The conventional wisdom is that South Dakota Republicans clobber South Dakota Democrats in fundraising. But a look at the Federal Election Commission finance reports suggests room for interpretation in the definition of clobber. Compare the money raised, money spent, and cash on hand for the SDGOP and SDDP each month in the current election cycle (months cited are months of activity, not the months the FEC report was filed):
| SD Republican Party Cash Advantage over SD Democratic Party | |||
| Month | Total Receipts | Total Disbursements | Cash on Hand |
| May.14 | $38,835 | $18,051 | $14,666 |
| Apr.14 | $5,806 | $11,021 | ($7,593) |
| Mar.14 | $12,942 | $6,718 | ($2,378) |
| Feb.14 | $7,020 | ($1,468) | ($8,604) |
| Jan.14 | $12,549 | $11,499 | ($17,093) |
| Dec.13 | $2,196 | $2,231 | ($18,142) |
| Nov.13 | ($13,190) | $4,573 | ($18,107) |
| Oct.13 | $9,230 | $10,182 | ($345) |
| Sep.13 | $16,959 | $6,650 | $607 |
| Aug.13 | $20,850 | $50,855 | ($9,703) |
| Jul.13 | ($1,189) | $12,441 | $20,303 |
| Jun.13 | $115,431 | $77,249 | $33,932 |
| May.13 | ($14,060) | ($21,546) | ($4,250) |
| Apr.13 | ($19,212) | ($11,935) | ($11,735) |
| Mar.13 | ($1,261) | $8,428 | ($4,458) |
| Feb.13 | $10,405 | $31,751 | $5,230 |
| Jan.13 | $48,660 | $15,202 | $26,575 |
| Total | $251,971 | $231,902 | |
Over the last seventeen months, the South Dakota Republican Party has raised $697K and spent $593K, while the South Dakota Democratic Party has raised $445K and spent $361K. The SDGOP thus has posted advantages of 57% and 64% in cash raised and cash spent, respectively. Those are significant advantages, but not the kind that make it impossible for smart campaigners to compete.
But notice that in five out of the last seventeen months, the state Dems have raised more money than the state GOP. Maybe those were months when the GOP shouted, "We're not racing!" but without other knowledge, according to the reports, South Dakota Democrats can raise more money than South Dakota Republicans.
Notice also that in eleven out of seventeen months, South Dakota Democrats more often have more cash on hand than South Dakota Republicans. That suggests that, at any given moment, if the two parties felt the need to engage in a sudden ad war, Democrats could match Republicans dollar for dollar in the short term. One might conclude from the cash-on-hand figures that our Democratic party leaders are more fiscally conservative than our Republican leaders. One might also conclude that the Republicans are a bit more willing to spend money to make money.
Assessing the health of the two major parties by campaign finance reports requires looking at the much more complicated picture of giving to candidates and other committees at all levels. Even looking just at the campaign finance reports of the two central parties, I'd be alarmed as party chair to see that my counterpart is outraising me by 57%. But I'd look at that 57% as a hill my party can climb. If we can outraise the GOP in five months, we can do it in six, in seven....
Any chance we get something like this going here?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/22/1308759/-The-Southern-Liberal-Resurgence-That-Has-the-GOP-Scared
The republicans govern this way as well, no surprises. What Dems and Indies need is to go to work to show the people what they the people already know. Just keep telling them the obvious and it will start to soak in. The first question may be is how is the healthcare working for you? Then, how are your energy prices going for you? For the rural people, how about your livestock, did the government help you with your losses in October? Then the follow up, why do you think it took so long for the government to get help to you? For the tourist industry, how did this last fall work for you and why do you think it did what it did? When you supply the honest answers that continued republican obstruction is causing the delays of needed help and growth, then stay on topic, you just may have swung a hard headed idealogue your way. As stoic as ranchers are, they appreciate the conversation about how they are faring. You might also tell them that as a Dem or and Indie, you support all amendments to the Constitution, each and every one of them.
I'll say it again in a different way: raising money means little if you do not have enough candidates to fill each and every race. You cannot blame the Republican Party in SD for the failure of the Democrats to allow voters to have a choice.
Agree with both Larry and Michael, people need to be reminded constantly why things are the way they are and who is responsible. And yes, if people don't have any other choices, than you can't really blame them for voting republican. Every race in the state needs to be contested.
I don't know about everyone else, but I vote for the person first and the party a very distant second. I have done volunteer work for candidates on both sides of the aisle.
We desperately need more young people to run for office and we also need more women in positions of power.
Speaking of voting, there are more and more reports of Independent voters not being able to vote in this recent election.
The SDGOP has continuously blocked Independent voters by their closed primaries which result not just disenfranchising voters, but ensuring only their candidates dominate elections.
Thank you, Michael. The fact that we speak of need for more oversight in SD government expresses how the Democratic Party has let our state down by protecting their few positions rather than taking a stand on the tough issues.
.
You have a couple gals in the Dem party taking leadership roles and probably starving with the support from this vocal majority.
tim(Larry?), michael (join a team!), les-dont know if u are dems, but recruiting may be easier said than done, so if u are not active locally, pls become so. i believe we will be (and are) supporting our "gals".
Les, are you referring to our House and gubernatorial nominees?
Michael, we do need some star-power candidates to augment our fundraising oomph. I'd be curious to see how much of that 57% advantage a larger pool of dedicated candidates could cut into.
And per Leslie's comment, finding candidates isn't just about recruitment. It's about more folks at the local level finding the courage to run as Democrats.
Tim, I would love to see a similar resurgence play out here. I notice the article you post talks about a resurgence of Labor around "non-partisan issues like a living wage, wage theft, worksite organizing, and immigration reform." The Tea Party responded to the economic uncertainty of the Great Recession by appealing to fear of government and "others". Perhaps a Labor resurgence could counterrespond by offering workers a chance to do something about the real bread-and-butter issues contributing to their economic insecurity. But that might take more explaining that the guns-God-gag the government rhetoric of the Tea Party.
And does a resurgence based on labor organizing face more difficulty in a "right to work" state like South Dakota?
Busy morning Cory. Kathy Taylor.
Susan Wismer if she didn't just decide on the Bollen audit inclusion due to politics.
Cory, worry less about rock star candidates and fundraising. Worry more about filling each and every last legislative race with a strong, viable candidate. Money and votes will follow a strong base.
Think of it this way: in every race that there is no choice, democracy is being denied.
Kathy Taylor? Do you mean Kathy Tyler? I love her. But I hate to pull any more good Dems out of the Legislature.
Michael, what's the difference between "rock star" and "strong and viable"? I think we're talking about the same thing. A strong and viable candidate is one who can draw crowds to the hustings and the polls.
Les, I can't speak to Wismer's motivations. Whether we take them at face value or suspect something else, she deserves credit for pushing the issue.
Potato, potaato. Tayler, Tyler. Yes Kathy Tyler an ongoing error I will continue to make.
No we are not talking about the same thing. Well-known does not equal someone of good character.
Fine. Maybe I'm using the phrase "rock star" wrong. But I don't mean importing some famous musician or other celebrity. I mean building a corps of candidates who can light up a room; fire up donors, volunteers, and voters; and knock the wind out of the Republicans. My party needs candidates who either bring big name recognition or can build it fast by being so darn awesome, projecting good character and good ideas. That's what i mean by "rock star."