Last updated on 2012.11.11
Bob Mercer recycles an attempted headline and overstates the importance of B. Thomas Marking in South Dakota's 2010 Congressional race:
Statewide, Marking did the best of any third-line candidate in a South Dakota election for U.S. House in more than 80 years.
He received 5.99 percent of the votes. That truly made Marking the difference-maker between Noem, who won with 48.12 percent, and Herseth, who lost with 45.89 percent [Bob Mercer, "A Strange History," Mitchell Daily Republic, September 10, 2012].
Mercer's tells his strange history in a strange vacuum in which the deciding factor in Stephanie Herseth Sandlin's unemployment was a quirky older gentleman from Custer and not predictable mid-term frustration with a slow economic recovery or the corporate-manufactured Obama-hating outrage of the Tea Party. Mercer mentions neither of those factors. He just talks votes and campaign contributions.
Even the numbers he does mention don't add up his Marking-made-Noem thesis. Mercer has no evidence that Marking pulled either campaign dollars or votes from Herseth Sandlin in any larger proportion than from Noem. Nor does anyone else. Marking himself said after the election that he believes he pulled votes from both Noem and Herseth Sandlin in roughly equal proportion.
Marking saw his 6% finish as typical of third-party candidates. Mercer notes that Marking did better than any South Dakota House third-party candidate since 1926, but Mercer ignores the fact that lunatic fringe candidate Lori Stacey got a handful more votes in the Secretary of State's race than Marking got in the House race. We can't tell whether people who voted for Stacey also voted for Marking, but it would seem that about 6% of the South Dakota electorate wanted a third choice, and they didn't care if it was a cantankerous grandpa or a right-wing conspiracy theorist.
Mercer says "Marking's 19,134 votes flow could well decide this election between Noem and her Democratic challenger Matt Varilek." But Mercer then bounces from that pregnant could to a recitation of campaign finance figures that have no connection with the intent of Marking voters.
For those of you left empty by Mercer's failure of logic and evidence, I offer this shadow of a hypothesis:
- Marking offered safe haven to an equal split of Democrats unhappy with SHS blue-doggery and Republicans appalled at Noem's lack of qualifications. Voting for Marking allowed those partisans to register their disapproval but keep the blood off their hands.
- The Marking Dems may be unhappy with Varilek for his wishy-washiness on gay marriage and his support of Keystone XL, but they have nowhere else to turn. They've seen Noem's incompetence, and they know we've got to get rid of her. The Marking Dems all vote Varilek.
- The Marking GOPers have seen their lack of confidence in Noem confirmed by her lack of performance. They realize that, in South Dakota, our sole Congressperson has to be a workhorse, not a showhorse. They still hate Obama, but they can still quietly vote for a Democrat, just as they have in numerous past elections when they have sent reasonable Democrats to work the system and bring home the bacon.
- Of much less importance, Marking drew a share of Indies who don't pay much attention to politics but vote on their gut feeling that a third-party would be a nice change. They'll flip a coin this fall and have no impact on the Varilek-Noem margin.
Marking's 19,134 voters from 2010 will play some role in this election. But the bigger impact will come from the proportion of 2010 Noem voters who just get bring themselves to pull the lever for Noem's record of non-performance.
And here is another assessment from a voice that has gone silent:
http://www.dakotaday.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=152:could-dr-kevin-weiland-have-beaten-kristi-noem&catid=13:news&Itemid=19
Anne: Sam was here briefly to excoriate non-Fleming commenters at the Curl thread.
ACA polling at all time high among likely voters: @RasmussenPoll.
Mercer really went out on a limb to predict that Varilek would lose. Everything is stacked against him.
But the way "other" blogs are reacting to this story shows it's a much tighter race than they want us to know. Noem's team only hopes a poll isn't released that shows voters disatisfaction with her performance. Her entire campaign is based on our perceptions of thinking she will blow Varilek out. Varilek needs to show proof that he's in this race at some point just so the media covers him and gives him the respect a real candidate would get in a competetive race.
It's time for Matt to embrace the President and the platform and if he wants ip's endorsement as anyone other than the anti-Kristi he'd better start sounding like a Democrat.
and someone tell him he should be wearing a tie....
I don't think Mercer was calling the race. He was mostly just recounting the facts, and making some pretty humble predictions about what they mean.
Lee, I agree that Mercer's thesis is somewhat vague. But amidst his fact-recounting, he uses the word "difference-maker" to describe Marking. None of the facts Mercer recounts support the thesis that Marking made a difference in who won.
Mercer didn't help Herseth any. But I always look at 3rd party candidates as those that hurt the incumbent then the challenger. I don't know if it would have mattered though. Noem ran the better campaign no questions asked. She isn't this time around. South Dakota is one of those weird states when you can look at the elections where before hand you say its going to be somewhat close, and 90% of them were won by the guy who ran the better campaign.
JoeBoe probably nailed it. Heresth was going to loose. Marking not being there would have only made the margin greater
One of the smartest things anyone has said to me concerning politics was that the majority of South Dakotan's who watched the GOP US House primary two years ago were treated to the most civil primary ever in SD. And that parlayed onto the winner of that primary carrying the general election too.
If by better campaign one means more effective campaign, it is probably so. Herseth Sandlin's Blue Dog attitude lost some of the support in the Democrat base and caused a very diffident support among others. However, she answered questions with informed responses while Noem simply repeated party lines whether or not they were relevant to the questions raised.
But the most successful campaign technique is to attack an incumbent's alleged devotion to South Dakota. George McGovern was defeated when he was accused of forsaking the interests of the state. This tactic was used against Tom Daschle, focusing on his house in D.C., his wife's work as a D.C. lobbyist, and even the charge that he forsook his wife for a beauty pageant queen. Noem used this tactic against Herseth Sandlin by repeatedly charging that she was a disciple of Nancy Pelosi's, although her Blue Dog positions made that not so.
There is a large number of the South Dakota electorate that resents anything and anyone who steps outside their provincial boundaries. The Republican party has manipulated this prejudice with great effect. I remember how frustrated some people in the Daschle campaign were when word came down that they could not respond to Thune's tactics in kind. If Noem ran the "better" campaign it was in playing to and reinforcing the prejudices that are a reality of South Dakota politics.
Anne is exactly correct about the messaging war between Stephanie and Kristi and between Thune and Daschle. It's hard to keep 'xplainin' stuff to soundbites that are molded by professionals and tested with focus groups, especially in this atmosphere. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight.
My observations about 2010 were:
* The Tea Party movement in South Dakota was loud, churlish but not overwhelming, except that which people saw on national news. The nationalized buzz became the wind behind whomever won the GOP House primary in South Dakota. That wind is no longer available in 2012 because of the Massachusetts Moderate who leads the GOP ticket.
* Stephanie crushed the enthusiasm of her supporters by ducking and weaving with the Blue Dogs gimmick. Despite her vote on ObamaCare, she'd crossed the line too many times while the Tea Party fake rage and weak responses from Democrat organizations further whithered Democrat unity. If the Democrat Party in South Dakota had been on its feet in 2010, it's hard to imagine that it would not have closed the 2 percent gap that was Noem's margin of victory.
* The GOP primary, despite all the generous attention from the state's alleged reporters and the nationally hyper-charged Tea Party movement, experienced the lowest GOP primary turnout in decades. If 2010 was such a great GOP year, why such a pathetic turnout for a primary that picked the next Governor and the Tea Party favorite for Congress? The Tea Party tide really didn't hit South Dakota until the final month of the 2010 election, and it produced only a 2 point margin for Noem.
2012 is a whole new ballgame. I'm not sure what's going through Noem's mind as to how she expects to win. So far, it looks like she's lost too much blood over mistakes that were easily prevented. She's also forced to 'xplain stuff, which keeps her off message. She still has time to turn the ship around, but it's going to take more than snappy soundbites to keep from sinking.
Dougal's "* Stephanie crushed the enthusiasm of her supporters by ducking and weaving with the Blue Dogs gimmick. Despite her vote on ObamaCare, she'd crossed the line too many times while the Tea Party fake rage and weak responses from Democrat organizations further whithered Democrat unity. If the Democrat Party in South Dakota had been on its feet in 2010, it's hard to imagine that it would not have closed the 2 percent gap that was Noem's margin of victory" is right on the money.
Herseth had support from college students and then went against student loans, supported big banks, etc. I voted for her, but with less satisfaction in her performance than awareness that Noem was an empty-headed catch-phrase parrot of right-wing nonsense.
I agree with Douglas on Dougal's assessment. I'd also highlight the comment Dougal made about the Dems not being on their feet in 2010. Our ticket toppers, SHS and Heidepriem, both tried to run away from the Democrat brand with their "Independent" talk. Instead of challenging the false Tea Party narrative, they assumed they couldn't beat it and had to triangulate around it. That tack replicated elsewhere appears to have emboldened Republicans to tell even bigger whoppers this time... or maybe the Republicans just don't have any facts to run on and have no other viable strategy but to double down on baloney. Whatever the case, the proper response for Varilek to reverse the 2010 margin is to stay on offense, keep making Noem explain herself.
President Obama signaling earth scorching KXL shovel-ready: looses dog of oil.
http://www.kxlh.com/news/schweitzer-says-keystone-pipeline-will-be-built/