Pat Powers predictably megaphones Seth Tupper's essay about whether Mike Rounds should make an issue of Tim Johnson's health in the 2014 Senate campaign.
Sensitivities and sympathies do not change the practical fact that perceptions of Senator Johnson's health and the ongoing effects of his 2006 cerebral arteriovenous malformation (slowed speech, limited mobility) will affect how South Dakotans vote. Given a ballot choice between Tim Johnson and M. Michael Rounds, every South Dakotan will make a judgment of Senator Johnson's ability to carry out his duties for another six years based on his ability to communicate his message to voters across the state during a vigorous and lengthy campaign.
Can Johnson do it? Let's find out early... with a primary! Nothing will allay voters' health concerns better than a stiff primary challenge. Run a good Democrat against Johnson in spring 2014.
Roust Kevin Weiland out of his doctor's office. Put Matt Varilek on the primary ballot. Or go full Oedipal and get Brendan Johnson to run against his dad (the father-child primary didn't kill the Haggars!). Those candidates wouldn't have to mention the health issue; they could just travel the state and show us who's better equipped to speak for South Dakota. They could campaign together, congenially sharing stages and maybe even rides around the state, and explaining to voters how Democratic values and policies are better for South Dakota than anything Mike Rounds, Kristi Noem, or Stace Nelson would offer.
If Tim Johnson can't withstand a primary challenge, then Dems (and Indy players in our open primary) get a chance to nominate a better candidate with a nice primary momentum boost. And if Tim Johnson does have all the Senatorial chops he needs to win a primary, then he puts Pat's and Seth's concerns to rest early, and we get a general election where we can focus on policy and the records of Senator Johnson and whomever the Republicans nominate. Any takers?
Other than leaving a whopping debt to Daugaard, what memorable thing did Marion Rounds do while sitting in the $3 million new Governor's Mansion (financed by secret contributors) for eight years? What compelling feat did this guy accomplish?
Rounds' record doesn't really matter. People like him. Some in the GOP (powers, schoenbeck etc) whined and complained all the time about Rounds and even brought their temperatures up to Stace Nelson levels. They were hateful of Rounds to the point that they became irational.
In the end Rounds kicked them in the teeth by scaring Schoenbeck out of a primary against Daugaard and helping Daugaard to be nominated by over 50% of the vote in the primary and win the general with over 60%.
The idea that south Dakotan's do not like Rounds is silly at best.
Voters love their governor. (dem or republican. people love their governor)
Nelson's really a US Senate candidate or is that Cory's champagne wishes and (muddy, Missouri River sturgeon roe) caviar dreams?
If Tim Johnson went full Stephen Hawkings and added full paralysis, a wheel chair and a voice box machine, he'd still whip all of them.
I don't even have to read what's over at the low end of the gene pool blog. Powers' is disgusting and about the worst bully on the playground. He'd personally whip any of you if this was a Republican candidate he supported.
Support for Rounds is incredibly soft.
I don't know, Bree. The $104,500 in donations Rounds's Norbeck PAC got pre-general suggest pretty good support. The $120,500 he handed out to candidates around the state probably stiffened up some support.
Another interesting number from the Norbeck pre-general filing: $18,719.02 in "operational expenditures." That's 13.4% overhead. Is that figure a sign of Rounds's efficiency or waste?
That's the problem. People assume money equals support. When your candidate is boring and flawed with baggage it's hard to get people to the polls for him. Look at Romney. A billion dollars couldn't get him elected. I hope the national Republican Establishment is capable of learning from it's mistakes.
Our governors maybe loved, but few make it to Washington. It took Janklow two tries to get there, and he was loved by 72% of the voters the first time he ran for re-election as governor, but then waited 20 years to go to Washington. Not since the first part of the last century have South Dakota Governors gone to Washington with any ease, just ask the late Joe Foss, Archie Gubbrud, or Bill Janklow about that one.
The battle of 2014 is the question of whether Johnson will beat the "Kurse of Karl," or can Rounds overcome the challenges to a former SD Governor wanting to go to Washington? Something has to give here, unless Noem becomes the variable which stabilizes the inevitable colliding political calculuses.
Two years ago, Daugaard broke the "Curse for SD Lt. Governors," and especially for lt. governors from Minnehaha County. The SD political junkyard is filled with the gubernatorial ambitions of former lt. governors who could not even succeed in a partisan primary battle .... just ask the late Dougherty, Wollman, Hansen, Miller, or late Hillard (congressional bid) about that one. So maybe "Clint Roberts Noem" does not matter? Only time will tell, but Roberts lost more than he won, (and Noem has won all her big ones,) but he continued to be a problem for main stream Republicans' thinking and strategies - because he trumped image over substance, just like Kristi .....
Money equals support. It may not be enough support, or the right kind of support, but it's support.
Winston: good history!
You have a point Cory. I guess I think the other kind of support is more important, and should be considered more heavily in the political equation than it currently is.
We can't sneeze at money, but when you think it means everything, you end up like Romney.
So, I've shown evidence that Rounds has notable support. Where's your evidence, Bree, that support for Rounds is soft?
I've got no chart for it Cory. Based on tepid responses.
Tepid responses? From whom? Golly, Pat put 12 posts up about the announcement in one day, so it must be big news, right?
I can't speak for anybody else, especially not two years early. But the support is all smoke and mirrors is my feeling. Call it a gut instinct. I won't vote for him under any circumstances. And I've voted for plenty of Establishment moderate Republicans.
What some call gut instinct others may call psychological projection. I hesitate to extrapolate from your unenthusiastic response to Rounds as much as I hesitate to assume that my own reservations about Johnson's chances in 2014 reflect the broader opinion of people throughout my party. I want more data to support such conclusions.
We can predict tepid responses from folks like Gordon Howie and other RINO shouters. But is there any such tepor from the non-fringe majority that will fill the campaign coffers and turn out to vote?