With less than 24 hours until the polls open, Rick Weiland's race for Senate comes right back to where it started. With the two largest papers in South Dakota saying Mike Rounds doesn't deserve a Senate seat, with Larry Pressler hanging tough and even Gordon Howie surging (yes, laugh, but now every point counts), Democrats find themselves right where I said they ten months ago when Larry Pressler entered the race: unite and win!
But Job #1 in this three-way for Weiland is party unity. Assuming Pressler can run a credible campaign, Weiland watches with glee as Pressler and the GOP nominee divide both the GOP and the Indy vote. Weiland reminds every Democrat that Republicans have nothing to offer them. Democrats currently make up 35% of the electorate. Get them all to come vote Dem, add those GOP defectors mentioned above, draw some Indies, Weiland cracks 40%, and Weiland-Rounds/Nelson-Pressler becomes Clinton-Bush-Perot [Cory Allen Heidelberger, "Pressler Enters Race; Can Weiland Unify Dems for Victory?" Madville Times, 2013.12.27].
Let's update that thinking with Rick's performance, Mike's EB-5 stumbles, and voter numbers in this wild four-man race:
- A chunk of Democrats (26%, according to the last SurveyUSA poll) are still saying they'll vote for Pressler.
- Rick Weiland has given Democrats lots of reasons to vote for him and no reason to vote against him. He hasn't riled the base the way Herseth Sandlin did with a string of votes against the President (culminating in her vote against the Affordable Care Act). He hasn't said anything dumb about gay marriage the way Matt Varilek did in 2012. Rick has run a nearly perfect campaign, based on progressive policies, populism, show leather, and good music.
- The only good reason Dems might still be voting for Pressler is that they latched onto Pressler last December when the former Senator announced his Independent bid. A combination of surprise, nostalgia, and nervousness that Weiland hadn't proved himself as a candidate yet maybe induced some Dems to think Pressler had a better chance of upsetting Mike Rounds. (Yes, we Dems do get some crazy ideas.)
- If those Pressler Dems will groundhog up, they'll realize things have changed. Rick has proven himself.
- Weiland can win; Pressler cannot. Only one poll showed Pressler closer to Rounds than Weiland. That poll is a month old; every poll since has refuted it and restored the expected order, showing Weiland (most recently) 11 points from Rounds compared to Pressler's 24.
- Weiland has a natural base on top of which undecideds and re-decideds can pile their power. Pressler does not.
- Come home, Democrats, and you can lift Weiland all on your own. If 26% of Dems are still backing Pressler, and if Secretary Gant's 60% turnout holds, fast math on voter registration totals shows that if we can get a majority of those Dems to come to their senses, we put over 5 percentage points back in Rick's column. (Make some calls, give a Dem friend a ride, and we can push that number higher.)
- Meanwhile, Mike Rounds has given his base plenty of reason not to vote for him. To mark Rounds on their ballot, GOP voters have to hold their noses, convince themselves nothing bad happened in EB-5. There was no corruption. Mike never lied. Joop Bollen and Richard Benda never scammed the taxpayers. There are Republicans who will find the mental effort to check their conscience and let Mike have a Senate seat just too much to take.
- Let the Rapid City Journal's anti-Rounds argument sink in, and another 5 percentage points fall out of Rounds's column.
- More than five, another more than five... holy cow! Where'd Mike's 11 go?
Just count, Democrats. There are 176,000 of you. If you will all get up and mark the one Democrat on your ballot (a good Democrat, an awesome Democrat, a Democrat who has in every way earned your vote) while Republicans and Independents split, you can send Rick Weiland to the Senate. You can keep Tim Johnson's seat and maybe the whole darn Senate in the best, sanest hands. Seize your moment. Dems!
Or boil it down this way: Pressler can't win. Weiland can. A vote for Pressler is a vote for Rounds. A vote for Weiland is a vote to win.
Bob Mercer says Weiland-backer concerns about leakage to Pressler make it sound like Team Weiland is "more worried about finishing third rather than second." Ha! We Dems are still playing for first... and we can make it happen on our own with good old-fashioned party unity.
If, after the press endorsements, Pressler and Howie surge because of leakage from the GOP, and Rick surges because we dithering Dems come to our senses and simply vote for our party's candidate, it could be Rounds who comes in third.
Which might make Mssrs. Mercer and Monty mess their pants.
And wouldn't that just be special?
I am a strong Pressler guy, so you will not be surprised that I think a vote for Weiland is a vote for Rounds. It is pretty clear, first, that Rounds is the guy to beat; and second, that Weiland is a good and decent man who has never gotten beyond his hard core, hard left base. Pressler is extraordinarily well qualified, and has run an intelligent and dignified race, treating voters like adults (which I admit is risky) with no negative ads. His favorables are much higher than either Rounds or Weiland, and he is the overwhelming second choice for both Rounds and Weiland voters. If you are a disaffected Rounds voter, it is much easier, and more likely, that you will migrate to Pressler. That leaves stubborn and devoted Weiland fans to determine the election in favor of Rounds.
I am not a big fan of strategic voting. Probably it makes sense for each of us to vote for the candidate we like best. But for those who feel that the paramount objective is defeating Rounds, the only thoughtful strategic choice is to vote for someone who can win. That is Pressler. I don't claim he WILL win, only that it is possible. (I don't dismiss recent political polls, but I don't regard them as "scientific" either. Rejection rates from people canvassed in this race exceed 90%, and most folks without landlines are not called at all.) That is why Democrats should not waste their vote on Weiland, whose recent tantrums against his own party verge on political suicide.
It is sobering to think that the future of our republic rests on the individual votes of Heidelberger and Fleming, but there you go...
""""It is sobering to think that the future of our republic rests on the individual votes of Heidelberger and Fleming, but there you go..."""" Probably the most scientific way to vote for the winner in a SD election would
be to vote against the poli suicidal views of the hard left here. A vote for Pressler.
Mr. Frankenfeld my good friend, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but that's what friends are for.
Your insecurity is showing.
Have you no faith in the voters of your own political party? Has Mr. Pressler no faith in the Indies who have abandoned it?
You should be able to find ample votes for your candidate among that vast combined pool of voters without having to come here and try to shame Mr. Heidleberger and me out of the proud votes we intend to cast for our most worthy of all 4 candidates, Mr. Rick Weiland.
I will place blame for a Rounds win directly on your shoulders personally. But that should come as no surprise to you. Kevin Woster and I are convinced that everything is your fault, and we have told you that repeatedly..
And you have yet to deny it. :-)
Sunny weather tomorrow across South Dakota. Intra-party issues, money, suspect polling now going to yield to one thing: Turnout.
Mr. Frankenfeld, I like to think of myself as more of an idealist that a strategist, but sometimes reality knocks.
Democratic idealists can vote for Weiland with clean conscience. Republican idealists must hold their nose to vote for Rounds.
But what matter here are the non-idealist anti-Rounds voters. For the big chunk of folks putting "Not Rounds" at the top and finding their ideals breaking even in analyzing Weiland and Pressler, math rules: they have a better chance of getting what they want by piling their votes on top of the larger of pile of votes Weiland already has than trying to fill Pressler's double gap. That's not a compromise of ideals; that's just practical action. A vote for Weiland is far more likely a vote to keep Rounds out than a vote for Pressler.
That's not left-wing lunacy, as Les would have you believe. That's just math. (Of course, as we know, reality has a distinct liberal bias. :-) )
And remember, I'm being conservative and spotting Pressler more points than he may have. The KELO poll shows Weiland just 9 points back, while Pressler is 29 points back. I can see the math that gets Rick 9.5 points. Someone show me the math that gets Pressler 29.5 (no imaginary numbers allowed!).
Turnout is good for our state, Mark. Maybe we can vote a win against all odds with almost anyone being a win.
Les, that's just about true. Rick Weiland would be a win. A Pressler win, while far less possible, would still be far better than a kick in the pants. Even a Howie win would be kind of fun and would send my blog traffic into the stratosphere. Only a Rounds win would reward corruption and incompetence.
And that's why it's important that we Dems unite and charge down the one viable path to victory: voting for Rick Weiland.
Pressler is only at around 13% (KELO and I have seen recent tracking polls that have Pressler at 12%).
One thing has been very clear from the beginning, the majority of of South Dakotans do not want Mike Rounds. The only possible way that will not happen is to vote for Rick Weiland. Weiland is my first choice, without reservation. I can also say Rounds is my last choice. Indeed, he isn't even an option for me. I believe has been proven unfit to serve.
I had to ask myself if Weiland was at 12-13% and Pressler was in the mid-30s, would I vote for Pressler in an effort to defeat Rounds. That's a tough question for personal reasons, however, if Rick were 20 points behind Pressler, I believe I would have to vote for Pressler.
Rick is in the mid-30s and has been moving up the last few days. The right mix among Weiland, Pressler and Howie can defeat Rounds.
I hope the recent endorsements boost Pressler among Republicans and that Democrats will support their candidate.
If 3 points go from Pressler to Weiland and Pressler gets 3 points from Rounds and Howie continues to pick up modest support, I score as follows:
Go Rick! And go Democrats!
There is something mischievous, even conspiratorial, about the Argus running a poll then blowing off its results by endorsing an alleged unaffiliated candidate.
Fleming, as often happens, is confused. He claims that everything is always my fault. This is a fact, and I am proud of it. But that's not the same as always being wrong. My track record shows I am often right, maybe 34% of the time. And co-incidentally, that is exactly the vote Pressler needs to win, so this race is pretty much a slam dunk for Pressler.
Both Fleming and Heidelberger seem to be treating polls as a fetish, and Cory sometimes "splices" one poll with another competing poll to discern a trend. This is a dangerous practice. The polls this year have been notoriously volatile, although Rounds seems until recently to have been on a persistent downward trajectory, while Pressler until recently has been moving up dramatically. So to say Pressler "is at" 13%, or whatever, is almost certainly wrong. One poll, taken awhile ago, had him at that level, while another at a roughly contemporaneous time had him in second place. I believe that all South Dakota-based polls this year have huge sampling errors, and are not reliable predictors.
It was, and remains, a fluid race. Pressler's chances are better than Weiland's, and both Pressler and Weiland remain underdogs. As my friend (and Rounds supporter) Harry Christianson says, second place is nothing to be sneezed at, but it is still second place. My guy has a plausible chance to finish first. I can't fault Weiland supporters if their votes are motivated by idealism. If their main objective is to defeat Rounds, they should join forces on behalf of the "not Rounds" candidate with a chance, Pressler.
I am guessing my arguments will not resonate with your readers, Cory. My fault, as usual...
The reason your argument doesn't resonate is that your candidate sunk like a rock in the polls. You can't get from 13% to 35-40%. Rick is already there. I would love to see Larry get a few more points...from Republicans.
In the first answer to John T's questions to Larry Pressler, the Senator said that he would disqualify Bernie Sanders, (I) from Vermont from his centrist clique of Independents. LP has been running his whole campaign that he would be the 4th Independent in the US Senate and that the four of them would be able to change the world. So much for that, when he cannot even allow the foremost Independent in the US Senate into his "clique."
KELO reports the top searched words on Google associated with Mike Rounds the past 30 days are 'scandal,’ ‘corruption,’ and ‘immigration’. Weiland: ‘restaurant,’ ‘family,’ and ‘campaign song’
For me as a Democrat this race is about beating Rounds and saving or potentially saving the Senate for the Democrats. That said, it is more realistic to assume in these final hours that Pressler can persuade more soft Republicans to swing from Rounds to him and thus win, then to hope all Democrats will vote for Rick Weiland in order for Rick to win.
A Democratic vote for Weiland is a vote of principle, but not a vote of victory. A vote for Pressler is a vote which can be a part of a winning side and the only realistic way to potentially save the Senate for the Democrats….
It is time for all Democrats to be pragmatists. I am talking about the same pragmatism which elected and maintain the election of the likes of Tom Daschle and Tim Johnson over the years, and can now be instrumentally used to save the Senate for the Democratic Party….
At this time to blame a vote for Pressler as the cause of a Weiland defeat and thus the potential loss of the Senate to the Republicans is to ignore your contemporary South Dakota Democratic history.
Pressler and his supports are not to blame for this reality. This reality is a power vacuum that has been filled overtime by Pressler and not Weiland, and a vacuum created ironically by those who know plead for total Democratic alliance in the eleventh hour - and a problem they created and now a problem whose faults they are now trying to cast upon others.
When Pressler entered this race 10 months or so ago, I said Rick would be running against three Republicans, that opinion has not changed, in fact it has been reinforced.
Pressler's refusal to acknowledge which party he will caucus with to help determine the senate leadership is more than troublesome. He has given us not guarantee.
South Dakota Republicans hate Harry Reid and so do a lot of South Dakota Democrats, he has intruded on our space for questionable purposes. Rick will be the only candidate in this race that can cast a vote against Reid if the senate remains in Democratic hands.
And just how does voting for Pressler save the Senate for the Democrats???? That is not the most important issue anyway, saving the Senate for the Democrats. The most important issue is to get a Senator who is working for the people of SD.
Unless, going to war was working for SD, then Daschle and Johnson were not working for SD, Unless cutting taxes and thus racking up an unconscionable national debt was working for SD then Daschle and Johnson were not working for SD. Get over it, Winston, it is not about party, it is about doing what is right and working for the common good.
Winston, if you think the Rounds Republican base is going to collapse that hard, I want some of what you've been smoking.
If Pressler and Howie combined can draw down even 10 of Rounds points, we who oppose him can count ourselves very, very lucky.
Just because you're willing to throw your party under the bus at the drop of a hat doesn't mean they are. They may be a lot of things, but undisciplined isn't one of them.
This is the SD Democrat's election to lose.
And if too many of us follow your errant lead, we almost certainly will.
So, enough of your arm chair philosophy lectures, Winston.
Show us your math.
Exactly Bill, the "what ifs" time clock has run out, this race is no longer about philosophy or the what ifs, it is about getting the Democrats to vote and vote the party ticket.
Secretly, I'm hoping Howie has a good showing of up to at least 10% or more. That will help Rick.
Lanny, as a Democrat for me it is about saving the Senate…
Bill, first of all I do not smoke. Secondly, Pressler's pluralistic support is phantom in nature and will either show-up or not on election day, but wishing every Democrat to vote for Weiland on election day in order to squeak-in a win is far less realistic…. If I had saved all of my money over the years I might be a millionaire now too and that is what you are saying when you call on all Democrats to come home in the final hours.
Bill I am not throwing my "party under the bus." The Democratic leadership in South Dakota already did this for us, when they destroyed any chance of winning this Senate race with a Democratic candidate in May of 2013.
I would agree with you Bill that "This is the SD Democrat's election to lose" and also the National Democrats to lose as well, but the only hope now is to save the Senate…. and there is only one realistic way to do it.
You want to see the math, in the past month a poll showed Pressler in a two man race against Rounds within 2 points, while a Weiland versus Rounds race had Weiland trailing by more than six points. Not to mention there is a inverse relationship to Rounds's collapse in the polls and Pressler's rise, while Weiland's numbers are for the most part stagnant.
As far as my lectures, well the truth hurts sometimes...
Best insight on the Pressler conundrum comes from Joe Loveland:
But in an odd twist, votes for third place Pressler are giving scandal-tainted Rounds a chance to win despite the scandal. Polls show that Pressler supporters’ second choice is Weiland, not Rounds, by an overwhelming 3-to-1 margin. Weiland has earned the respect of many Pressler supporters by stressing the need to get big money out of politics, outworking his opponents on a tour of all 311 of South Dakota’s towns, and showing independence from his own party’s leaders.
If the roughly 18% of South Dakotans who currently support Pressler give their vote to someone who will be a distant third place finisher, it looks like they will effectively allow Rounds to win. But if some Pressler supporters reconsider between now and Tuesday, and give their votes to second place Weiland instead of third place Pressler, the anti-Rounds vote could be consolidated enough to defeat Rounds.
Think about that for a minute. How ironic would it be if Pressler supporters, who are convinced they are standing up against corrupt politics, end up inadvertently assuring the election of someone who could go down as the most corrupt politician in South Dakota history?
Winston! So you're basing your whole argument on one poll and ignoring all the others? That makes no sense whatsoever.
That particular poll was almost certainly an outlier, and NONODY should EVER base their strategy on one single poll. It's guaranteed recipe for disaster. Look at the RCP average here.
Notice that the poll you're talking about isn't even in there. Then go look at that polling company's composite on the whole race. Do you even know what a tracking poll is, Winston? I'm starting to think maybe you don't.
96, yes. Precisely.
Winston, You are arguing against yourself. You did not answer my question. How is a vote for Pressler helping to hold the US Senate for the Democrats?
The whole idea that Pressler is the knight in shining armor who will defeat the corrupt Rounds is absurd. The last poll showing Pressler competitive with Rounds in a two-way race was what? How many weeks ago now? Pressler has tanked in the polls since then, but some people are still clinging to him as Our Only Hope.
One of the saddest and most frustrating things is seeing how many Stepford Democrats have been conditioned to believe they can never win in South Dakota, and therefore have to vote for an "independent" Republican instead of their own candidate — despite the "independent" savior in this case having less chance of winning than the Democrat.
I understand trying to be pragmatic and savvy about a vote, but the contortions some people are twisting themselves into to justify a Pressler vote as "the only chance" at victory is just sad. Beaten-dog, avert-your-eyes level sad.
OMG, I just reread Winston's argument and it's even worse than I thought. He's basing his whole argument on a hypothetical assuming Weiland and Howie aren't even in the race! Winston, come back to earth buddy! Your party needs you here to vote tomorrow! Your unicorn scenario is not the ballot people are voting on. Time to sail your boat back from la-la land.
The attempt at the blame game spin has already begone hasn't it? That is if Rounds is victorious on election day.
As far as Loveland's analysis, well, Pressler I think it is safe to say is also the second choice of Rounds voters too.
The 3-to-1 relationship with a 18% premise for Pressler equates to a 13.5 point potential for Weiland from Pressler supporters. When you recognize that Weiland has consistently polled between 25 to 32 points and add the 13.5 points then you are talking about a Weiland base of 38.5 to 45.5 points on election day, but to realistically assume that collapse in Pressler voters is also to assume an equal collapse with the 4.5 of the Pressler voters to Rounds. Since, Rounds consistently polls between 35 to 44 percent with the voters then with the added 4.5 points Rounds still wins with 39.5 to 48.5 of the vote.
We all have our numbers, but at this point it is the emotions and the momentum of the campaigns which will decide this race; and it is the emotions and momentum of the Pressler campaign which is far more realistic to expect and assume on election day then the wishful thinking of the Weiland camp.
At this point, it is a game of momentum and not numbers….
Bringing up what if Pressler/Weiland was not in the race is a red herring. They are both in the race. Weiland's supporters would not be caught dead voting for Rounds, so they move to Pressler with Weiland out of the race. Rounds' weakness is the only factor, not Pressler's strength over Weiland.
Winston, you seem to support the "Harry knows best school", but that, too, is a red herring. I guess if you are really Max Sandlin, maybe you know something, but otherwise, I think we should take Stephanie at her word that it was her choice not to run. (Some men seem to have a hard time with the concept of a woman making her own decisions.). It seems insulting to SHS to suggest she would refuse to face a primary challenger.
So, I say thanks to Rick Weiland for stepping up and running a campaign he and South Dakota Democrats can be proud of.
And I'm proud to cast my vote for him.
The only one playing the blame game here is you, Winston. The rest of us here are trying to snap you out of it.
So basically the last set of numbers Winston puts forth tells us that Rounds is going to win no matter what. Awesome. So Winston is adamant that people should vote for Pressler... why, exactly?
I don't buy Winston's numbers or his interpretation of them, but fine; let's assume they're true. Even so, I'm hearing no convincing, fact-based argument why anybody should vote for Pressler. Instead, we're supposed to base our vote on what? Spite? Sour grapes? Wishing upon a star? (Either that, or this is straight-up trolling by a Harry Reid staffer who's still bitter South Dakota Democrats chose their own nominee and didn't kiss Harry's ring.)
Also, "emotions and momentum of the Pressler campaign"? What? In what universe can one find this wildly popular, barnstorming Pressler campaign?
[Lisa Simpson, listlessly reading script given to her]
"Mister Burns. Your campaign has the momentum of a runaway freight train. What makes you so popular?"
[Simpson walks off without listening to the canned answer]
Let's not forget Pressler is at 12-13%, so emotions and momentum would have to equate to 20 points just to catch Weiland. Weiland's "wishful thinking" only needs a few points. The emotions and reverse momentum of Rounds campaign will also work in Weiland's favor.
Larry Pressler, still crazy and still pandering after all these years …
In his prime, Pressler was a strong supporter of the most radical, cutting-edge right wingers to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. He’s anxious to vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if allowed to return to the U.S. Senate.
He’s every bit as dangerous to personal liberties as Mike Rounds, especially the human rights of women. Bork Rounds. Bork Pressler. Elect Weiland.
The senate race in South Dakota is not a horserace, we don't place our bets on win, place, and show. We vote to win.
2nd and 3rd place are nothing to brag about, they only mean you lost the race.
I agree with Bill, there isn't a reason out there why a Democrat should vote for Pressler, at least not a good one.
Our senate race alone is not going to define what the senate leadership will look like on Wednesday.
I voted two weeks ago. I don't care about polls. I don't care about someone else's opinion of a candidate. I don't care who endorses a candidate. I don't even care if a candidate doesn't kiss the collective rear-ends of their entire party...I actually respect that. I care about candidates and issues and where those candidates stand on the issues. With that being said,I very proudly and with a clear conscience,voted for Rick Weiland.
Way to go Vickie! I voted for him this morning with a similar clear conscience. But then Rick has been a good friend for almost 30 years, so for me, there was never any question. He's like a brother, and I know who he'll be working for when he gets to DC. I also know who he'll be working for if by some chance he doesn't make it. The same people he always has. We the people.
This is really a simple election for the Democrats , if you vote Rick Weiland he will be our next Senator. The Republicans have split with 3 candidates. If Weiland does not win it is nobody but the Democrats fault for not supporting their own candidate. Democrats have just hours to get the job done.
The problem I would have with voting for Pressler is not whether he could or could not win. It's what you would get should he win.
I liked Pressler when he took on the Republican establishment and won his seat in Congress. He was a fairly consistent opponent of the Oahe Project, something that was not common in the leadership of the Republican Party.
Despite his Obama endorsement, he's really not that independent guy he used to be and says he is again. Sometime after the Reagan election, and after the Republicans took control of the Senate, Pressler started down the path of ingratiating himself to the DC Republican leadership ad the corrupt political elite in order to secure a committee chairmanship. Then he started doing the bidding of the K-Street lobbyists. Yeah, he wasn't corrupt enough to take Abscam bribes, but he was more of an unpaid pawn of the power elite.
What do you make of Pressler's more recent alliance with the Pete Peterson billionaires' club that would privatize and reduce Social Security? I would be very, very wary of voting for Pressler just because of the recent company he's been keeping.
Still, Pressler hasn't made Rounds' cuckoo Perry-light statements about abolishing Departments of Education and Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency. Let's admit that Pressler isn't angling for the single digit IQ vote, as Rounds has, which may be why he's going to come in third in this race. Still, if you can't stomach Weiland, a vote for Pressler is second best.
My wife and I were excited to get our Weiland votes cast, so not taking a chance on getting hit by a bus tonight or in the morning on the way to work we stopped In at the Lake County Auditor and made it official. Then celebrated at El Vaquero. Uno mas crevaza por favor
¡Uno mas cerveza para todos qui estan con Rick! (Limonada para mi, por favor.) ¡Fiesta!
96: I love that post from our cross-border friend Mr. Loveland. He can see the dynamics, and he doesn't have a horse in the race. Pressler can't win; Weiland can. If we want to fight corruption, we have to vote for Weiland.
Slynn, if Corinna Robinson can poll at 37%, why doesn't Weiland? Who are the folks voting for Corinna but not for Rick?
Blame Frankenfeld—raarrr! :-)
Mr. Frankenfeld mentions idealism; o.k., let's talk idealism. There are more Democratic idealists than Independent idealists. (Being a Democrat in South Dakota requires a dogged brand of idealism, does it not?) Asking Weiland voters to switch to Weiland demands much greater sacrifice of ideals than asking Pressler voters to switch to Weiland. Therefore (back to fuzzy math!), uniting behind Weiland for victory over Rounds is an easier pill for the body politic as a whole to swallow.
Plus, what are the ideals of Pressler voters? Lay them out. Whatever they are, I will argue that Senator Weiland can make more long-term progress on those ideals than Senator Pressler. Yeah, sure, Pressler has that vaunted seniority, but he's only going to use it for one term, and he's not going to use it to build an organization here in South Dakota that can sustain the fight for those ideals long-term. Senator Weiland can help rebuild the Democratic Party to continue the fight for whatever ideals we're talking about long-term, regardless of whether Rick runs again in 2020. One idealistic Senator is great, but fighting for ideals takes a village. If you want a better chance of fighting for those ideals (and I reserve the right to amend my response depending on the ideals enunciated), you vote pragmatically and vote for Weiland.
Weiland can help build a party. Weiland can also win!
with people like weiland and bernie saunders, (ME, I.) IN THE SENATE we wil make a difference and things WILL change. look long trem people!! vote weiland or dont vote.
Why aren't Rounds's numbers as high as Daugaard's? Because there are Daugaard voters voting for Weiland or Pressler.
The bottomline is this. I think Nate Silver is the definitive answer to our discussion here and he has always seen it as either a Rounds win or a Pressler upset:
Winston, You should go out on the street and troll for Dem votes for Pressler. Folks on this blog are sold on Weiland.
He hasn't "always" seen it that way, Winston. Silver saw it that way a month ago. That's a decade in campaign terms, and SD hasn't been on Nate Silver's radar for two weeks.
Why aren't Rounds numbers as high as Daugaards?
Two letters and a number:
People have been waiting to see which way the wind is blowing vis a vis Rick and Larry. Smart Repubs don't want to throw their vote away unless they think it can do some good.
Rounds has wrapped both Weiland and Pressler in the same Obamacare, Keystone Pipeline, anti-gun blanket. Hence, Repubs, will have to hold their noses to vote for either one of them.
They just want to be sure they vote for the one that wins.
And poll after poll after poll shows that would be Weiland.
Remember, insurgent Repubs aren't fooling around.
If they've decided to vote against their guy, it's because they want him out!
Let's help them.
Vote for Rick.
The other guy who can win.
Pretty ironic, Leslie, that is what swung my vote to Weiland instead of Pressler. LP told John Tsitrian in his first answer yesterday on Constant Commoner, that Sanders would not be welcome in his centrist clique. Sanders is one US Senator that I admire as well.
Winston, Nate Silver is good, but he suffers a little of the same Beltwayitis that had the national media all recycling their Pressler files and focusing on that "quirky" angle of the SD race instead of looking at what was actually happening on the ground. What specific data does Silver cite that overrides the data and analysis I present here?
And come on, Winston: Silver's analysis is from October 7, based on the one Pressler-second-place poll. Has Silver updated his analysis since then?
Silver also makes assumptions that don't fit what we're seeing right now:
"This is a challenging race to forecast — both because of the inconsistent polling and the three-way dynamic. But the logic programmed into the FiveThirtyEight model is as follows: because Pressler is more ideologically similar to Rounds than Weiland — at least according to the statistical measures that we use — the model assumes that Pressler and Rounds will mostly trade votes with one another rather than with Weiland. In other words, Pressler’s gains will tend to come at Rounds’ expense, and vice versa....
"That makes Pressler the more likely candidate to pull off the upset; he can gain ground relative to the frontrunner more quickly. The FiveThirtyEight model currently gives Pressler a 9 percent chance of winning the race, versus 3 percent for Weiland. Those chances will grow if more polls come along with results like SurveyUSA’s.
More polls like SurveyUSA's haven't come along. The polls have all gone the opposite direction. So should Silver's conclusions about who has the best shot at beating Rounds. So should yours.
But Lanny, don't drive Winston away. I like having him drop by... especially so I can change his mind before he goes out an convinces anyone else to follow his erroneous thinking.
Cory, you're right as usual.
When the national media landed in South Dakota a couple of weeks ago it was because of Pressler's rise in the polls, they did not pay attention to the why Pressler was gaining on Rounds.
Most in South Dakota know the why and that is EB-5 and old school Republicans looking for an option to Rounds that isn't a Gordon Howie, the choice was and is easy for them to make.
With all due respect to Nate Silver, did he include the Rounds scandal in his analysis, especially given the endorsements of our two major newspapers nod to Pressler?
Nate never said Pressler was going to win, he just claimed Pressler was the only viable wildcard.
October 7th, yes, but since then he has dismissed the SD Senate race in other articles since only speaks to the obvious, which is that Rounds is the comfortable favorite, which means that further pleading for Democrats to leave Pressler for Weiland only further reassures that analysis.
And that is the real issue at stake here, because if we plead for Democrats to come home we have proven Nate right - and personally I would not want to get into a you no what contest with Nate. His track record is stellar.
As far as the polls now going in the opposite direction, I would agree, but the inverse relationship between Pressler and Rounds remains constant, which further speaks to Nate's belief that Pressler is the only real wildcard in this race....
Silver said Pressler was the second most likely to win, based on assumptions that were incorrect and are now obsolete, as shown by the subsequent polls. "Dems come home" is a plausible and simple path to victory. I don't guarantee it will be enough, but the data and endorsements coming out show it is worth trying.
Pressler is the wildcard in that he's taking votes away from Weiland, but not because he's a more possible wildcard winner.
Dems, we can keep getting deeper in to the baseball. But I'm waiting to hear one Democrat tell me why a Democrat should vote for Pressler instead of Weiland. There appears to be no pragmatic case. There appears to be no idealistic case.
You want to win? Vote Weiland. You want Senator Rounds? Vote Pressler.
The answer is a pragmatic vote for Pressler. Nate's analysis spoke to and continues to be held-up by the inverse relationship between Rounds's support and Pressler's - which continues to play-out with the most recent of polling.
Joe Biden Predicts Democrats Will Keep The Senate
The longer Winston stirs the pot the thinner his gruel gets. If what he has presented thus far is his best argument, he doesn't seem to really have an argument.
For his scenario to work, the Rounds vote would have to completely collapse. That's just not going to happen. Let's review registered voters in their proportions in SD:
That's where it starts.
Rounds is already underperforming against his base. He has rarely broken 40%.
But he has also never dropped below 37. So there's your number. Which candidate, Pressler or Weiland can get to 40% the easiest, while bringing Rounds down to 37-38%? Hint, if all the Dems vote for Rick, he starts at 34. Take 1/4th of the Indies and you're at 39.
Let the GOP insurgents go to Howie and Pressler.
Then Roger and company bat cleanup on The Ridge and Rosebud. All of these moves are already in play.
Now, Winston, time to get real. Using the same base numbers above, show us how Larry does it. He's currently polling in the 16% range. What's your scenario?
(And remember, it all has to happen by 7 pm tomorrow.)
Bill, you do realize that the lower you make Pressler's numbers the less relevant the argument that Pressler Democrats need to vote for Weiland becomes, right?
Unfortunately, while I've been rousting the troupes for Mr. Pressler of late, I fear that having the Rhoden Rhangers come out in full support of Governor Rounds today will be Mr. Pressler's undoing. Remember, Mr. Rhoden got second in the primary and his legions are many.
Winston, if you have already voted for Pressler we have some serious ground to make up. Maybe a lot of it. No way of knowing how many turncoats are out there who have already banked their votes for the false prophet. ;-)
(Oh-oh, now I suppose Sibby's gonna jump on my case. Don't get too excited Sib, it's just a metaphor.)
Anyway Winston, stay on task, show us how LP wins playing it your way. No more sidetracking.
Can you get those 25% of your party to come home, Cory?
I don't think you can get over half of your party missing to come home for reasons I'll be more than happy to discuss after the election.
Using 2012 numbers with about a 70% turnout according to Marks prediction of a high turn and a mix of the RCP average numbers.
Rounds cannot poll less than 36% for 130,973.
Weiland getting half the missing Dems and a bonus 1% of the Disenfranchised GOP, improves to 35.5% or 129,379.
Larry loses 18,917 Dems and gains Rounds major loss to move up from 17-22% at 81,493.
Gordon comes in at 6% with 21,975 and no, none of Gordon's votes go to RW.
That's a whole lot of ifs to me.
Bill, I think I've already shown that Mr. Rhoden's latest position sinks the more dapper Larry's river patrol boat. Even the fellows at Ifrit's tonight can do that math.
Pretty good spitballing, Les. That makes my case, give or take 1-2%. Now, can you see any possible way Pressler could come that close?
Bill, I hope you aren't enraged tomorrow. I know I have accepted that my man Mr. Pressler will get second tomorrow. For as Buddha said, peace comes from within one's fat self, not from without.
Les, if we were in the campaign bunker and you brought me those numbers—if you showed me we needed just 1,600 more votes—I'd kiss you on the lips, then order you and a dozen other campaign staffers to identify 200 volunteers whom we can hire to drive people to the polls tomorrow. We figure out which ones we can call before 10 p.m. tonight, then ring the rest right away at breakfast time tomorrow.
1,600 is doable. I'd take that math and run.
Tomorrow, Mr. H, in your bunker, I want you and Les to wear matching ties.
Yaw, Bill. If like the Honorable Frankenfeld says.......
Put MMR at 36%.
Larry at 36%.
Rick at 25%.
Gordon at 3%.
Unfortunately I believe it will shake out somewhere in between, though I do believe Rounds could suffer low 30's against Pressler something Mike won't do for RW.
Like I've said, I'd be happy with a win for almost anyone.
Massive GOTV push underway in Indian Country:
If we look back at the infamous 2002 primary for Gov and take that as any indicator, it is again Senator Pressler headed to DC.
Okay I see it. And as many of us have noted, getting Larry from 16 to 36 (20 points) seems like a lot heavier lift than getting Rick from 32 to 40 (5 points). And dropping Mike from 42 to 39 (3 points) seems like a cakewalk compared to pulling him all the way down to 36 (6 points).
And you know what? I'm tired of doing this. So I'm done. :-)
"if Dems will groundhog up"
There is one of the most vivid and creative expressions of this entire SD campaign season. Bravo!
Good consistently analysis, of all that I read here today yours make the most mathematical sense with a dose or reality. I certainly hope you're right, it would be even better to see Rick at a higher percentage.
I've seen what is going here in every election, handicapping elections is not an absolute science.
Winston as per usual is overly analytical, if that can happen, and very rarely produces hard facts. What he seems to want is for him to be right.
Aside from that, it is over for this season, the voting starts in a few hours and tomorrow at this time we'll be having a different discussion.
Thanks brother Bill, and again I hope you are right.
The GOTV movement is nothing like I have ever seen in Indian country, these young people working the get the vote out are amazing.
South Dakota Democrats, you have my heart felt support and best wishes for tomorrow. And prayers and good vibes and anything else I can offer.
I love my location in MN. AL Franken will win another term in the US Senate. Our governor will be the wonderful Mark Dayton. (A liberal Democrat's dream!) The very liberal Betty McCollum will continue to represent me in Congress. My state representative will still be Erin Murphy, majority leader in the House. And on and on.
After most of 50 years in SD, I get positively giddy on election day in St. Paul. Bring it on!!!
(My polling place is One Block from my home. I know, that's just rubbing it in.) Hahahahahahahaha!
Bill, you ask how can Pressler win it? That's easy, he wins it because he is everyones first or second choice. Weiland and Rounds cannot say that.
Oh, by the way, I just got an email from the DCCC and guess who they quoted…. Nate Silver…. imagine that…. but his most recent articles make no mention of South Dakota…. hum (?)
Don't be coy Winston, share the contents of the letter. What does the DCCC have to say? We're all ears.
DSCC? I thought they'd given up. What's their game?
And with respect to this conversation, do they quote the obsolete Nate Silver argument on which Winston tried to base his argument above?
Winston, if this were a State House race, being everyone's second choice would give Larry first place. But this is a U.S. Senate race, with one choice. Everyone's second choice would only matter if we were doing ranked voting and instant runoff.
Deb, you are lucky to get to vote for Franken. My little one got to vote in class yesterday, and she voted for Franken. She said she'd heard her mother and me talking about him, so she marked him. She didn't know any of the others on the ballot. I asked her how she decided in those cases. She said, "Well, I picked the ones who looked good to me" (the kids ballot included pictures) "and I picked some whose names I'd seen on signs, like Betty."
So goes the Republic.
Cory, You wrote, "Everyone's second choice would only matter if we were doing ranked voting and instant runoff."
Oh that we were, MMR would definitely not be our next US Senator. Go figure. It takes 50% plus 1 vote to pass a 115 million dollar bond issue such as Sioux Falls Events Center, 60% to pass a school bond issue, but a stinking plurality to elect a US Senator.
Cory, if SD had a mandatory runoff like Georgia, NC, and Louisiana do, Winston would have a valid point, but we don't so he doesn't.
Lanny, it gets even worse when you compound your observation with the fact that oftentimes only about half of the eligible population actually votes. And worse still when there are no candidates on one side in the general, so the winner is elected by a small minority in the primary.
A lot of elections in SD aren't really elections at all. They're coronations.
Rounds - 43%
Weiland - 31%
Pressler - 21%
Howie - 5%
I hate to call it like this, but anti-Obama commercials from Rounds team sealed it for their crook.
Jenny, where did you get those numbers, or are you guessing?
Yes, Bill and a lot of those who do vote, vote party rather than principle. Isn't democracy wonderful?
Jenny maybe you're right. But at least Rick didn't try to throw Obama under the bus. Neither did Pressler for that matter. It's amazing to me how fickle those in my own party can be. Omama's has been a monumental presidency and will go down in history as such. But you sure wouldn't know it talking to this seasons crop of cowardly Dems. I wonder if they think their limp-dishrag, meal-mouthed temerity impresses our Republican friends. Well, news flash, it doesn't.
Well Bill, South Dakota Dems don't have a corner on that market. You might find the following excerpt from Paul Craig Roberts latest column, interesting:
For a politician, Richard Nixon was a very knowledgable person. He travelled widely, visiting foreign leaders. Nixon was the most knowledgable president about foreign policy we have ever had. He knew more than Obama, Bush I and II, Clinton, Reagan, Ford, and Johnson combined.
The liberal-left created an image of Nixon as paranoid and secretive with a long enemies list, but Buchanan shows that Nixon was inclusive, a “big tent” politician with a wide range of advisors. There is no doubt that Nixon had enemies. Many of them continue to operate against him long after his death.
Indeed, it was Nixon’s inclusiveness that made conservatives suspicious of him. To keep conservatives in his camp, Nixon used their rhetoric, and it was Nixon’s rhetoric rather than his policies that generated Nixon-hatred among the liberal-left. The inclination to focus on words rather than deeds is another indication of the insubstantiality of American political comprehension.
Probably, the US has never had a more liberal president than Nixon. Nixon went against conservatives and established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by executive order. He supported the Clean Air Act of 1970. Nixon federalized Medicaid for poor families with dependent children and proposed a mandate that private employers provide health insurance to employees. He desegregated public schools and implemented the first federal affirmative action program.
Declaring that “there is no place on this planet for a billion of its potentially most able people to live in angry isolation,” Nixon engineered the opening to Communist China. He ended the Vietnam War and replaced the draft with the volunteer army. He established economic trade with the Soviet Union and negotiated with Soviet leader Brezhnev landmark arms control treaties–SALT I and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 1972, which lasted for 30 years until the neoconized George W. Bush regime violated and terminated the treaty in 2002.
Yes, Lanny, I agree. It took me quite a while to appreciate how liberal Nixon actually was. Good post.
Interesting contrast: The intelligent article Lanny gives us says that Nixon's own conservative rhetoric drew liberals into a position that exaggerated Nixon's ills. Now the conservative rhetoric of the GOP at large about a Democratic President draws Democrats into an exaggerated fear of their own President. Are we liberals unusually susceptible to conservatives' narratives? Why don't we write our own narrative?
Cory, my point precisely! WTF? Why do we let the right-wing control the narrative? Is it because they are better at writing short sentences? Or because thy lack the moral compass that keeps them from lying? Or because it's easier to identify with paranoid, set-you-hair-on-fire crazy than laid-back cautious rational optimism? Beats me.
But to the point, "do as I do not as I say" just the opposite of what that old saw goes. We could see what Roberts has pointed out, that Nixon established the EPA, (we probably didn't realize how important it was at the time) as well as some of the other left leaning things that he did. One of the things that Roberts did not mention is that Nixon also supported a Department of Peace.
Instead of examining what a candidate does and stands for, we listen to what the party says. We definitely need to dissolve the political parties, take money out of politics, shorten the campaign season and MAKE the candidates debate, and then hold their feet to the fire after the election.
I have had so many Dems castigate me for saying that Carter, Clinton and Obama are to the right of Nixon, and it is precisely because the rights ideology has moved the narrative further and further to the right with each passing decade.
That is why I disagree with those who say that Dems were wrong not to support SHS in 2010. She was a Democrat in name only. Until Dems realize that it is not just about winning elections, it is about standing for things consistently, the Democratic party in South Dakota will continue to be weak.
""""""And worse still when there are no candidates on one side in the general, so the winner is elected by a small minority in the primary.""""""". One doesn't have to look back to far to remember the rebuke from those here when I amongst others suggested voting in the GOP primary.
Ya just can't fix stupid and it seldom wins elections.
Bill, the email has a quote from Nate Silver at the beginning which states:
"'…if the GOP were more popular' they'd do better in this Election"
Cory, I completely understand your State House point. But regardless of whether Silver's comments are from Oct. 7th or Nov. 4th, Silver's point from the Oct. 7th article still holds, because every poll since October 7th continues to show the inverse relationship ( which Silver based his Oct. 7th premise on) between support for Rounds and Pressler with Weiland stagnant. If there is any true wildcard in this race it is Pressler and not Weiland...
Very good post on Nixon, Lanny. I do take exception to Nixon on Nam. The country was abandoned and our allies were left to be slaughtered. The carpet bombing, another shock and awe line of bullcrap. Also, Nixons hand on ending the war was forced by Daniel Ellsborg releasing the Pentagon Papers.
You're on the menu, Winston.
Les, you wrote, "I do take exception to Nixon on Nam. The country was abandoned and our allies were left to be slaughtered."
I agree with you on the part about the allies, but it is the same as in Iraq and will be in Afghanistan. In all cases we should have never been there in the first place. For whatever reason, we can't seem to get it through our heads that we have a UN and have to use it in all conflicts or it becomes obsolete, as I am pretty sure, it is by now.
When we act like Empire, all we do is make more enemies.
Lanny, you wrote " Until Dems realize that it is not just about winning elections, it is about standing for things consistently, the Democratic party in South Dakota will continue to be weak."
What "things" do you speak of? How would that matter when the guy you are running against is under investigation for crimes that all are aware of? What do you call the guy, a crook? Everyone knows that. We knew that when he was governor.
I will give you another example in a race in New York. The Republican is actually under indictment (Republican Michael Grimm) and the government has the goods on him. He is winning his election by 19 to 20 points.
I say that it should not matter what party you are in, what should matter is if you can actually do a job for the citizens that is expected of you. Bring home the projects that are needed to keep the place afloat, like water and other infrastructure needs. Tim Johnson did all of that and he did it in the middle.
Everyone who supports Rick should use their social media capacity today to get the message out:
"A vote for Pressler is a vote for Rounds. A vote for Weiland is a vote to win!"
Les, I am not on the menu. I have just struct a nerve with some of my fellow Dems.
We shall look for missing limbs in the morning, Winston. A Weiland loss by a point and you are ground round here!
Winston, you are mistaken (again). You've not struck a nerve, you've just gotten on some. Like a nasty little fly when one is trying to eat. ;-)
Les, If I am wrong or "mistaken (again)", then how could my comments have any responsible impact?….. Oh, that's right the good ole blame game….
Bill, a menu and a fly?….. That is not the kind of restaurant I want to hang-out at…. I recommend you get out of there now!….;-)
You all have a good election night. In my family it is like Super Bowl Sunday.
I hope my analysis is wrong and all of yours is right - because Democrats win then, but the math (the inverse Pressler/Rounds voter appeal relationship with Weiland flatlining) I am afraid is not on your side…..
Nobody controls my narrative, Bill... although Sibby can distract the heck out of me.
Thank you Winston, have a great night. I hope you are wrong too. No hard feelings either way here though. Honest. :-)
Lanny, I want to believe that standing for things consistently will lead to winning elections.
Yes I hear you on both counts, Cory. LOL thanks for everything this season. You have gone above and beyond the call. A lot of people have. Great feeling, win or lose.
Winston, if the Pressler–Rounds inverse relationship is valid, if the polls of the past months reflect it, that relationship still deosn't capture the Weiland–Pressler relationship. Consider SurveyUSA's findings on the percentage of Dems backing Pressler:
—Sep 3–7: 29%
—Oct 1–5: 28%
—Oct 21–26: 26%
Whatever the heck else is happening, there they are, a whole pack of Dems, to whom I made one simple argument: Vote for the Democrat. If they've taken my advice, Rick wins. If they take your advice and don't change their minds, Rounds wins.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar just said, in regard to Scott Brown's losing senate effort, "The Constitution says every state gets two senators, but every senator doesn't get two states."
Comments are closed.