South Dakota Democrats are lamenting a lack of candidates, a lack of money, and the plain and simple truth that they are quickly approaching extinction in South Dakota in an article today by the Sioux City Journal:
But with the retirement of U.S. Sen. Tim Johnson, a Democrat from Vermillion who had held the seat for 18 years and the following loss by Democratic candidate Rick Weiland to Republican former Gov. Mike Rounds, now all three of the state’s federal lawmakers are Republicans.
“In many respects, South Dakota is a de facto one-party state,” South Dakota State University Professor David Wiltse said. “The Republican Party is strong and dominant, with little sign of weakening.”
Former South Dakota Democratic Party Executive Director Ben Nesselhuf, a former state legislator from Vermillion now living in Sioux City, conceded “the last six years the pendulum has swung hard against” Midwest Democrats.
and..
Wiltse said South Dakota people typically identify with the Republican Party because the 20th century populism with Democratic leanings in Upper Great Plains states wore off and due to the rise of religious and social conservatism in the 1980s.
“Social conservatives and rural populists, who would have considered voting Democratic in the past, are now a unified force politically, and solidly Republican,” Wiltse said.
and..
Jones Pranger said one indication of South Dakotans lining up with Democrats is in the outcomes of referendums where state laws were overturned, such as a hard-line abortion law. Jones Pranger and Nesselhuf said that is an indication that Democrats can rise again, given more campaign money and energized support for a new wave of candidates.
So, yes, it looks like Democrats are going to have another awful year. But, I did want to point one glaring error out to the new Democrat Executive Director since math is obviously difficult for her.
She notes “one indication of South Dakotans lining up with Democrats is in the outcomes of referendums where state laws were overturned… Jones Pranger and Nesselhuf said that is an indication that Democrats can rise again.”
There’s a simple math equation that explains the Democrat dilemma quite succinctly, and holds true on almost all occasions:
Referendums + reduced numbers of Democrat voters + No Candidates for office = DEMOCRATS LOSING ELECTIONS
Seriously!?! Who in their right mind thinks they stand a snowball’s chance in hell if they leave most of their state legislative races unchallenged while they fiddle around with ballot measures? Raiding Assisted Living Centers for placeholders and trying to rig the system so party bosses can assign candidates don’t count.
When they can show they’re a serious political party who fields candidates, maybe then they can have flights of fancy that the Democrat Party could rise again. Until then, such talk is nothing to take seriously.
voters are where you find them. parties that wander off to the far left (weiland) or far right (howie) and set up their “big tents” had better have a space heater with them because there won’t be any body heat. in any bell-shaped curve the CURVE establishes where the center is. by all the complaining that the far right and the far left do about the republican party, it’s obvious that the republican party of south dakota is the only party appealing to the centrists and getting their votes. so their either “not real republicans,” or they’re “oppressive bullies.” this is so tiresome. if you want voters, go TO them, if they won’t come to you.
regarding the analysis of the defeat of abortion ban bills on referral – – a lot of people in this state simply don’t want their religion and their politics mixed up, and they really really don’t want someone else’s religious views coating their politics. the abortion ban bills fail because in the referendums the loudest defense of them has a decidedly fundamentalist christian tone to them. the gubernatorial and senatorial runs of gordon howie are a very accurate indicator of just how much desire and / or patience south dakota voters have for this kind of thing. that’s why the legislative abortion bans have failed on referral – the religious tone, and the implication of a self-righteous-busybody-interference into our neighbors deep dark private matters if we vote to keep these bills. state voters show us they don’t want to be that person. figure that one out.
Those are some solid observations, enquirer.
I don’t see the Party coming to the people, though. How many issues do young people (other than Powers’ kids) agree with?
Same-gender marriage?
Income equality?
Freedom for women to choose? (you hit the nail on the head there)
War mongering?
Environmental regulation?
Health care?
Intelligent tax system?
Corporate welfare?
Now, I would guess that a lot of the people who comment in here, including the slug troll Per Crapium below, will tell us how it is stupid to disagree with the Republican philosophy on these issues. But great Republican leaders in the past – including Reagan – varied strongly from the current Republican stance on many of these issues.
Now demographics make the struggle even tougher. How many Republicans are going to be able to see the handwriting on the wall?
“the people” is such a nebulous and conditional thing. i’m talking about the people who count politically, the ones who cast their votes. if your desire to pose righteously on behalf of “the people” is preventing you from going into where voters are and getting those votes, the pose is empty. let me say though i did enjoy reading your finely worded response to my statement on what it would take for any party or partisans to be relevant to the most voters again. the democrats aren’t always going to have a no-brainer like the minimum wage bill to leverage support on. the legalized pot efforts, and other seeming headscratchers which end up helping labor unions and such will tend to fail, assuming the state establishment can make a decent counterargument.
Good point there on “people” vs “People.” I was using the term like you used it.
Courting voters and supporters is an act of persuasion. And those who accustomed to getting what they want by force are normally not equipped to take on such a difficult task.
the occupy movement has made a cottage industry out of assuming and appropriating the proxy votes of all whom they would help, by declaring that they represent 98-percent or 99-percent of the non-rich. they in fact actively represent a far smaller percentage because of the many other political issues they bring to the table. that’s why i differentiate between a specifically defined group of people (voters) and the much-touted wide universe of People who would potentially be rescued from their dire fate by this or that bit of societal engineering via legislation.
That makes plenty of sense. There have been plenty of similar cottage industries formed from political passions. Today we can call them super pacs. They make the talking heads that promote them lots and lots of dough, while trying to get something done politically. Just like the occupiers.
“Same-gender marriage?
Income equality?
Freedom for women to choose? (you hit the nail on the head there)
War mongering?
Environmental regulation?
Health care?
Intelligent tax system?
Corporate welfare?”
Those are all issues that Republicans care about–and the majority of young people agree with Rep. on those same issues. That’s why the best & brightest are more likely to move TO SD than other neighboring liberal land utopias. (https://www.census.gov/hhes/migration/data/acs/state-to-state.html).
If the left hadn’t gotten a stranglehold on education-both k-12 and post-high school-there wouldn’t bee such a slant to the leftist policies that are destroying the country, and a lot of kids would be able to be taught right and wrong by mom and dad instead of by a socialist education system.
well there’s darn little of that slant in south Dakota that I ever see. do you live out of state?
I still wager that the sexist/bigot over at Madvile Times will “respond to the will of the people” and pick a race to enter; he might even get Hickey to put up the filing fee!
This is such an interesting topic. I was just visiting with a well-known Democratic activist today about that and he talked about an interesting dynamic.
He had just met a seventy-year-old woman from Rapid City who had switched her voter registration from Republican to Democrat. She said she just identified with so many more issues with the Democrats. Most of her life she had been married to a Republican and just assumed his political identity. Now that he passed away, she felt like she was responsible for her own thinking. And it turns out that her thinking was definitely not the way her deceased husband thought.
When you look at the referendums and initiated measures, you have to give a lot of credit to people to still use the democratic system to get the work done that the legislature refuses to do. Of course the party in power hates the fact that the citizens override their authority. But that gives you a great look at the reality of how South Dakota voters think when decades of gerrymandering are put on the back burner and popular vote is put on the front burner.
I see more and more referred and initiated measures taking place because the one-party system in South Dakota is simply not doing a good job at looking out for all citizens. If they were doing a good job, we would not see the number of successful measures.
It’s going to be interesting seeing the voters shove that legislative minimum wage override where the sun don’t shine. I doubt there will be much fallout in the legislative races for two reasons: 1. gerrymandering and 2. Democratic candidates and the Democratic party just aren’t willing to do what it takes to win. They aren’t willing to spill the blood of their political enemies.
So while so many in the Republican party gloat over numbers, the greatness of grass-roots democracy is working to show that the single-party South Dakota legislature is making itself less and less relevant.
“switched her voter registration from Republican to Democrat.”
She’s an anomaly. She’s an anecdote. As such, she’s indicative of nothing.
Just check SD SoS party registration trends.
” I doubt there will be much fallout in the legislative races for two reasons: 1. gerrymandering and 2. Democratic candidates and the Democratic party just aren’t willing to do what it takes to win. They aren’t willing to spill the blood of their political enemies.”
Which house or senate districts are “gerrymandered”?
“I see more and more referred and initiated measures taking place”
Well you can see what you want through your Sunday-morning hungover eyes, but there are no more petition drives on legislation than any other time. Just remember what they say Heisy–there is no one blinder than the man who will not see.
” the greatness of grass-roots democracy is working to show that the single-party South Dakota legislature is making itself less and less relevant.”
The only grassroots democracy in SD is just how many Republicans will get out and vote for the Republican winners.
How much Colorado peyote did you & Krazy Larry at your “meeting”?
“I was just visiting with a well-known Democratic activist today”
Which state are you in?
It wasn’t SD–there are no Democrat activists, well-known or otherwise.
I’m sure that Heisenberg would have no trouble with gerrymandering and attempted subversion of the will of the people if the Democrats were in power. H just seems that type of person.
Just because someone is older doesn’t mean they are wise. Any 70 year old lady who aligns with the current Democrat party surely hasn’t learned much in her journey through life, and I would think that she has no foundation.
You could not be more wrong. I think that gerrymandering under any circumstances is unhealthy for a representative democracy – but a perfect vessel for an oligarchy.
Gerrymandering is a precursor to the many of the ill-fated Republican state legislative moves to restrict voting by minority voters.
It shows that the party in charge is certain that it can’t compete on the issues, so it manipulates the playing field. Many would say that’s an admission that they aren’t on the right side of the issues.
Notice that Heisy was challenged to provide information on which SD districts were gerrymandered—gerrymandering that he claimed has led to Dem failures in legislative races.
He has not backed up his claim.
Because he’s simply blowing smoke.
Perhaps the Democrats should run candidates who are acceptable to voters.
Nah! They just have them register as “R’s” and they join the RINO ranks to increase taxes, spending, and govt.. You know, like they did this last session.
you make it sound like it’s easy for a democrat to pretend to be republican, like flipping a switch or something. it’s actually incredibly hard for them to do this, or there’d be more democrats elected to office.
i’m afraid that the things the republicans do that you hate, are done by actual real republicans. you’ll have to come to terms with that.
A person is not defined by a title or a voter registration, they are defined by their actions. If they raised taxes, increased govt spending, created more government, voted against gun bills, voted against pro-life bills, etc., etc. by those actions they are not Republican.
I have seen people post lists of Democrats turned “Republicans” to get elected to the legislature before on here. It was very lengthy.
BY LAW if a person registers at their county office as a “republican” all the vituperative contrariness you can muster against them doesn’t legally change their registered status. i know you don’t want to read and understand this, so take it slowly. you actually are what you register as, and if you are far outside the party, you will ultimately feel like going to register with the OTHER party. you can’t dictate some rino’s political affiliation any more than he can remove or change yours. you are BOTH republicans until one or the other decides to quit. the issue of previous democrats who turned republican is another situation where people follow a process and legally change their status, in spite of whatever nefarious motivation you can accuse them of. if you spent more time working in and with a wide political movement, instead of standing outside of it and screaming your powerless screams, you might sleep better at night. it’s all up to you. the first republican president was famous for telling people they were only as happy AS THEY MADE UP THEIR MINDS TO BE.
btw, i think the state’s electoral history proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that if you want to gain a public office and do some things in politics, you have a huge liability if you run under the “D” designation, and stand in the shadow of that huge letter. stephanie herseth was the last big democrat accomplishment in this state, she WON when she looked like all of our young republicans, and she LOST when she started coming back here after having her barbara-boxer makeover (which still wasn’t enough to keep her own party from attacking her conventionalism and establishment-ness.) so OF COURSE people go from “D” to “R” in this state a lot. the crazy trend would be from “R” to “D”, that’s a clear statement that you’re outside of the process in this state.
Point well made.
Dems need to do some soul-searching on WHY the D carries baggage, instead of making stuff up about gerrymandering and failing to attack Reps.
With Dems like Heidelberger and Kurtz and Tim Johnson leading the fight against women, racial progress, and tolerance, their baggage needs to be screened carefully.
Anonymous 1:13:
A person chooses their party registration based on their views on a preponderance of issues. If the only people who can be “Republican” are those who accept every single issue deemed by you or even the platform, we would have a very small party.
A person who is nominated by the primary voters is the collective will of those who choose to be Republicans and are Republican Nominees.
A person who is elected by the general election voters and was the Republican nominee is a Republican elected leader.
Anonymous people don’t get to define who is Republican and who is not.
better said than mine. thanks sir.