SDDP chair Tornberg ‘Ann-splaining’ that gerrymandering cause of dem losses. Nevermind they aren’t registering voters.

Pat Powers

South Dakota Democrat party chair Ann Tornberg is already on another “Ann-splaining” tour to try and claim that the massive Democrat party losses were somehow someone else’s fault, particularly that of Republicans:

So if a Democrat came so close to winning South Dakota’s top statewide office, why did other Democratic statewide candidates lose by such wide margins? Tornberg pointed to “negative” and “volatile” politics.

And…

She also said she thinks gerrymandering is partially to blame for Democrats’ losses.

And…

But there’s more to the equation than district lines. Even before South Dakotans hit the polls, only 29 percent register as Democrats in the first place, according to November state voter registration data. In comparison, 47 percent identify as Republican, and 23 percent as Independent or unaffiliated.

Jeff Barth, a Democratic Minnehaha County Commissioner and prominent member of party said he thinks this is somewhere where the state party has dropped the ball, saying, “There’s been no attempt to register voters.”

Read the entire story here.

So, according to the Democrat party chair.. their losses were because of “gerrymandering.”

Never mind the fact that fewer and fewer people want to be associated with her party.

17 thoughts on “SDDP chair Tornberg ‘Ann-splaining’ that gerrymandering cause of dem losses. Nevermind they aren’t registering voters.”

  2. Sutton is the only statewide Democrat with a vision….

    Bjorkman and Seiler ran horrible campaigns in my opinion. No vision at all as to why we should vote FOR them.

    The other constitutional officers barely even ran a campaign….I still can’t name some of them and I pay attention to this stuff.

    1. Problem is, Billie’s campaign comments were mostly lies. He claimed to be conservative but his conservative score was always under 50% in his first seven years so he was towing the D line as his true self. Then in his last year after announcing his race for governor, he magically scored above 70%. An nice guy with a sad story, yes, but he’s a D through and through. What I learned is that he’s good at fooling people.

  4. The infamous Gerrymander bites both ways. Let’s imagine a purely hypothetical state where 66% of likely voters are conservative and 34% of likely voters are liberal. How many state senate seats (out of 35 total) should liberals control? That cake cuts several ways. By ruthless gerrymandering, one could make every single district > 60% conservative, potentially shutting out liberals. But that’s not what usually happens. Rather, lines are drawn to create some ‘safe’ liberal regions. Concentrating liberal vote does indeed make it harder for them to win 12-13 seats but it makes it much, much easier for them to control 5-9. Gerrymandering basically guarantees liberals 5-7 seats. Redrawing the lines (dividing liberal support) might up their chances of winning 12 seats but, thanks to cold, humorless mathematics, redrawing would simultaneously eat into safe district margins, increasing the odds that the conservative majority wins *every* seat. The so-called Gerrymandering Chairperson Tornberg decries does make it tough for dems to gain a majority but it also makes it challenging for Conservatives to expand. Take great care for what you wish. Redraw the lines & dems could be swept.

  6. The R and D are just labels, People are sick of the douopoly that is why they are leaving their parties and registering Independent. Sutton ran on the D ticket as a populist. It’s better to appeal to the people rather than a party.

    1. ?? I think you’re mistaken. Of the three main parties in SD, only two of them have increased recently, the R’s and the I’s. The D’s are the only ones on the decline. Heck, I even think the Libertarian party had a small increase… So, when you say they’re leaving their partieS, I think you mean ‘leaving the D party’…

  7. What you “run” as and what you really are sometimes not the same. This is the case with Sutton. There is way to much evidence to say that is not true, unless he has “evolved” in the last year or so?

    1. He pretended to be evolved to get elected and thankfully, for SD, he didn’t dupe the majority.

Comments are closed.