37 thoughts on “Randy Seiler Dem’s nominee for AG”

  1. Not a big surprise…will means run for something else? I expect that also.

    Ravnsborg is the only one that can defeat him, he has a message and the money to do so…Fitzgerald has neither and Russell is somewhere in the middle on those 2 categories.

    1. Quick, wake up, you are having a nightmare that Ravnsborg got the nomination. He is the most unqualified candidate to ever run for AG. Those of us who are wide awake know that and know he doesn’t have a chance. Giving him the nomination would quickly become a nightmare for the entire SD GOP.

  2. How about did they approve any other candidates for any other offices? including their Lt Gv pick?

  3. Congratulations to South Dakota’s next Attorney General who is very well qualified and a heck of a nice guy!

  5. What are the three previous posters smoking? Whatever it is, I don’t want any.

  6. So they didn’t commit party suicide and nominated the clearly better candidate. Shouldn’t be surprising but it is.

  8. Anybody that discounts Randy’s resume, does so at their peril. This race is no GOP layup

    1. Lee,

      I don’t think anyone that’s seriously paying attention is discounting Seiler as a candidate.

      1. The general who exercises no forethought but makes light of his opponent is sure to be captured by him – 孫子

      1. Got it. You must be for age discrimination and for anyone with less qualifications/experience. I’m guessing you might even be the E-I-E-O labor guy. He used his position to endorse a candidate even though State Labor Union denounced the endorsement. Attention labor union workers…those of you with the least tenure and experience move to the top of your pay scale…that is what your leader is telling you.

      1. I agree. Fitz and Russell are not electable. Ravnsborg has turned the political world on its head the last couple of years. His hard work should pay off, he has carried buckets of water for the elephant. Plus I like him, hard working honest, plus he can raise money and run a campaign…..and he has IDEAS!

        1. Ravnsborg would be the Roy Moore to Seiler’s Doug Jones. Peddling conspiracy nonsense and a complete lack of trial experience or governing experience should write anyone off the #4 position in Pierre. The fact that he’s made it this far is enough of an embarassment.

          1. So it’s not an embarrassment that someone with ethical issues made it this far? Trump wasn’t a career government employee either, and he wasn’t “qualified”, so you don’t think the turned out well?

        2. But Jake, it’s not his turn like it is for the old establishment candidates Fitz and Russell. We all like the status quo, don’t you know. Why stir up the pot with someone fresh, vibrant, and not beholden to the entrenched powers that be?

  9. This continues to be the most low-brow, lack of evidence (ironic for a law enforcement job), hyperbolic, goofy set of conversations I have said.

    Each anonymous advocate says their guy is the best and the other guys are unelectable bozos. Very, very, very, very seldom do I get a sense the advocate knows what an AG does (daily or over time) to any degree of detail or has seen/used the AG (or staff) in action at his job (vs. giving a Lincoln Day speech or at a press conference.

    Yet, thinks they have any information to definitively declare one candidate qualified and all others unqualified. The hubris is amazing.

    By the way, for six years I was a heavy user directly of the AG office and temporary Assistant AG’s who were hired for a single task in a community.

  11. Seiler will have a field day if he faces Fitzgerald or Russell.

    Fitzgerald: no leadership or management capabilities. 48% conviction rate, failing grade.

    Russell: fired and sensured. Supported by wacko stace

  12. Troy, I agree with you. All three have good qualitys and all three have negatives. The one thing I like about Ravnsborg is that he’s a battalion commander. Serious question: how much day to day face to face management does that entail? And Jerry Miller, please refrain from answering because we all know you are to Jason what Stace is to Lance.

    1. Clearly you do not understand how an organization works, since neither apparently you have never run anything nor Russell and Fitzgerald have never done so either.

      Being a Battalion Commander takes a lot of interaction and guidance to ones staff. You give them direction, tweak the prepared products and move forward with a VISION and plan, neither of which Fitzgerald has and Russell only has a small vision.

      One just does not become a BN CDR they are highly trained and also heavily schooled in leadership. This is something only a select few do in the military. Just having been selected is an honor.

      Keep up the good work….anyone who really understands all your roles and responsibilities will know you are heads and shoulders above your competition. The difference here is we have rarely had a candidate with so much outside experience running…very very refreshing!

  13. Ravnsborg is a pretend prosecutor. Are we really going to nominate a guy who doesn’t know how to do a jury trial to run against Seiler? What a gift to the Dems.

    1. If Ravnsborg flies around in his A-10 Warthog with a banner “Ravnsborg for AG” above parades, athletic events, car races, state & county fairs and campaign events it’s over for Seiler. He might as well concede. Randy Seiler is a Vietnam vet but those A-10s are pretty cool.

      1. Stace,
        Why do you keep trying to peddle these lies? Are you that hung up on Ravnsborg or just that jealous he is more accomplished military wise than your traffics cop days as an MP?

  14. I’m sensing the incoming administration will make a hands off push for a 4th option. Too much vulnerability at stake. If the AG office can’t be defended, it puts the new Executive in a head housekeeper roll.

  15. If we fail to nominate a man with military experience, dems will play the Vietnam card six ways to Sunday. Better to neutralize. Similar to the rationale for Sutton picking a female Lt. Gov.

  16. If you think that Sutton will win, then Seiler has a shot at it.

    Historically, Democrats do not elect a SOS or AG candidate without also electing their gubernatorial nominee too.

    Democrats in recent memory have had some luck electing their candidates to the PUC and the School and Public Lands position with the gubernatorial nominee losing, but that is few and far between at best.

    In 1994, Butler, the Democrat, defeated Harding the incumbent Republican for State Treasurer; but that was after a convention challenge to Harding and issues raised of incompetence during his administration. In fact, prior to 1994, the Democrats had not elected a State Treasurer since the Great Depression.

    There have only been three Democratic AGs in our state history. Each of them have only served a single two year term, with the last one being Kermit Sande, who was elected in 1972.

    The first Democrat to be elected AG in this state, and whose name escapes me at this time, won in 1936, which was the same year that incumbent Democratic Governor Tom Berry loss in a bid for an unprecedented third term as governor. Else, Democrats rarely, and only take the AG spot, if they also take the Governor’s mansion.

    So the question is, “How strong is Sutton?” Because that is the determining question as to whether the South Dakota GOP is vulnerable when it comes to the AG race.

    Now, that said, I think that Seiler is a strong and fine candidate, but his fate does not rest so much with his actions or resume as it does with the success of the Sutton campaign and whether people believe that the so called “Blue Wave” is big enough to severely impact South Dakota politics in 2018.

  17. Seiler has a better shot than Sutton. Anti Pierre sentiment is strong. Marty trounced, Dusty Daaugard 47%, GOP AG unsettling. Seiler can be sold as the watchdog to the litany of abuses that Noem told us all about.

    1. Well, that should definitely be Seiler’s strategy, but most South Dakota voters do not vote in the constitutional races, or see the constitutional races, as individual races. People in South Dakota do not vote for AG the way they have been known to vote for Senator or Congressman in recent memory.

      Keep in mind, that in 1982, the people of South Dakota elected a Republican by the narrowest of margin for Commissioner of School and Public Lands by a 51 to 49 victory, a Republican that is, who was known to have stage four cancer, or terminal cancer for that matter, yet he won as a Republican. Now, I must admit that having Janklow win with 71% of the vote that year probably helped, but that just further accentuates how gubernatorial coat tails matter in South Dakota gubernatorial politics and are a constant protector of Republican constitution officer candidates for the most part.

      So how big is this “Blue Wave?” That is the question that we must all ask when it comes to the gubernatorial race in South Dakota in 2016. If we really want to be truthful to ourselves about the other constitutional races, that is. Because the one thing that concerns me as a Democrat is, that if the “Blue Wave” is big, then Jo Loetschler, even with the implosive last week of a campaign that she ended up having, I think should have done better than 37%, if there is truly a “Blue Wave” and an interest among women especially to elect women this year… And there again, wouldn’t the latter benefit Noem too?

  18. You make several astute points, v.s.g., and I appreciate the historical context you offer. I too watched the Sioux Falls mayoral race with keen interest and, based on its outcome, I’d be concerned if I were a South Dakota “progressive.” Nevertheless, I agree that if the SDGOP gets cocky & fails to bring its “A game,” 2018 will be a dangerous year. Conservatives need to stop the internecine feuds and rally behind candidates.

    Luckily, Noem is a political superstar and Dusty has convinced me that he will NEVER be outworked. He’ll shake every hand in the state before November.

    As an aside, I’m not sure what counts as a “blue wave.”

    For example, if dems flip 20 house seats (nationally), folks on MSNBC will shriek & crow about a “massive blue wave” tsunami, but Fox commentators will say Trump’s party beat midterm expectations. Who’s got the better case? If it’s just 18-20 seats, imo, that’s no blue wave. OTOH, if it’s dems +40 seats…. surfs up!

    Not every victory is a landslide. Clearly there’s an outcome where both sides can claim victory.

    1. Good points and analysis…problem is both sides will spin expectations 20 times before the elections results.

  19. There are plenty of factions beyond establishment women. Even your own side of the aisle might not be able to contain themselves ! The “Blue Wave” is a fallacy. And continuing to mention it serves only as a blue deflator. The AG race is its own animal. As far as the Jo flame out, 37% can be taken as the kool aid base in Sioux Falls. The middle was Pide Pipered by the state’s newest Democrat. Perhaps a PTH endorsement ? Now that would be news ! Get on it Powers.

  20. This “Blue Wave” thing reminds of the guy who talks about all the wealth he’s going to have someday, but how does he know for sure that he’s in the will?

Comments are closed.