Larry Pressler. Larry Pressler.
It's November 2014. A mid-term election happens in three days. Why on earth am I talking about Larry Pressler?
Because Larry Pressler just won the endorsement of the biggest newspaper in South Dakota. The editorial board of that Sioux Falls paper says Pressler best satisfies their checklist for vision, experience, and integrity. The editors say Mike Rounds most definitely does not:
Mike Rounds has not articulated a world view. In fact, he hasn’t given us much of a view at all of his priorities and vision for this country. He has spent this campaign criticizing President Obama and his policies and has made his number one goal blocking or repealing as many of the president’s moves as he can. That’s not aspirational, and that’s certainly not collegial. We don’t think it’s in the best interest of the majority of South Dakotans who want government leaders to work for solutions to problems. Rounds has a track record of secrecy as governor and during his tenure opposed efforts to make government records and activities more accessible to citizens.
We think he falls short [editorial board, "Endorsement: Pressler Best Choice for Senate," that Sioux Falls paper, 2014.11.01].
(Mike Rounds... short. Oh, you editorial wiseguys!)
The GOP spin machine is pitching a fit. I ought to be, too, considering the editors rejected my guy on, among other things, the contradictory arguments that he's too partisan and he doesn't get along with his party leaders. But my chronic love of underdogs and the unexpected won't let me grouse. It may sound strange that I would call a three-term Senator an underdog, but nobody but Larry Pressler thought Larry Pressler stood a chance. My little birdies were tweeting that the media would probably cut its losses and make nice with the GOP frontrunner. That Sioux Falls paper confounds us all, calls Mike Rounds unfit for Senate, and tells South Dakota to send Larry Pressler back to Washington. Even though that surprise doesn't cut fully my way, I can't help but enjoy it.
I'm hoping to get a chance to talk with candidate Pressler later today, assuming he has recovered from the euphoric whooping that surely drowned out Harriet's query as to whether he'd like more eggs. My big question for him and for you, dear readers, is just how much impact this endorsement will have on the electorate. Let's see if other Pressler endorsements follow, and whether voters follow those endorsements.
cop out by the argus
I predicted this last week. I knew when the Argus said they were going to do their Senate endorsement on Saturday, they didn't want anybody to see (The Saturday paper is the thinnest and least read). I figured it would be Pressler or Weiland, but was leaning Weiland. The ED board wussed out and picked 3rd place knowing he would lose so they washed their hands of making an actual endorsement. I have a feeling Pressler was picked by drawing straws.
Follow the money.
http://southdakotapolitics.blogs.com/south_dakota_politics/2004/10/senator_pressle.html
Don't be too quick to praise the Argus. They are covering their tails, since they have a good idea that sooner or later Mike "fake smile" Rounds will have to go under oath and tell the truth about his crooked dealings, thus making an Argus endorsement an indication of poor journalist investigation, cover-up, or cronyism. Pressler was the "safe" choice.
I'll be talking to Pressler over the weekend and will have the outcome in The Constant Commoner by Sunday night after 6 p.m. MST. I think this is a significant boost for Pressler, who suddenly gets some "establishment" creds for his independent candidacy. I've always thought the anti-Rounds vote could much more comfortably go to Pressler than Weiland, and this AL nod gives those voters a bit more confidence about their decisions. LP's masterful performance in the debate a few nights ago elevated him into a position of serious consideration. He's got some Big Mo going for him. I'm anxious to engage.
Larry Pressler was not my first choice with my memory and frustration when he was last in the Senate but he would be far better in that Senate seat than Rounds. It ain't over till it's over though!
Nov 4th all hands on deck for Rick!
I had certainly hoped, but did not believe, they would endorse Weiland. Their rationale for not endorsing Weiland is specious--does anyone in the state of South Dakota seriously believe Rick Weiland is not serious about getting big money out of politics?
I am taking it as a win that they did not endorse Rounds. (Really, how could they?) They may have just put Rick over-the-top by essentially calling Rounds out as unfit for office.
Slynn good point!
"Safe choice"? How so? The only "safe" part of the endorsement is their avoidance of mentioning EB-5, although that scandal seems implicit in their mention of secrecy and integrity. The paper is still putting itself on record saying no to the candidate whose party and backers are in the best position to make life hard for the paper.
"Cop out"? Let me make sure I understand the logic: Weiland is close enough that an endorsement could tilt the election for him, while a Pressler endorsement won't swing enough votes to change the outcome, right? But who's to say a Pressler endorsement won't knock enough wind out of Rounds to let Weiland catch him? For that matter, who's to say the endorsement will make any wind? Do we have any data on the impact of these endorsements?
"Cop out" implies the paper is trying to avoid trouble, similar to the "safe choice" argument, but doesn't the bulk of trouble come from not getting in line behind the GOP? How much less trouble does one get into for endorsing Pressler instead of Rounds?
It's always a great day when PP has a hissy fit on his Sit-N-Spin. And the spin he has projectile vomited is hilarious. Weiland for Senate!
I just received my 2nd phone call from Tom Daschle working on behalf of Rick Weiland.
The newspaper leans in favor of the Republicans, that is nothing new. To be consistent, because Rick is a Democrat, the newspaper could/would not endorse him.
As I have mentioned before Rick was my first choice, and that is how I voted.
If there was only a choice between Pressler and Rounds, Pressler would have received my vote. It is a boost for Pressler, and yeah, I taking delight in the fact that Rounds is not considered such a Golden Boy that the editorial board had once thought he was.
But, it is one opinion among many. The power is with those who make the decision to vote.
Slynn, I agree the reasoning against Weiland is specious and based on much more supposition than the editors' indictment of Rounds.
Rick has consistently expressed his vision for South Dakota and America and it isn't Repeal, Repeal, Repeal. Larry's vision isn't as definitive as Rick's, so on that point the Argus is wrong.
The other headline here should be that the largest SD newspaper fails to endorse the leading Republican senate candidate, their reasons are sketchy at best, but the obvious is that they think Mike Rounds is toxic
I posted a comment under this article in the Argus. I commented on Pressler's dismal voting record (voted against education, children, seniors, SS, and Medicare). And he wants to increase the age of eligibility for SS & Medicare. I just checked and my post has been taken down. Is there anything I can do to insure that it remains readable for the public?
It's Argus's round-about way of trying to make sure Mike doesn't lose, while avoiding getting any subjective journalistic egg on their face. They know the numbers.
The only way to beat Rounds is to vote for Weiland. A vote for Pressler will mean about as Michael as peeing down your leg. You might a kind of warm feeling doing it, but that's about it.
The "safe choice" for the Argus would have been None of the Above.
Just curious Union Co, do you have a Face Book account?
Slightly off topic, but has anyone noticed that President Obama's economy has not been an issue. Very few if any Republicans, local or national, are whining about how bad the economy is.
JeniW, yes I do and I have posted by comment there, but I'd love to have it on the Argus page.
I do not know if it will work, but try "replying" to Randy A.'s comment.
A vote for Pressler will mean about as MUCH as peeing down your leg. You might a kind of warm feeling doing it, but that's about it.
(...sorry about the "Michael" in my post above. My iPhone seems to have a mind of it's own sometimes.)
Just read PP's Dump Site and his throwing a hissy fit over the Argus anti-Rounds endorsement. Good for Bill, he still gets to comment on the site.
What is going on with the state's Republicans? There seems to some serious infighting among the three Republican candidates with PP throwing gas on the fire.
Should the Republicans continue this war among themselves in the final days of the campaign, can we realistically assume they are splitting the Republican vote?
Roger, et. al, I had a very interesting conversation with a pollster this morning who laid it out like this: A lot of people don't tell the truth when they get polled.
This will be especially true of the Republicans this year. They may say in a poll that they are going to vote for Mr. Rounds, because the person on the other end of the phone obviously knows who they are, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's what they are really going to do come voting time.
And that's why this race could be far more close than any of the polls we've been seeing indicate.
Even so, if what these Republicans really want to do is to make sure Mr. Rounds doesn't get elected, their single best bet is to vote for Rick Weiland.
And you know what, R's?
The beauty of the election booth is, that nobody has to know.
Exactly, Flemm.
.
If I go from a Rounds to a Weiland vote, it's a double hit. The most obvious reason Democrats need to pull those votes across not just drive them from Rounds.
Not likely to happen much I'd guess..
.
I'm wondering if the Dems are at all understanding by now, how voting in the GOP primary might have affected this election?
Even if Rounds wins, the minute he walks into the doors of Congress, he'll have EB-5 on his forehead. He's damaged goods and the national press WON'T let him forget that. Washington ain't the Good Ol' Boy Pierre Club. I expect he'll be shunned and give the cold shoulder by many of the boys there. This negative image of Rounds could weaken Thune's image also. The National Press loves to eat up a scandal and SDs EB-5 is a biggie.
Since last winter, I have always felt this would either be a Rounds win or a Pressler one.
The only way Weiland was ever going to win this was in a photo finish horse race with all three major contenders in contention and a classic Democratic GOTV effort benefiting Weiland, but when the liberal PACS began to immediately attack Pressler their strategy only benefited Rounds. Because these attacks weakened Pressler's October momentum; and a further momentum which could have bagged soft Rounds supporters which Weiland would have never won over - and a reality Weiland needed to bring Rounds down in his polling numbers so that Weiland could have been in reach of Rounds in a potential horse race with the other two major contenders and a hopeful photo finish victory.
I believe Wadhams understood this potential reality, which explains why Team Rounds has been attacking both Weiland and Pressler so as to destroy the early October momentum for Pressler and as an assurance to keep in check Weiland's potential resilience (helped with a delayed attack by the liberal PACs against Pressler) should have Pressler's momentum had never waned.
As to the Argus endorsement, it is primarily Pressler and Rounds voters who subscribe and consume the Argus on a daily basis. This endorsement reassures Pressler voters and entices soft Rounds voters, but I am not so sure that Pressler's current tracking numbers are high enough to win this in the bottom of the ninth…..?
Winston, thinking about subscribers, I'd love to get an age breakdown of Pressler's voters. The SurveyUSA polls have fluctuated, first showing Pressler strongest among the 35–49 crowd, then among the 50–64 set, then back to best among the 35–49 crowd.
I do agree that the liberal PACs should not have wasted any ammunition on Pressler until they were sure Rounds was dead. Rounds is the wall between Weiland and victory. You don't knock it down first, it doesn't matter what other destruction you do.
Winston, buddy, pal. Do you ever tire of dithering? Larry's history. You're a Democrat. Vote for your party's candidate, please. Thanks.
Cory, going after Pressler's not a waste if the polls show that 1/3 of the Democratic vote is going to a Republican disguised as an Indy in a state where your party starts out 10 points behind. Rick needs to beat all three R's to win. That seems so obvious to me. Why are we playing footsie with this guy?
Wouldn't t be kewl if a Dem controlled Senate refuses to seat Rounds if he wins?
I don't know, Bill; maybe I'm just suffering misplaced sympathy for a nice old guy who seemed harmless enough last year. Are we really going to hang a Nader-2000 rap on him?
It still seems to me that if you could destroy Rounds, pivoting to squash Pressler would be easy. Piddling with Pressler doesn't seem to matter until you know that Rounds can't get up off the mat.
Roger, you are off the topic... at least off the topic the GOP wants you to think about. The Obama economy isn't perfect, but it's better than Romney promised to do! Too bad no one brought that up while Mitt was strolling Phillips Avenue.
Bill F, your comment about the pollsters at 13:22 is very prescient. I said already when that last poll came out with Rounds up to 42%, was just some pollsters means of trying to get voters to say, hey the election is over, I'm not going to bother to vote, or worse yet, well if Mike Rounds is going to win anyway, I will vote for him because I want to vote for the winner.
Bill's right, from my high school days half way through the last century, "Rick, Rick, he's our man, if he can't do it, nobody can."
Cory, yes, he's very nice. We can send him Valentines, chocolates, and a 'no-hard-feelings' love note after we beat him and Mike at the polls Tuesday. I'll buy, we can all sign.
;-)
I wish I had heard this a long time ago. A neighbor of mine, told me this morning that he didn't know why Rounds keeps talking about Obamacare and wanting to repeal it. He said it is John Roberts Care. He was the deciding vote and the majority opinion writer on the Supreme Court to approve it and make it the law of the land.
I got an email this afternoon, that the Franciscans want the ACA fixed and to get the insurance companies more in line with what is charged elsewhere. Here they get 20% of our healthcare dollars. In Europe it is 5% and in Japan, it is 3%
So Rick is right, let's fix Robertscare.
Cory your observations about the SurveyUSA polls are a good point. It just speaks further to the volatility of this race.
Weiland should have definitely spent all of his time going after Rounds and saved Pressler for the end of it. Weiland needed Pressler to win (in concert that is) and he broke from him to soon.
Now, we are entering the final wave of this campaign. Instead of Weiland attacking only "1st place Pressler" as the alternative for moderate voters and Pressler Democrats (with Rounds politically destroyed), in order to win it in at the finish line, Weiland now has to fear the potential final rebound of voter collapse in favor of Pressler with no polls ever having shown Weiland beating Rounds, but with the realization that Pressler has come the closest to Rounds in any past poll.
Bill, my fellow Democrat, it is not I who is dithering, rather my suggested dithering merely exemplifies the analysis of a very complex and volatile Senate race, which is truly out of very ones hands.
After this senate race, I think I will return to something less complex and entertaining like quantum physics….
Bill you also speak of Larry's history, but isn't it interesting as Democrats we have chosen to conveniently vet Pressler, but were was the vetting when many Democratic leaders in this state embraced Janklow and helped to restore his legacy or where was the vetting of the history of the two historical Republicans we ran as Democrats in 2010 for the Statehouse? (Hell, Democrats have vetted Sandlin over the last few years more than Janklow and our 2010 gubernatorial ticket ever received…) Are we vetting for philosophical reasons or merely for the sake of political convenience I ask?
Good comment Lanny. Roberts really did damage to the original ACA package by allowing states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion. That and the state's option to rely on a federal exchange seems to have caused the most damage to the ACA. Without the opt out ruling, every state in the nation, including SD, would have hundreds of thousands of people who had insurance for the first time in their lives. Imagine how they would react to a repeal ACA argument then. I bet dollars to doughnuts that had the Roberts court not granted Dauguaard the ability to stop the Medicaid expansion in SD, Rounds would be polling behind Weiland and perhaps Wismer would be much closer to Daugaard. Forty thousand voters would not want to lose their coverage by electing those pols who want to take it away!
mfi - what a hoot, a Dem controlled Congress that decided not to seat Rounds. You made my day!
""""Are we vetting for philosophical reasons or merely for the sake of political convenience I ask?""""
.
Interesting post, Winston. Feels like something I've been telling the Democrats here in a more unsavory, functionally illiterate way for some time. There are humorous ways of describing this disfunction I'll leave to someone else.
Yes, Les, interesting and irrelevant. Winston thinks the senate race is chaotic and beyond control.
I think maybe the Democrats are. But we can fix that. If we want to win this race, we have to. We can discuss the past and gaze at our navels later.
We had better hope it is "chaotic and beyond control" because this is the only way any of us in this grand coalition of 'Anyone But Rounds' can win it now….
Union Co, I'll be doing a piece on Pressler on my blog The Constant Commoner today. You can post in the comments section.
Check me if I'm wrong but I haven't seen RAPID CITY JOURNAL endorsing ANY senate candidate. What's going on there.
Catherine R., RCJ endorsed Pressler this a.m.
It's not in the online Journal: dead tree edition?
This is stating the obvious, but the play is to move Rounds voters to Pressler (thanks Argus Leader) and for Rick to bring all Dems home and pick up independents from both Rounds and Pressler (and undecided). For Dems and Independents who need to "snap out of it" (cue Cher in Moonstruck), the following would be more than enough for me:
Pressler on overturning Roe v Wade.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZlXUgOP0a4