AG Posts Explanations for Slick Rick Weiland’s attempt to rewrite election laws to hide the D label.

@SoDakCampaigns

Attorney General Explanation Released for Initiated Constitutional Amendment Establishing Nonpartisan Elections

Marty JackleyPIERRE –South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today an Attorney General Explanation for a proposed Constitutional Amendment has been filed with the Secretary of State. This statement will appear on petitions that will be circulated by the sponsor of the proposed amendment. If the sponsor obtains a sufficient number of signatures on the petitions by November 9, 2015, as certified by the Secretary of State, the measure will be placed on the ballot for the November 2016 general election. This is a measure to change the Constitution, as opposed to changing state statutes (which requires 13,871), therefore the sponsor will need 27,741 signatures.

1. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution establishing nonpartisan elections
2. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution establishing nonpartisan elections and requiring secret ballot elections for certain legislative officers

Under South Dakota law, the Attorney General is responsible for preparing explanations for proposed initiated measures, referred laws, and South Dakota Constitutional Amendments. Specifically, the explanation includes a title, an objective, clear and simple summary of the purpose and effect of the proposed measure and a description of the legal consequences.

To view the Attorney General Explanation for the measure, as well as the final form of the measure submitted to this office, please click on the links:

http://atg.sd.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=4iP1eFfktCk%3d&tabid=442
http://atg.sd.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=lnmHEaGmj7k%3d&tabid=442

Slick Rick Election Rewrite

South Dakota Conservatives Lunch tomorrow in Sioux Falls

@SoDakCampaigns

(I can’t make it, because I have a different luncheon to attend, but if you’re in Sioux Falls, and are seeking some great conservative camaraderie tomorrow, check out the SD Conservatives Lunch at the W 41st St Pizza Ranch in Sioux Falls. – PP)

South-Dakota-State-Flag

You are invited to attend the
South Dakota Conservatives Lunch
on the second Thursday of each month
from 12:00 to 1:00 P.M.
at the Pizza Ranch located at
2717 West 41st Street in Sioux Falls.

Please come share your opinions, voice your concerns, meet fellow conservatives, and learn about the efforts and events of various conservative organizations in South Dakota.

The cost of the buffet lunch and drink is $9.99. For more information, please contact Chad Krier
at (605) 370-2778.

“It is the dim haze of mystery that adds enchantment to pursuit.” (Antoine Rivarol) Updated

Troy Jones

Update:  Nate Silver reached nearly the same conclusions as mine but a lot less deep.  I think he and everyone else is missing the “profile” concentration issue (non-politicos, Senators, Governros).  http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-post-debate-losers-walker-and-winners-fiorina/

I want to stress the GOP primary is extremely fluid.  This morning at a regular breakfast, while there were current favorites among everyone there, the true reaction to the debate was universal enthusiasm for virtually the entire field.  The adverse reaction to Trump was what he did and said AFTER the debate.  

We have the first national polling after record-breaking GOP Primary debate from last week.  In reality, I have no idea what it may mean in the end.  In politics, campaigns surge, campaigns fade, campaigns die and they sometimes come back to life.  The following is some information, random thoughts, questions, and some possible scenarios.  What do you think?

Comparing candidates movement from the prior Rasmussen poll, candidates support changed as follows:

Moving Up:  Fiorina (+8%), Rubio (+5%), Undecided (+4%), Christie (+2%)

Moving Down:  Trump (-9%), Walker (-5%), Huckabee (-4%), Bush (-3%)

No or minor change (plus or minus 1%):  Everyone else.

Random thoughts and questions:

  1. Fiorina appears to be in the next main debate and on the bubble is Paul, Christie, Kasich and Huckabee (currently outside looking in).
  2. Fiorina didn’t get all of her gain from her fellow debate participants.  Collectively, they only fell 3%.  She grabbed 5% of her gain from those in the second debate.  The degree it came from Trump (non-politico) or the former/current Governors is a big question.  This dissatisfaction might imperil the former/current Governor’s as maybe too many won’t listen to what the Governor’s actually have done.
  3. Non-politicos (Trump, Fiorina, Carson):  Collective support is 34% and collectively netted a 2% gain.  This indicates the depth of the dissatisfaction with “business as usual.”  If collectively this group maintains 1/3 support we are in for a wild ride because even if they don’t win primaries, they will significantly alter the playing field in each state making predictions and conventional wisdom moot.
  4. Former and current Governors (9 candidates):  Collective support is 33% and collectively dropped a net of 10% (8% of which came from the drops of Walker and Bush).  Going into the debate, Governor’s appeared to be the preferred profile with 43% support.  They ran states and by virtually all objective measure have performed or are performing.  In my mind in the debate, each of them touted impressive accomplishments as Governor so I’m wholly surprised by the collective drop.  Walker and Bush may need to have their colleagues drop out to move in the polls if there is no decline in collective non-politico support as I can see large chunks of Huckabee, Christie, & Kasich drifting to either Bush and Walker.
  5. US Senators (5 candidates):  Collective support 23% and gained collectively 5% and it was all Rubio.  While Cruz is likely staying in the race for a long time if not the duration no matter how he does in the early primaries, I still wonder about Rubio and Paul.  Their seats are up for re-election this year.  Where do they have to be in the polls to stay in the race vs. going back home to run for re-election?  When do they have to make the decision (legally and practically)?  And, if they drop out, where does their 14% support go?  To a fellow Senator (Cruz or Graham)?  To the non-policos?  To a Governor?
  6. From whom did the 4% jump in undecideds come from?  Trump or the Governors?
  7. The non-politicos are likely in the race through New Hampshire for sure.  I will be watching to see if Rasmussen’s next poll has them garnering more collective support or less.  It might be the most relevant “measurable” after the next debate.
  8. Trump has to stem his decline.  If he falls below 10%, his rise and fall will be seen as too similar to Gingrich & Cain last election.  Rasmussen doesn’t publish cross-tabs and it is my guess much of the decline is from women.  I’m not sure his statement today that he is considering not de-funding Planned Parenthood is a good strategy but we will see.
  9. From now and through the next debate, I believe that Bush, Cruz, Rubio and Walker have to mostly do no harm to themselves.  There is a shake-out coming and they best gain by being in a position to attract the 1/3 of the GOP voter population who currently is undecided or with candidates who drop out/become non-viable.  It doesn’t mean they play it safe but don’t err on the side of being too aggressive.
  10. Similarly, Fiorina and Carson need to stay the course of raising money and meeting with voters while articulating firm and cogent arguments.  They still are introducing themselves to both voters and the process.  Unlike those I list in #9 above, a misstep could be fatal.
  11. The Bubble Candidates (Huckabee, Paul, Christie, Kasich and maybe Perry) have to find away to become more relevant and stand-out.  In my mind, these are the candidates with the toughest decisions to make regarding tactics and strategy.
  12. Everyone else, if you don’t break out like Fiorina in the next debate, nobody will care what you do from now on.  Your endorsement won’t even matter.  If you want to be relevant, make an endorsement tomorrow.  At minimum, you’ll gain brownie points with voters because you are no longer taking up space.

Scenario #1:  I see a scenario at year-end of 6-8 remaining viable candidates with support between 12-20% and nobody a clear favorite whereby these candidates stay in the race to the end.  In the end, I think this will insure the GOP picks the best general election candidate who is battle tested like none before.  Unless Trump or Fiorina fade, today I guess it the remaining slots will be:

  • Three slots held by the non-politicos, Trump, Fiorina, and Carson.
  • Three slots by Bush, Cruz, Walker.  (No Rubio or Paul as I think in this scenario they will choose to run for Senate re-election)
  • One or two of the current bubble candidates,
  • And maybe a candidate who pulls a Fiorina and gets hot at the right time.

If this is the scenario, I think it favors Bush as nobody will have the money and organization to win primaries in a diverse field as we go through the season.

Scenario #2:  I also see a scenario where Fiorina continues to climb attracting significant support from the other non-politicos (Trump continues to fade and Carson ceases to be intriguing), one of Bush, Kasich, or Walker rises out of the Governor’s category, and one of Cruz, Paul or Rubio rises out of the Senators and going into Iowa we have essentially a three candidate race.  If this is the scenario, I can’t even hazard a guess on who would be the favorite.  Because the field is smaller, Bush’s organization and money advantage will be minimized as the remaining candidates will pick up what isn’t going to those who dropped out.  However, under this scenario, by the end of the season, there will be a nominee and a convention fight is avoided.

Scenario #3:  Finally, I see a scenario where Trump maintains 20-25% support across the country and in most individual states.  In this case, the other candidates fight over the remaining 75-80% whereby different people win different primaries.  Under this scenario, we go to the convention which becomes brokered.  Under this scenario (whether he has a significant block of delegates or not), Donald Trump may become the king-maker.  I think this is ultimately his endgame and why he won’t make the pledge.

I do not see a scenario where we have more than 8 viable candidates going into Iowa.  Not enough money, volunteers, room for people to break-out.

Sidenote:  The Clinton email problem may have reached fatal proportions even if Clinton loyalists don’t see it.  I’m betting the Clinton’s are wishing General Petraeus had not been prosecuted.  A plea deal down to a misdemeanor is as damaging politically as a felony conviction.  Biden and Schumer will soon be entering the Presidential sweepstakes.  

Noem Urges Administration to Prioritize Sanford Lab Research

@SoDakCampaigns

noem press header kristi noem headshot May 21 2014Noem Urges Administration to Prioritize Sanford Lab Research

WASHINGTON D.C. – In a letter to Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, Office of Management and Budget Director Shaun Donovan, and Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Holdren, Rep. Noem urged the administration to prioritize the Department of Energy’s Long Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) – a research project planned at the Sanford Underground Research Facility in Lead, South Dakota, along with other facilities across the country.

“The neutrino research to be conducted in South Dakota could lead to faster global communications, better nuclear weapons detection technologies, and a new understanding of how the world around us works,” said Noem.  “To accomplish any of this, however, the administration must see the Long Baseline Neutrino Facility experiment as imperative to our national interests and make the research a priority, as they have done in the past.  This is the future of scientific research.”

The Long Baseline Neutrino Facility experiment focuses on the study of neutrinos – one of the least understood particles in the universe.  It seeks to uncover their structure and behavior in the hopes of developing new technological advances as well as educating and training students.  To study the properties of neutrinos, the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois would produce an intense beam of neutrinos, which would travel 800 miles across the United States to the deep underground lab at the Sanford Underground Research Facility in South Dakota.

Earlier this year, the Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel (P5) outlined the 10-year strategic plan for high-energy physics experiments in the U.S.  The report specifically recommends research into dark matter and neutrinos, both fields of study the Sanford Lab is recognized for.

The Sanford Underground Research Facility employs 125 individuals full-time at its facility in Lead.

To read a copy of the letter, please click here.

###

South Dakota Joins in Filing Preliminary Injunction in Waters of the U.S. Case (WOTUS)

Pat Powers

South Dakota Joins in Filing Preliminary Injunction in Waters of the U.S. Case (WOTUS)

PIERRE, S.D – Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today that the State of South Dakota and all of the twelve states challenging the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in the Western Region have filed a motion for preliminary injunction in the Water of the United States (WOTUS) case.

“The EPA and Corps of Engineer’s failure to timely respond to the States’ request to delay the implementation of the Rule has unfortunately necessitated the need to seek further court intervention,” said Jackley. “Our concerns continue to be that these agencies are overstepping their Congressional authority and that our State will be losing considerable decision making control over our waters and land use. The new Rule is creating uncertainty for our agriculture and business community that needs to have fairness and a degree of common sense in federal regulation.”

The States are actively seeking postponement of the impending implementation of the WOTUS Rule while the courts have the opportunity to fully address the states’ concerns. On June 29, 2015, twelve states filed in federal district court in North Dakota asking the court to vacate the new rule and bar the EPA and the USACE from enforcing the new definition. Several other states have filed in their respective regions. The states contended the new definition of WOTUS violated provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the United States Constitution. Then on July 30, 2015, 31 states requested that the EPA and USACE delay the effective date of the new Rule defining “Waters of the United States” under the CWA. The Rule is currently set to go into effect on August 28, 2015. The States requested the Rule not be implemented for a period of at least nine months in order to give the courts time to review the legal challenges to the Rule.

-30-

Pro-pot Ballot group offering drinks for those who sign petitions. See 12-26-15 for what NOT to do in petition circulation.

@SoDakCampaigns

Melissa Mentele’s pro-medical pot organization “New Approach South Dakota” is apparently out there in the field collecting signatures. And if you were quick enough the other day, you could get a free drink if you went down to the Longbranch in Pierre & signed their petition:

illegal_inducement

“Our volunteer is offering a free beverage to whoever comes down to sign!”  Yeah… the only problem with that is state law:

12-26-15.   Bribery of voter as misdemeanor–Acts constituting bribery. It is a Class 2 misdemeanor for any person, directly or indirectly, by the person or through any other person:

(6)      To pay, lend, contribute, or offer or promise to pay, lend, or contribute, any money or other valuable consideration, to or for any voter or to or for any other person, to sign any nominating, referendum, initiated measure, or initiated constitutional amendment petition;
(7)      To give, offer, or promise any office, place, or employment, or to promise to procure or endeavor to procure any office, place, or employment to or for any voter, or to or for any other person in order to sign any nominating, referendum, initiated measure, or initiated constitutional amendment petition; or
(8)      To make any gift, loan, or promise, offer, procurement, or agreement as aforesaid to, for, or with any person in order to sign any nominating, referendum, initiated measure, or initiated constitutional amendment petition.

Read that here.

Maybe it’s just me, but I’m thinking that saying “free beverage to whoever comes down to sign” might strongly be considered an offer to exchange a signature for a drink.

(Update – as you might have guessed, the post is gone from their facebook page. But luckily, we have it saved and displayed for posterity. – PP)

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

Troy Jones

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.

South Dakotans for Fair Lending Press Release on Attorney General Explanation

@SoDakCampaigns

From my mailbox comes a press release from Lisa Furlong on the reason behind their measure as reviewed by the Attorney General today:

South Dakotans for Fair Lending Press Release on Attorney General Explanation

People have a right to be treated fairly.  By supporting this constitutional amendment, we will bring fairness to the lending process, while protecting the people of South Dakota’s rights as consumers.

Our measure places a strict 18% cap on interest rates, far more stringent than that of other measures being proposed.  Additionally, our measure takes the extra step of amending the South Dakota constitution, which will ensure that the cap placed on interest rates is not later removed or weakened. Other measures being circulated simply make changes to statutes, which can be easily altered and undermined.

Our supporters and volunteers are ready to get to work collecting the needed signatures to have this common sense measure placed on the ballot and we appreciate the work of the Attorney General and his staff in issuing the explanation of our measure in a timely manner.”

Lisa Furlong
Chair
South Dakotans for Fair Lending

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

@SoDakCampaigns

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:

SuzanneJonesPranger
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.