State Democrats need more serious cash to keep the lights on. And it’s obvious they rely on their national party to do so:


According to the August 20 report, over $7500 was dropped into SDDP coffers by the National party in July to keep them afloat. And the party credited them for sharing the voter file.

The word long ago when former ED/Chair Ben Nesselhuf left, was that he knew that the DNC money train wasn’t going to last forever, so he got while the getting was good.  But, despite the SDDP maintaining a phenomenal record of losses, surprisingly, the national cash is still there.

But is it good policy? Should the national party continue to keep the state Democrat party afloat?  What’s your opinion?

15 thoughts on “DNC meeting in Minneapolis this weekend. And how much are they spending to keep the SDDP afloat?”

  1. If I was the national party I would keep the party afloat. It’s important to have a 50 state strategy.

    The problem is the DNC and the SDDP don’t have a strategy in SD.

    They don’t need to be a statewide party to be effective. Why can’t they focus on the strong areas for Democrats in the state and lock those wins in. Once they have established a strong area then they can worry about expanding.

    Politics is cyclical. It will be bad for the Democrats until a Republican is in the White House or the SDDP acts more like SD than DC.

    But I’d like to think the RNC would help the SDGOP too.

  2. the strategy was pretty clear. tim johnson and stephanie herseth sandlin got it right enough to get elected and re-elected. strategy: “campaign like a conservative – – talk like a conservative – – be there for the hard votes and we’ll give you cover to oppose us on the easy votes.” an effective strategy, yet the current sddp won’t for a MINUTE buy into the “…. like a conservative” part that calls for some actual artful deception. they like their lies big I guess, like the lie that they’ll finally win in sd when they can finally go all the way left.

  3. Here is the bigger issue and is emblematic of the problem with the Democrat world view- A lack of expectation of self-reliance.

    After years of living off the teat of the national party, the SDDP now no longer knows “how to fish.”

    Unfortunately, the paternalism of the national party also doesn’t give them the capacity to use some tough love for their long-term benefit.

    My expectation: the national party will give them enough to have a modicum of minimal resources (like they treat the poor) and do nothing to allow them to move to self-sufficiency.

  4. Let the national party waste their resources here; it’s just that much less that they have to spend elsewhere.

    I think the SD Dem party will continue to be pathetic until the national Dems get rid of their leftist/socialist leanings and move back to the center. And as long as Obama and his ilk are in the White House, it is just trickle down politics that is gutting the SD Dem party.

    1. 1. they’re always going to be pathetic, regardless of improvements in their fortunes

      2. they have been as good as told by the national party to do the rural blue dog thing and play the cards close to the vest and bring up people like stephanie herseth sandlin. if a charity group took my money and decided not to do what i thought was prudent for them to do, i’d stop the money.

  5. I didn’t know Schrek was such a lefty/socialist; I guess I don’t have to watch his weathercast anymore. I don’t really care to support peope who support Socialism and act all self-righteous solely because they support the LGBT crowd. Seeya, Phil! (but not on my TV).

    1. I really do not care what Phil Schrek thinks or does. His contributions or lack thereof really adds nothing to the story. I also do not care much if some local TV personality is a conservative Republican. I don’t watch on not watch their broadcasts based upon their political views. I believe the story here is that the SD Democrat party is lacking funds and having little if any success in raising funds. The question is whether it is in the interests of the national party to keep giving money to them. I think it probably is, but won’t matter much in SD for some time.

    1. Hmmmm, did George Soros blow his wad on coal stocks this week? The hypocrisy of a minion like that is staggering.

    2. it wouldn’t surprise me to learn they had a bunch of money parked outside the tracking systems.

    1. I often wonder that, too, especially when I see on FEC filings that rich and powerful SD Republicans frequently provide the SDGOP with loans.

  6. Speaking of left-wing weatherman (just kidding), (Wait a minute, weren’t they from Chicago back in the 1970s?) I heard the actual rain fall in Sioux Falls the other night was overstated by local meteorologists to promote the Al Gore climate change agenda. What do you all think? 😉 ….. I also have a bridge I want to sell you, too, if you believe this on 8th Street in Sioux Falls…. that is if it has not already floated away…. 🙂


Comments are closed.