South Dakota's 2006 gay-marriage ban has coincided with a drop our marriage rate and an increase in the rate of births to unwed moms.

Nationally, the recession has coincided with another shift in family values. Pew Research finds that moms viewing full-time work as their ideal situation outnumber moms thinking full-time mom duty is best:

...a Pew Research Center survey conducted in November 2012 found that mothers’ views about whether and how much they would like to work had changed significantly since 2007 (before the recession officially began). The share of mothers saying their ideal situation would be to work full time increased from 20% in 2007 to 32% in 2012. And the share saying they would prefer not to work at all fell from 29% to 20% [Wendy Wang, Kim Parker, and Paul Taylor, "Breadwinner Moms," Pew Research, 2013.05.29].

Pew's April survey on this topic finds that working women are now the sole or primary breadwinners in 40% of American households. But some attitudes about women's work are lagging.

A slim majority (51%) still say kids are better off with Mom at home. But the percentage of folks who say the same about Dad (8%) is almost negligible. I can take the position that kids are better off with one parent at home to raise them through pre-school years and then greet them at the door with cookies when they come home from elementary school. But the overwhelming popular sentiment appears to be that Dad would just burn those cookies.

A strong majority of folks hold to the idea that the growing number of children born to single moms is a "big problem." But that majority has declined through the recession:

Pew also finds some significant splits in attitudes about single moms:

Note the age difference: only 42% of 18- to 29-year-olds see unmarried moms as a big problem, compared with 65% of the 30-49 crowd and 74% of grannies and grampies. It would be interesting to longitudinalize this survey and see if those young people carry that attitude shift into their older years or if becoming parents and grandparents will boost that concern. That higher concern among current old folks could be old-fashioned conservatism... but it could also be the fact that they get stuck babysitting their kids more!

My lucky experience of having both my wife and me home most of the time for our little one for four years while working online provided her with stimulation and stability that made her more ready for school. I'd like everyone in South Dakota to have the freedom to choose that arrangement or to send just one parent out to work while the other stays home to provide their children the best upbringing possible. Alas, with our low wages, most South Dakotans find that arrangement a luxury, not a reasonably practical choice. We need to focus on some serious economic reform first; then maybe we can get around to shifting our attitudes toward more gender equality.

But first, I'd better get my little one some breakfast.

Never do I feel the urge to pronounce potpourri as poopery more strongly than when I use it in conjunction with the word conservative...

My conservative friends are up to various forms of monkey business this week:

The Republican Liberty Caucus of South Dakota tries to get David Montgomery and me interested in a poll on the 2014 GOP Senate primary. "Seems 2B grass roots," says RLCSD. Oh, sure, just like the Draft Brendan campaign.

But hey, any poll that has Stace Nelson leading with 70% of the vote (as of breakfast today) is worth mentioning... if for nothing else than to encourage District 8 voters to strike back and push Russ Olson over the top in a field of 15 choices. (Yes, Russ Olson for U.S. Senate! Put his reedy voice on the statewide stump, and we guarantee keeping Tim Johnson's seat blue and taking back District 8!)

The Republican Liberty Caucus doesn't tell us who they are. They are hung up on the "Republic Not A Democracy!" meme, which tells me they are a bit detached from practical policymaking.

The Fulton Fulminator doesn't appear to take this running poll result any more seriously than I do. Responding to this poll mention, Rep. Nelson tweets, "Need blinders. I can become hermit, enjoy my retirement, & NOT be slave to principles. Besides, no more running, my knees are shot." No more running... I await clarification as to whether this means no more Nelson on the ballot or that he simply won't be hauling his keester up Lookout Mountain with me on May 11.

Some other anonymous South Dakota conservatives are fulminating against the Common Core K-12 education standards. A website has cropped up claiming to represent South Dakotans opposed to this latest retread of education reform, but the site so far only catalogs national press on the topic. There's a Facebook page for South Dakotans Against Common Core as well. Their only South Dakota-specific content is a complaint that the Sioux Falls school district's pretty good plan to adopt Chromebooks and iPads district-wide is a plot to conceal what they are teaching and to "track everything about  about your child, and report it to the government." They seem to think Common Core is a United Nations plot.

I'd love to see some serious political opposition rise up and put an end to the whole standards movement, which distracts teachers with a lot of talk and paperwork that contributes virtually nothing of substance to our ability to teach and kids' ability to learn. But if this conservative push against Common Core is just more Glenn Beck karaoke, it will have about as much practical impact as the 9-12 Project (remember them?).

The latest Madville Times poll asked you, gentle readers, which South Dakotans would be the strongest Dem and GOP candidates for Senate in 2014. 215 of you weighed in on the Democratic choices; 206 of you checked a Republican. That's better than the under 200 who voted in the Dakota War College poll on possible Democratic Senate candidates, and much better than the zero who voted in the Dakota War College poll on the possible Republican candidates... oh, wait, that's because the SDGOP spin blog hasn't run such a poll yet on the potential SDGOP primary battle the SDGOP doesn't want to talk about.

But you don't need this poll to tell you that Madville Times is the stronger blog. You want to know which candidates are recognized as the strongest.

Among Dem choices, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin holds a commanding lead:

60% of you think SHS is the strongest candidate we Dems could field for the Senate race. On name recognition and likability, SHS at this point is probably the strongest candidate we could field for any race. U.S. Attorney Brendan Johnson, son of the retiring Senator Tim Johnson, comes in at 13%, just barely ahead of my suggestions of state Rep. Bernie Hunhoff at 10% and Johnson staffer Matt Varilek at 9%. "Someone else" drew only 6% interest, with one commenter submitting the name of attorney and former state legislator Margaret Gillespie.

Rep. Hunhoff tells WNAX he's not interested in running for U.S. Senate, but hey, we've got eleven months to work on changing his mind. If he does change his mind, Bernie can always note that WNAX ran that story on April 1.

Now what about the Republicans? You like former governor M. Michael Rounds, but not as much as you like Herseth Sandlin:

Rounds gets 41% of the vote here, again not a surprise given his likability the fact that he's the only announced candidate for Senate. The surprise in these numbers is second place. One in four of you think state Rep. Stace Nelson would be the strongest candidate the SDGOP could field to take Tim Johnson's seat. 25% for the Fulton Fulminator—that's almost double the support for aspiring Fox News personality and U.S. Congresswoman Kristi Noem. Our rodeo queen can't even beat "Someone else," who polled 15%. (One  name not polled and suggested for that category: state Senator Larry Rhoden.) Former Rapid City legislator and radical right-wing option Bill Napoli draws only 4%.

As usual, the margin of error here is slightly larger than the big bend in Highway 81 near Kristi's house, so use these results at your own peril. But if these results say anything, they paint an interesting picture of the subset of South Dakota voters reading this blog. Despite my vocal criticism of Stephanie Herseth Sandlin for her Blue Doggery on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, credit card reform, cap and trade, and other issues, she remains popular with the Democratic base that one would assume is reading this blog. As for the Republican choices, this blog apparently has a fair contingent of Main Street moderates who recognize Pierre's pearly-white insurance salesman as the sensible pick for Senate... but right alongside them we have some fire-breathers and mischief makers who'd love to see Stace Nelson on the statewide stump. That's a fascinating mix!

Vote now in the latest Madville Times double-feature poll: Who do you think would be the strongest candidates for the Democrats and the Republicans to run for the U.S. Senate seat Tim Johnson is vacating? Click your faves for both parties here in the right sidebar!

Republicans, here are your choices:

• M. Michael Rounds
• Kristi Noem
• Stace Nelson
• Bill Napoli
• Someone else

The South Dakota blogopshere's Republican spin machine runs polls to push his preferred distracting narrative and thus avoid mentioning the possible GOP primary that his minders so fear. I run polls because I'm really curious. So tell me which Dem you think would contend best for the Senate seat:

• Bernie Hunhoff
• Brendan Johnson
• Stephanie Herseth Sandlin
• Matt Varilek
• Someone else

The four leading lights I've picked for each party reek of my own interpretations and biases: I thus welcome your someone elses here in the comment section.

This double poll runs through Tuesday, and is open to all political persuasions. Vote now and share your armchair quarterbacking below!

Public Policy Polling offers some support to the Displaced Plainsman's thesis that the SDGOP propaganda machine is hyping a possible 2014 Democratic primary battle for Senator Tim Johnson's seat to keep our attention away from the real party-wrecker that could be coming: a GOP primary between declared GOP Senate candidate M. Michael Rounds and the ever-ambitious Congresswoman Kristi Noem.

Public Policy Polling talks to South Dakotans and finds Noem and Rounds neck-and-neck:

South Dakota might be next on the list of states where Republicans have a bruising Senate primary. Our first look at the state for 2014 finds Mike Rounds and Kristi Noem closely locked in a hypothetical contest, with Rounds leading just 43/39. Noem's favorability rating with GOP voters at 71/18 is slightly better than Rounds' 67/17 [Tom Jensen, "South Dakota Senate Poll," Public Policy Polling, 2013.03.21].

That's Jensen's lead paragraph, suggesting that's the most significant information to draw from this poll. Jensen notes the Dem numbers, finding Stephanie Herseth Sandlin would trounce Brendan Johnson in a primary and be competitive with either Noem or Rounds. Jensen concludes thus:

South Dakota provides a good opportunity for Republicans in 2014 but these numbers suggest that it won't be the end of the world for Democrats if Johnson ends up deciding to retire, given Herseth Sandlin's popularity, and the potential for a highly divisive GOP primary that could give Democrats an opportunity to replicate some of their other red state wins over the last few election cycles [Jensen, 2013.03.21].

David Montgomery goes crazy with the crosstabs, but here's the short form: SHS could beat Noem or Rounds, and that's before those GOP contenders land any punches on each other. Given their tight poll numbers, Noem and Rounds would have to fight hard to win. Noem went negative right out of the gate last year against the much less well-funded Varilek campaign; she'd fire even bigger guns against the Rounds money machine. Rounds would not be able to coast in nice-guy mode as he did in 2002; he'd have to fight back. Whoever would win that GOP primary would come out beat up, with some alienated GOP voters who would be comfortable voting for Stephanie Herseth Sandlin again.

And what is the Republican spin machine's headline? "Poll Says US Senate Seat Belongs to the GOP, and Brendan Can't Win," bleats Dakota War College:

Lots of things within the margin of error here, but any way you slice it, it looks good for the GOP, and extremely bleak for the Dems [Pat Powers, "Poll Says US Senate Seat Belongs to the GOP, and Brendan Can't Win," Dakota War College, 2013.03.21].

Wow—not just ignoring, but completely contradicting the pollster's own conclusion! It must be hard to construct one's own special reality every day. It must be even harder to trot that fantasy out to the public, hoping people will buy that fantasy and ignore the trouble your own party faces. I'm a little busy, so if you all don't mind, I'll just stick with the facts and data as presented.

By the way, Public Policy Polling doesn't throw Matt Varilek into the mix. I've made my argument to include Varilek and his Washington experience in our Senate calculus, but if the Public Policy Polling hypotheticals come true and Noem leaves her House seat to run for Senate, I rewrite my fantasy football card: SHS for Senate, Varilek for House, Bernie Hunhoff for Governor, and Brendan Johnson for Attorney General.

Brenda Wade Schmidt answers Pat Powers's question about Clarity Polling's recent calls around the state. It appears they have a client interested in the 2014 gubernatorial campaign:

The first question was whether I had a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Daugaard, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Mike Huether and Scott Heidepriem. From there, the survey asked various questions in which I was asked how I would vote if Daugaard ran against each of the Democrats. Press one for Daugaard, two for the other candidate, the automated poll directed.

The poll was clearly only about the governor’s race but did include questions about abortion, taxes, gun control and gay marriage. It also asked how often I attended church, whether I had cable TV and if there were any guns in my house [Brenda Wade Schmidt, "Press One for Dennis Daugaard, Two for the Democrat," Got Opinions? 2013.02.26].

From Wade Schmidt's description, the poll doesn't appear to have done head-to-head on the possible Dems. But when Clarity processes the data, here's how they'll find a primary would break:

1. Herseth Sandlin: 75%
2. Huether: 15%
3. Heidepriem: 10%

Mike Huether

Scott Heidepriem

I give Huether an edge over Heidepriem based on Heidepriem's inability to break the low glass ceiling for Dems in 2010 and lack of any evidence that he's building a better hammer for 2014. Given a choice between those two men, a slight majority of Dems would lean toward trying something different... although some of us will get excited about rained-on Alpo before we vote to put a former Premier BankCard usury exec in charge of our state.

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin

But that choice is academic if SHS enters the ring. She has a combination of experience, connections, fundraising potential, likability, and star power that outpace the other two H's and give Dems the most feasible shot at unseating Dennis Daugaard in 2014.

I regularly hear from happy readers that the Madville Times provides them the comfort of knowing that they aren't alone harboring liberal thoughts in South Dakota. I thus have some sense of the value this news report may have for some of my minority friends across this state.

The ever attentive and well-read Displaced Plainsman notices a new Gallup poll that finds South Dakota has the seventh-highest percentage of gay residents. LK posts the numbers for all 50 states and notes that 4.4% of the South Dakota respondents identifies themselves  as LGB or T. The national LGBT quotient was 3.5%. That ties us with Massachusetts and beats California and New York.

I don't know if 4.4% is enough to explain why South Dakota passed its 2006 gay marriage ban by the smallest margin of victory of any successful statewide ban. Gallup notes our oddity in the political-sexual landscape:

The states with proportionally larger LGBT populations generally have supportive LGBT legal climates. With the exception of South Dakota, all of the states that have LGBT populations of at least 4% have laws that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and allow same-sex couples to marry, enter into a civil union, or register as domestic partners. Of the 10 states with the lowest percentage of LGBT adults, only Iowa has such laws [Gary J. Gates and Frank Newport, "LGBT Percentage Highest in D.C., Lowest in North Dakota," Gallup State of the States, 2013.02.15].

But to really start the head-scratching, compare South Dakota with its neighbors:

Before we get too excited about these numbers, let's note that Gallup says the margin of error, even for states like our with smaller sample sizes, is smaller than ±2 percentage points. That range still means every state in the chart is technically statistically indistinguishably. That explanation is simpler than positing that some quiet cultural phenomenon, against all the evidence of conservative attitudes driving liberalism and difference out, is making South Dakota a minor mecca for LGBT folks compared to all of its low-gay neighbors.

But the drastic split between North Dakota and South Dakota still makes me wonder: could there be something setting South Dakota apart, making our fair state secretly more gay friendly than the neighbors we think are just like us?

Maybe the secret is that South Dakota draws the masochists.

In another excuse to ask people to send him money, Gordon Howie groans linklessly that a Gallup poll finds South Dakota is not in Gallup's new list of the ten most conservative states.

Here's the Gallup poll:

Gallup poll, percentages of self-identified conservatives, moderates, and liberals in each state, 2012

South Dakota is 19th on that list. We have fewer self-identifying conservatives and more self-identifying liberals (howdy, neighbor!) than North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, and Nebraska.

Our 19th ranking on this conservative list suggests various conclusions:

1. The folks in the states above us are lying to themselves, since, as mostly rural states, they subsidize their comfortable local conservatism with big federal subsidies paid for by their urban, liberal neighbors.
2. Fellow liberals, South Dakota is not a lost cause. We're the minority everywhere (and admit it: it's more fun that way!). But remind the moderates that our liberalism is on their side much more than the theocratic crony-corporatism masquerading as conservatism, and you have a better chance of winning elections than a similar coalition in several other red states (like North Dakota, which just managed to elect a Democrat as their Senator).

Gordon, you're welcome for my adding value to your pablum. And because I'm a liberal, I won't ask for a cut of your contributions. (However, my own Tip Jar, below the comments atop the near-right sidebar, remains open to liberals, moderates, and conservatives alike.)

Update 12:49 MST: The Displaced Plainsman, a skilled teacher of rhetoric, also gives Gordon an F for claims wholly detached from evidence poorly cited.