Nate Silver says Rick Weiland has a 10% chance of winning the U.S. Senate seat in November. Hey, things could be worse: Democrats have only a 1% chance of winning the Senate seat in Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Alabama, and Idaho. And people go to Deadwood on worse odds than that.
By Silver's math, a Weiland victory could be the difference between Democratic and Republican control of the Senate. DSCC, are going to spend money on South Dakota yet or what?
Mr. Montgomery reads Silver (of course he does!) and suggests that Weiland could follow Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill's winning 2012 strategy of running ads on the GOP contenders during the primary. Hmmm... how about a little Hunger Games alliance between Weiland, Pressler, and Nelson?
Silver recognizes Rounds's greatest Achilles heel, the EB-5 scandal:
We also give Republicans a 90 percent chance of winning South Dakota. It’s a more straightforward case, except that the presumptive Republican nominee, Gov. Mike Rounds, has been caught up in a controversy over the state’s participation in the EB-5 immigration visa program. To have much of a chance, Democrats will either need Rounds to lose the Republican primary or be significantly damaged by it [Nate Silver, "FiveThirtyEight Senate Forecast: GOP Is Slight Favorite in Race for Senate Control," FiveThirtyEight, 2014.03.23].
Weiland, Nelson, and anyone else seeking to dent Rounds's armor need not wait for the feds to drop the shoes on EB-5, the Governor's Office of Economic Development, and Northern Beef Packers (deadline for NBP and White Oak Global to close the bankruptcy sale: April 4, two weeks). There is enough on the record of the EB-5 mess—failure of NBP and South Dakota Certified Beef, rushed state handouts diverted for private gain, unchecked authority for a private contractor who may not have had legal authority to conduct EB-5 activities, and wild offshore financing that should make everyone's antennae stand on end—to back Rounds into a tight corner and make voters ask, "Mike, what the heck were you doing?"
And we don't need to even mention the Chinese Mafia or Philippine go-go bars.
Rick! The one thing Nate Silver mentions as keeping him from giving Rounds a certain victory is the thing you and everybody else seeking a different Senator need to mention. EB-5 matters. Regardless of whatever the FBI and the U.S. Attorney do with the eight items on that grand jury subpoena, EB-5 can turn that 10% into a 50-50.
As the Constant Commoner noted yesterday when contrasting Stace Nelson's bare-knuckled assault with Rick Weiland's vapid response to RCJ's questions on EB-5, Rick needs to break out the moxie pills. http://theconstantcommoner.blogspot.com/2014/03/time-for-rick-weiland-to-break-out.html
"break out the moxie pills"—John, I love how that phrase pops. Well crafted!
Thanks, Cory--coming from a wordsmith like you that's praise indeed. I think by now Rick knows what he has to do. That "prairie populist" persona,
romantic as it is, won't win this election. It will come down to who's most fit to represent our state.
Populism is not necessarily liberalism, right? I mean, George Wallace was a populist, but he was not a liberal. At least not a social liberal, that is.
That said, how does Weiland win this race? I can't help but notice in recent months that Weiland's strategy has gone from one of populism to liberalism and especially economic liberalism with the strategy "who's most fit to represent our state" by the Weiland camp having not really been seen since last summer, when Weiland reminded us that Rounds was the "Nine Million Dollar Man."
Now, some may say that the "Nine Million Dollar Man" tagging of Rounds by Weiland was a liberal strategy, but it is really a populist strategy. Where as "Medicare for all," which has been Weiland's recent banner is far more liberal than populist, although I have noticed Weiland trying to paint it in a populist context that everybody on Medicare likes their Medicare; but comprehensive health care is a liberal concept not a populist concept, because of the libertarian concerns, which runs strong within any populist movement and explains how both the right and left over time have been able to use the populist card to their advantage on different issues.
Now, if Weiland was to return to that strategy or theme that he is "most fit", then you have to ask yourself the question does Pressler matter, and if so, how does he matter in the context of this theme? Among those undecided voters that might be attracted to this theme, who is more credible, Weiland or Pressler? I would allege that Pressler has greater name ID than Weiland, that said, does Weiland's theme in its born again context work to Weiland's favor or Pressler's, who could possibly use the "Abscam" angle more effectively to develop this "most fit" argument?
Now Weiland could try to combine the populist and liberal themes as a winning strategy (like the way he promotes "Medicare for all"), with populism having the greater emphasis, but as long as Pressler is in this race, I would suggest that is not a viable option for the Weiland camp, because a relevant Pressler could effectively play-off on the liberal caveat of Weiland's message to the undecided moderate and possibly conservative voters, who are akin to populism, but not so much liberalism.
A course, this assumes that Pressler is relevant or will stay relevant. Will Pressler peter-out like he did in 2002, or will he stay strong and relevant throughout, or will he peter-out and re-emerge in the fall, like Perot did in 1992? The Pressler variable has to be understood, recognized, and tracked in deciding how Weiland deploys the populist strategy or for that matter the liberal strategy as well.
I am of the belief that Weiland's rather liberal stride in recent months comes from an understanding that Pressler at least for now matters and for now he takes from Weiland almost as much as he takes from Rounds. That said, Weiland cannot assume his Democratic base as he reaches out to a populist banner over a liberal per se banner, because in the area of populism he potentially has a competitor in the form of Pressler, but with liberalism no one can touch him as far as winning the upper hand against even a Pressler with Democratic attractions.
So as long as Pressler is relevant, then Weiland's best strategy is one of liberalism, but if Pressler begins to faultier then the "most fit" populist strategy works best for Weiland. It all comes down to how Pressler continues to poll throughout the spring and summer and whether he gains. If he begins to trail south in polling, then the "most fit" populist theme works best for Weiland; but the Weiland camp has to make sure, that given the polling opportunity to do so, they do not do such a good job of developing the generic populist theme that Pressler returns in the fall, like Perot once did, and becomes the more viable populist candidate with the help of stronger name ID, the benefit of the "Abscam" angle, and with the help of a general populist distain for liberalism given the issues at hand as developed by the "Populist Weiland" who has liberal caveats.
Nice piece Winston--might also add that Hitler was a populist, so your distinction between populism and liberalism is dead on. My take is that Rick W. has embedded the populist meme into his campaign with that "Take It Back" theme that he's adopted. His steady refrain "that most of the country’s problems can be laid at the feet of the wealthy and big business that are preventing progress" as the RCJ editorial board put it a week ago after a board session with him seems fairly consistent to me. Here's the whole editorial: http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/opinion/editorial-weiland-another-prairie-populist/article_ace5650a-85a3-5d4f-98d3-10e77761c3d6.html I don't think he'll have much trouble tagging Pressler as a tool of wealth and big business by calling attention to the centerpiece of Pressler's legislative career, The Telecommunications Act of 1996, which paved the way for mergers that reduced competition across the telecom spectrum. I believe a lot of people in SD are unhappy with the meager selection of service providers and the resulting arbitrary increases in cost with little or no competition to turn to for cost and service comparisons. Your analysis overstates the "Pressler factor," which I think is more a distraction than a candidacy that will ever get traction. He had to hire signature gatherers to get his petitions signed, so light is his contingent of supporters who are willing to do some work. I think Weiland sticks to the "most fit" line regardless of Pressler's presence. Kudos for the thoughtful analysis, which I admire.
I used to believe in what Silver said because what he said came from proven sources. His platform has changed according to this, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/23/1286213/-By-hiring-a-climate-disinformer-Nate-Silver-undermines-his-entire-premise-of-data-driven-journalism?showAll=yes
Now I think that John T. may be on to something as a way for Rick Weiland to make his own way. The guy needs to get tough and get tough right quick. Go after the Rounds for his failed policies and go after him for his corruption. These are not difficult choices as they are plain as the newsprint they are written on. Go get'um tiger, bloody those knuckles.
5% chance Weiland beats Rounds
1% chance Nelson beats Rounds
16% chance Rhoden beats Rounds
8% chance Bosworth beats Rounds
Add all that up and you French math whizzes would come to the conclusion that there's a 70% chance Rounds is your next Senator, and you would be wrong. There's a 90% chance Rounds is your next Senator.
A cat has nine tails.
Proof:
No cat has eight tails. A cat has one tail more than no cat. Therefore, a cat has nine tails.
John, Thank you,
I would agree that the "Take It Back" theme demonstrates the Weiland camp's initial attempt to embed the populist theme into their campaign, but the Pressler emergence and relevance I think complicates this theme and requires Weiland to now emphasize the liberal theme and to the degree it complements populism, but you have to be careful there as I aforementioned.
No doubt Pressler has his past conservative credential liabilities in the context of the question of who is the better or more genuine populist candidate. But the again, it comes down to who can better handle this debate in the context of the libertarian theme within the populist claim. You would think that the pocket book would dictate in terms of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and your cable bill, but the fact that the Weiland camp would have to go their would only further proves that the Genie is already out of the bottle in terms of Presslers relevance; and at that point it is best for Weiland to just count his liberal votes and make sure they get out to vote. It really comes down to tracking Pressler. If he gains momentum, which at some point will be at a greater cost to Rounds than Weiland as undecided conservative voters become more disenchanted by any further and greater EB5 woes, then Weiland needs Pressler to hurt Rounds politically and Weiland must have an effective GOTV program on election day with the liberal voter, which is, however, another challenge for a liberal Democratic candidate in a non-presidential year, I might add.
As far as the "Pressler factor," well, I speak often of his relevance. So the "Pressler factor" is what it is and responsively so is also the Weiland strategy, I would claim.
However, the real question is, "Is Pressler's candidacy of his own design?" or is his candidacy the emergence of two interests, Pressler's and the Democrat's, or better yet, the grand conspiratorial theory that he is the Democrats design entirely. If one can answer those three curiosities, then you can begin to answer whether Pressler is a factor or not given his 2002 track record in particular - and from there you begin to plug-in with even greater confidence the best strategy for the Weiland camp, but one must be aware of the potential of letting the Genie out of the bottle reality, that the Pressler candidacy of not his own design reality or one that is all sudden welcomed makes in complicating the populist versus liberalism mantra or its combination.
I don't make a lot of Pressler hiring for petition signatures. He most likely knew that not only did he need more signatures than a Democratic or Republican candidate, but that the Republicans would potentially challenge his signatures requiring him to get a lot of signatures and what better way to do that than to hire a professional at that. The real question is how did he know who to go for that and did he get help; which further feeds the frenzy of the latter two curiosities that I aforementioned - and these curiosities further fuel the suspicion that Pressler will remain a factor, which makes the understanding of the distinction between a populist strategy for Weiland versus a liberal one all the more important.
My advice to the Weiland camp is to get a political cookie jar started which says on the outside "For GOTV only, all other hands off!" - and also, I was wondering, do you still have the cork to the Genie bottle which some of us Democrats think the Democrats have opened?
Grudz-there is zero chance Rounds will be my next Sinator.Weiland has a better chance,because I'd vote for him if I lived in SoDak.
Interesting, Winston, I might be a bit too dismissive of Pressler as a factor. I'm recalling how his effort petered out in '02 and thinking that 12 years later his ambitions might be even more likely to dissipate for lack of energy and popular support. Just one of those wait and see kinds of things. If he has the go power, I agree that Pressler could indeed be more than a distraction. As to having a cork, the only ones around my house have foreign writing imprinted on them and are stained purple. Thanks for a provocative discussion.
The "fitness" idea for me becomes not who is "most fit", but who is "least fit". That being Rounds.
IMO - whatever Rick's strategy decision does to boost Pressler is generally good for the people of SD. Maybe an "anybody but Mike" approach is the best reflection of a truly populist perspective. Claiming that territory - who's the MOST populist and least intent on being "anything to be the winner" (even if it seems to boost Pressler) is essential.
Richard,
"...who's the MOST populist and least intent on being "anything to be the winner" (even if it seems to boost Pressler) is essential."
Doesn't this comment limit the potential of Weilands candidacy given his liberal credentials and recent policy statements, unless you assume a liberal can win on his own, then there is no real need for the populist angle and the complexities it brings with it.
Are you kidding? It seems that the question here is whether Weiland or Pressler are even relevant. The better question might be what have the Democrats in Washington done for South Dakota or for the nation for that matter except screw up the medical industry, the economy, and grown government to a point where the middle class isn't even a concern to them.