Who’s the most awesome Democrat in South Dakota?
If we can get past the laughter (awesome? in a party that hasn’t moved the needle away from Republican rule since 1992? chortle and guffaw!), and if we allow losers any claim to awesomenimnity, then the obvious answer is Billie Sutton. He won 161,416 votes Tuesday. That’s more votes than there are Democratic voters in South Dakota. If the 62% voter turnout in the gubernatorial race applied equally to all party affiliations, and if every Democrat who turned out voted Dem, Sutton still won over 62,000 votes from independents and Republicans.
Randy Seiler garnered the second most votes of any Democrat in the state, losing the Attorney General’s race with 145,526 voters, or 91.5% of the total registered Democrats in the state. Seiler and Sutton were the only statewide Democratic candidates to break 40%.
Conversely, their opponents, Kristi Noem and Jason Ravnsborg, had markedly lower votes than all other statewide Republican candidates. Noem and Ravnsborg’s vote totals equal less than 70% of the number of registered Republicans in the state. However, in every other statewide race, Republican vote totals equaled a greater percentage of their party base of registered voters than their Democratic opponents managed to win from their base.
| turnout | DEM % of base | GOP % of base |
| USH | 76.12% | 79.01% |
| Gov | 101.54% | 67.40% |
| SOS | 70.94% | 82.28% |
| AG | 91.54% | 69.80% |
| Aud | 71.46% | 78.76% |
| Treas | 74.06% | 76.02% |
| CSPL | 73.43% | 75.40% |
| PUC | 68.50% | 80.47% |
But let’s go deeper (because there is such comfort and potentially useful information in numbers): let’s look at the Legislative races. Which candidates won the most votes around the state? If we could call a rumble and get every one of our voters to show up with brass knuckles, who’d have the best chance of winning?
One could argue that Susan Wismer is the most awesome candidate for Senate. She not only won but scared off all Republican challengers in District 1. Even without opposition, she collected 5,884 votes, more than any Legislative Democratic candidate.
Among the Dems who had to fight on November 6, only one other Senate candidate, Melissa Hiatt in District 13, got more than 5,000 votes, and she still lost 46% to 54% to incumbent Republican Senator Jack Kolbeck. The average Democratic Senate candidate won 3,380 votes.
Like Wismer, Senator Reynold Nesiba was unchallenged in his district. Incumbent Senator Troy Heinert and Senator-Elect Red Dawn Foster enjoyed strong support from their Lakota base in Districts 26 and 27. The only other victory for Democrats in the Senate came from incumbent Senator Craig Kennedy in Yankton, who beat Republican challenger Roger Meyer by 457 votes, 53% to 47%.
Behind those five winners, only three Democrats managed to come within 1,000 votes of their Republican opponents. Kasey Olivier was just 27 votes behind Senate Majority Leader R. Blake Curd in District 12. Rep. Julie Bartling fell 838 votes behind Billie Sutton’s Republican successor, Rocky Blare, in District 21. And Melissa Hiatt, mentioned above, needed 950 more votes to catch Senator Kolbeck.
Senator Kennedy’s close win rested on a vote that is 11% larger than the pool of Democratic voters in District 18. The only other Democrats who won more votes than their district party base could possibly provide were Olivier, Hiatt, and District 31’s Sherry Bea Smith and District 24’s Amanda Bachmann.
In contested Senate races, Democrats averaged 2,477 fewer votes than their Republican opponents. The worst beatings occurred in Districts 20, 19, 25, 30, and 23, in which incumbent Republicans beat Democratic challengers by more than 4,000 votes (from 4,099 in District 20, where Joshua Klumb beat Dan Miller, to 6,358 in District 23, where Justin Cronin beat Joe Yracheta).
Review the numbers yourself and see if you can derive any new conclusions… other than the obvious point that South Dakota Democrats are a long way from awesome.
James A. Bradford
Pretty much confirms that the only requirement for elected office in SD is an “R” by the name. :-(
You know who the libbies really need to step up and wear the next big hat? No, not young Ms. Wismer, who is oxen-yoked by her biggest-loss-in-history during her only statewide race. It is Mr. Hundstad. He should be out there, taking on Mr. Novstrup and steering the things that can be steered. Mr. Hundstad was who the locals should have put out to oust the powerful indigenous forces.
Jim Hundstad. Many wanted him to run for governor in the past. Perhaps in 4 more years.
One of the biggest damn shames this year is that Dan Ahlers lost his seat. Smartest guy in the legislature, and hardest working.
Is Kasey Olivier getting a recount?
Mr. Ahlers, as the second smartest democrat in the legislatures, should run for Governor next cycle. if you teamed him up with Jim Hundstad, you’d have the dream team there.
If sanity prevailed in South Dakota, the Dems wouldn’t have lost. Kasey is a great example. Super sincere, intelligent and is a listener. Blake is a turd.
One could argue that Susan Wismer is the most awesome candidate for Senate. She not only won but scared off all Republican challengers in District 1. Even without opposition, she collected 5,884 votes, more than any Legislative Democratic candidate.
Now that people know she is against free speech on SD schools, I would say she is not.
RJ Wrote:
If sanity prevailed in South Dakota, the Dems wouldn’t have lost. Kasey is a great example. Super sincere, intelligent and is a listener. Blake is a turd.
Are you calling the majority of South Dakota stupid RJ?
I want to know why Cory is deleting my posts regarding Cory […because they aren’t relevant to this conversation and represent your attempt to hijack the comment section with your preferred agenda. Get your own blog, Jason. —CAH]
No Jason, I think most people are decent and not “stupid” including many South Dakotans.. Jason, I have no reason to have a conversation with you. I’m not running for office so I don’t have to pretend to care about your unhinged bs.
Both Bjorkman and Sutton ran right of center campaigns on abortion, guns, and religion for Sutton, but why a 13 percentage point difference in their vote outcomes? Because one of them had a compelling story and the benefit of a misogynistic attitude by some Republican voters towards a female Republican gubernatorial nominee, that’s why.
This election proves that anti-choice, having a proactive position on guns contrary to the national image of ones political party, and mentioning your religion does not work; but being a “Rock Star” can almost do it, but changing our philosophy by changing our message does not work. Else, how can you explain pro-choice Paula Hawks doing as well as anti-choice Tim Bjorkman just two years before?
In the words of George McGovern, it is time to “Come Home…..” And for the SDDP, it is time to “Come Home…” and own who and what we are and not try to be something that most Democrats in South Dakota are not; and it is also time for us as a political party to develop a true GOTV and not one which is nothing but a glorified leaflet drop….. And when we learn, or begin, to run McGovern campaigns against Republicans in this state and not Republican campaigns against Republicans is when we will begin to win statewide once again as Democrats in South Dakota….
Agreed: the loss of Ahlers to angry dad Pischke and woman-hating new lawyer Hansen is a crime against intelligence and good government.
Jenae Hansen’s loss to know-nothing slogan-mumbler Kaleb Weis should cause similar distress. Given a House and Senate full of empty R’s, it appears Matt McCaulley will run both the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch.
Olivier is saying she’ll wait for the SOS official count on Tuesday, but if the vote remains within the legal margin, she’ll call for a recount.
A recount won’t swing more than 4 votes for Olivier. South Dakota’s vote count is very accurate, and I’m sure Olivier knows that. She missed it by thaat much. Next time.
Grudz, your canine devotion to Jim Hundstad is admirable. Maybe you should talk him into running for governor with you, his most devoted fan, as lt. gov. You can finance the race. Hundstad will do all the talking.
Exceptional analysis with national implications.
I hope we see Billie Sutton again.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/11/beto-orourke-billie-sutton-democrat-strategy-midterms?fbclid=IwAR01ktmuGjJNmPF_mQ5DfTZXXJcuNZzplj6F7JRuZe5l5WfSdeZwzQ_e-Uo
It is clear the democrats put forward some quality candidates but they still could not attract enough South Dakotans to vote them into office. If the state democrat party has good candidates what could be the reason for their abject failure to win?
It is the National Democrat party having become a crazed radical party of social failures that are clearly only out to gain power over others as opposed to working for the betterment of society. You democrats in South Dakota can be the most likable, kind, hard working folks of all but until you shed yourselves from he cloak of the National Democrat party you will not win and your present National leadership and socialist leanings are not helping. . .
JKC is right about this. SD’s Democrats need to run as real Democrats. That, more than anything, will energize the Democratic base.
There are many Democrats in the state pleading for a passionate, truly Democratic candidate who supports full rights of citizenship for women, real gun laws with teeth to make public areas safer from our own mass murdering terrorists, actual progressive taxation, etc. I’m willing to bet there are plenty of Independents who’d agree.
Lawrence Lessig has a great analysis of this issue in The Guardian. He compares the Beto O’Rourck race and the Billie Sutton race to draw lessons. Here’s his conclusion: “Progressive ideas may be in vogue, but the lesson of 2018 is that what the party needs most is a movement of reformers.” He says Sutton actually did better than O’Rourck in reaching and switching voters. He attributes it to his message of reform and non-corruption.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/11/beto-orourke-billie-sutton-democrat-strategy-midterms
It use to be that the media created “Rock Stars” out of canidates after they won, but now they increasingly do it during the campaign cycle, which makes “Rock Stars” vulnerable as candidates; especially when they are blue running in a red state, because it allows the other side to place their political sites on them and bring them down.
In my opinion, Beto would have won if the race could have somehow been ignored and allowed to be a sleeper race. Sutton would have won, if the race could have been held in September, or early October, before the polls and the national media began to take notice. Candidates like Beto and Billie get anointed too soon through the media, which causes the other side to rally their troops, or negativity, to stop it.
It also seems, that this is a political phenomenon for the most part, which is unique to a candidate, however, who runs in a state that is the opposite color of their own political party color; and especially for a blue running in a red state.
I also question if Sutton won votes because of ” reform and non-corruption.” I think he switched votes because he was a “Rock Star,” legitimately from West River, and for misogynistic reasons some traditional Republican voters would not vote for a woman for governor. Plus, in northern Lincoln County, Sutton did much better than I would have ever expected; and I think that it is because Republican women were voting for Michelle (LtG) and were also voting for Kelly Sullivan in 13, and Kasey Olivier in 12, because these candidates were blue women and these Republican women voters are a classic example of the white, college educated, and Republican female voter voting blue in 2018 and against Trump.
JKC gets it. Well put, John. We must learn the right lessons from this election… and “run Right!” is not the right lesson.
Let’s try running Democrats for statewide office next time. 100% Democrats.
District 12. The destroyer of Democratic dreams. Right JKC?
Rorschach,
A book often has many chapters.
Most of this election cycle has kept me sidelined, not by choice, but that does mean I haven’t been paying attention.
Every election cycle I offer the same advice to Democrats, I pray that our state candidates take heed.
For over 40 years in South Dakota and the nation Democrats have allowed republicans to label them and brain wash an ignorant public to believe them.
The Democratic party that I know are not a bunch Hitler loving Nazi’s nor do they advocate killing unborn babies.
The South Dakota Democrats I know are gun owners and hunters that are strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment.
South Dakota Democrats need to yell at the top of their voices and tell the public who they truly are and not allow republicans to label them.
Roger, my friend, me and Debbo was getting quite worried as you have been silent for quite awhile. Hope everything is on the up and up for you. DFP needs your voice and wisdom.
Thanks for your concern Mike, as well as Debbo.
I’m really not one to talk about my health problems in public, so I will just say I had some pretty scary health problems. The good news is that I am slowly getting better and hopefully will be a more frequent voice on DFP.
Get well soon, Roger. Miss your intellect and perspective, man. 👈
Good to see you again, Roger. Please get well and stay well (as I told RBG, so you’re in good company with me).
My brain still won’t let me believe that Seiler lost. Not by any kind of logic except SD voter non-logic. What kind of nonsense is this? Heidelberger, too, but that’s a different story. SD is No Country for Old Men, they say. Or honorable men, either.
Ms. Friday, I submit to you that Mr. Seiler, who was by far the most qualified fellow to run for the General Attorney position in a couple of decades, was crippled by the reputation of the (D) behind his name. Had he run, as grudznick suggested to him, as an (I) he would no doubt be measuring the General Attorney’s Mansion for drapes right now.
Ravnsborg is an utter disgrace and mark my words, he will have many a guffaw his way. I wouldn’t be surprised if soon people want to all think “what if I gave him a Rhoden gut punch.” I’m just sayin…
SD is No Country for Old Men, they say. Or honorable men, either.
Speaking of honorable men, Arlington Cemetery is full of them and come Veteran’s Day (and forecasted rain) guess which dishonorable orange trainwreck has already cancelled his duty there?
Thank you to Robin, Porter, mike from Iowa and Debbo for your concern and best wishes, it means so much to me.
Very glad to have your sensible voice back in the mix, Roger. Sorry we couldn’t make more progress for you while you were out. Now that you’re back, we can start plotting your run for Congress in 2020. Against whom would you rather run, Rounds or Dusty?
JKC’s analysis is the kind of probing thought we should expect of anyone presuming to lead the South Dakota Democratic Party or run any campaign under its banner.
One problem, JKC: is there any way to avoid the pre-election rock-star anointing? I mean, if I’m running for office and any reporter comes offering positive and free press, how do I turn that down? What candidate dares to turn down such coverage? And even if a campaign said, “Yeah, let’s try to avoid the spotlight,” is there any way to avoid the spotlight that doesn’t also doom a campaign?
Thanks Cory.
While being out of commission I still did not miss a day of DFP, sometimes I had to read a couple days at a time.
I am slowly feeling more at home here again, it was upsetting to not have the energy to comment.
As far as running for state or federal office that is still a no go. However, I will support Cory, or another true liberal for any public office they choose.
How many ballets we’re not counted and for what reasons?
Cory, I don’t have the answer on how to avoid the premature anointing of a candidate by the media. Perhaps, ignoring interviews by the national press is the answer, but I hate it when politicians are not “available” for the media.
I think this problem, however, for what this is worth, speaks to the further brilliance of our constitutional system, where the powers of the free press are themselves checked by their own actions, which in turn, allow the establishment an opportunity to place in check populism I am afraid.
Now, I am not suggesting that this check, or checking, is such a good thing in this case, but it never ceases to amaze me on the complexity of our constitutional system and how it has a built-in bias, if we are not careful, which continues to potentially benefit the establishment, or the affluent, at a cost to the people in general.
Fore, this checking further illustrates Charles Beard’s notion of an economic interpretation of our Constitution and an intended bias to protect the establishment and their financial interests, does it not?
The creators of the constitution were concerned that the ignorant masses might make ignorant choices, hence their plans for the Senate. And the creators were the economically advantaged.
I think it is time for some rejiggering of the document, dumping the electoral college, addressing the nefarious affect of $ in governing, making Senate representation more equitable, spelling out equality for every single citizen and a few other items.
It’s time to address the changes since 1789.
Mr. Grudz, you may be right about that. And if Seiler had run as an R in the primary, would he have won the primary? But would that require an honorable man to be deceitful as the Rs appear to be, and to become a not-so-honorable man? Or would the Rs have cast him out to begin with?
There are not primaries for those jobs, Ms. Friday. You have to kiss the asses of the delegates to the convention. That’s all Mr. Ravnsborg did for 4 years. Kissed delegate asses.
There should be a primary for those offices to get rid of the dead weights in the constitutional offices.
I’d encourage anybody to support Mr. Seiler again.
Interesting, john. I’ll see this: given that I am confident that my opponents will never turn down an interview with national press, I’ll continue to take those calls and answer those questions as well, recognize that the only unique disadvantage accrues if I present myself in the interview as somehow uniquely awesome… in which case I’ll just tell my campaign to make sure we make the most out of all that free press.
Cory, let me ask this question, though. Assuming that a given candidate is a potential “premature annointed Rock Star,” would the national media care to interview your opponent, or complete its story, in the absence of your participation?
Plus, once the cat is out of the bag, I question if a campaign can control the spin on a “Rock Star” annointment given by the national press, especially if it is consistantly being reiterated on CNN and or MSNBC. Maybe it can be controlled, or downplayed, if it merely appears in a given periodical without the AP spreading potential, however.
When the first call comes from the New York Times, do I know whether the coverage will be negative or positive? If I don’t know that, I don’t know how I can pass up the free media. Donors will see my name in one more channel.
If rock-star buzz can somehow become a negative, I’m not campaigning right. Get free media, then squeeze it for all it’s worth.