Press "Enter" to skip to content

Should SD Democrats Register Republican and Vote Trump in the Primary?

Former Romney staffer and self-described Libertarian Michael Wille lied his way into a Donald Trump focus group conducted by Republican spinmeister Frank Luntz. Wille tried to talk some sense into the 28 Trumpers in the room, but he found them “delusional” and “so pissed off at the establishment they want to send a message no matter what.”

Wille is convinced Trump voters will fracture the GOP and cost the party its third straight Presidential election. And Wille says that bad medicine is just what the GOP deserves:

“I want him to get the nomination to get completely destroyed in the general. The older generation in my party needs to understand we can’t have this pro-war, anti-immigrant nonsense anymore… we need to lose this [election] in order to ever win again,” Wille said. “He needs to get destroyed in order for us to understand the path forward. Hillary is probably going to be the next president, and I don’t like that at all.”

…“We haven’t learned the lesson from that [2012] election—we’ve gone the exact opposite direction. We’re never going to win again unless we trend more libertarian,” Wille said [Tim Mak, “‘I Trolled Trump at a Frank Luntz Focus Group’,” The Daily Beast, 2015.12.13].

Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton
Trump and Clinton in less contentious times

Wille puts the prospect of a Clinton landslide over Trump a bit more confidently than pollsters. The current Real Clear Politics poll averages have Clinton leading Trump by just 3.3 percentage points… but the only poll showing Trump ahead is from FOX News.

But suppose Wille is right. Should we South Dakota Democrats help the GOP along its path toward disaster by re-registering as Republicans for the June primary and giving Donald Trump a few more crucial delegates to fight the machinations of the Republican convention brokers? Would Trump at the top of the ticket help Democrats down-ticket in South Dakota?

Or could the Trump judo work the other way in South Dakota? Suppose the GOP gives the anti-establishment crowd something to shout about by ceding the nomination to Donald Trump. Knowing that South Dakota’s electoral votes won’t make a difference in the Presidential race, could we Democrats fan those flames and tell the Trump die-hards, “You bet, show up and vote for Donald… and while you’re at it, vote against the South Dakota establishment by voting out all of your incumbent legislators”?


  1. larry kurtz 2015-12-13 21:41

    the road to zell has always been paved with good indentations.

  2. Shirley Harrington-Moore 2015-12-13 22:03

    I’m voting Bernie all the way!

  3. Les 2015-12-13 22:24

    That many would believe the Donald is not dancing to Hilary’s approval is understandable, though even Trump could not pull this off without help and the GOP darn sure is not helping him.

  4. Spencer 2015-12-13 22:33

    I do not like Trump, but if the alternative is Hillary, I will hold my nose. If Hillary is such a great choice, then why does this blog continue to promulgate the Bernie Sanders delusion?

  5. jerry 2015-12-13 22:34

    The problem with landslides is that sometimes that landslide falls the wrong way. If the public becomes complacent that Democrats will just beat the republican like a pinata, they may not turn out to vote. There are many places in the United States that long lines appear for voters to navigate. As the weather may be crappy or the antiquated voting machines will not work, the need is on for early voting. I guarantee that the republican base will be out in force to vote for Trump. The danger is that Trump could win the thing and this country would not survive him.

  6. Donald Pay 2015-12-13 22:49

    Wisconsin has an open primary. I can choose my party when I go to the polls.

    I would never vote for Trump. He’s a fascist. The same goes for Cruz.

    Don’t be so sure Trump wouldn’t win with the help of Republican election officials and their efforts to keep minorities and young adults from voting.

    I’d rather see the Republican kick out the fascists honestly, and not have to depend on Democrats to clean up their party. Democrats encouraged the Dixiecrats to leave the party, and ushered out the racists in the mid-1960s. And the party paid the price. Republicans need to grow a pair, and clean out their own racists and kooks. People would respect them if they did.

  7. Richard Schriever 2015-12-13 22:50

    I agree, if Trump does get the nomination, there’s a good chance he’d actually outdraw a Hillary campaign in the general. Not because of complacency by the Dems believing they’ll win in a landslide, but because of all the anti-Hillary noise I hear from the Bernie crowd. Bernie polls better vs. Trump than Hillary does.

    Then there’s the distinct alternate to Trump possibility for the Repubs being Cruz. Worse person as Pres., because is a “real conservative” and is more politically sophisticated to Trump. However, he may motivate more Dems to get out to vote against him, whoever the Dem candidate is.

  8. Porter Lansing 2015-12-13 23:47


  9. leslie 2015-12-13 23:57

    yeah, cruz is fairly frightening. Bernie likely won’t get the nomination, but if he does, i’d have no problem voting for him. but Hillary is probably the one, we need a smart woman, she’d be the right person at the right time, just like Obama is now, and if republicans implode, that would be best for the entire world.

    promulgate’s a big word. right on. come to a liberal blog and talk about how you might vote without too much histrionics, and there may just be hope 4u yet!

  10. mike from iowa 2015-12-14 07:28

    Spencer-this blog does not have an opinion. If Cory likes Sanders,that is his opinion. I like Sanders and will not vote for HRC. I wouldn’t trust that woman as far as I could toss a bobcat.

    What I find amazing is wingnuts on this blog tell Libs they need to become more like wingnuts to win in South Dakota. Doesn’t pretty much everyone here agree wingnuts are corrupt in Dakota?

  11. Lynn 2015-12-14 08:15

    Mike Who Resides in Iowa,

    “Spencer-this blog does not have an opinion.” I disagree. I’d agree with Spencer on this.

  12. mike from iowa 2015-12-14 08:18

    So,Lynn how long have you been hearing this blog voice opinions and does your doctor know about this?

  13. O 2015-12-14 08:24

    1) I don’t think the Republicans need any help from Democrats to implode (and visa versa).
    2) I believe it was Napoleon who said, “Never interfere with your enemy when he is making a mistake.”

  14. Bill Fleming 2015-12-14 08:31

    Spencer, to clarify, are you saying if the alternative to Trump was Sanders instead of Hillary, you would vote for Sanders?

  15. Rorschach 2015-12-14 08:51

    I don’t trust Hillary either, Mike. I just can’t stand the arrogance that oozes from her every pore. But with Trump on her side, how can she lose? Every day the spotlight is on him is a day it’s not on Hillary. When he goes independent and takes 1/3 of the GOP electorate with him Hillary will be elected, and Wall Street will have its president. But if a Republican wins Wall Street will have its president too. Looks to me like Wall Street is going to win either way in 2016. Neocon Wall Street Hillary might be marginally better than neocon Wall Street Christie Crubio.

  16. larry kurtz 2015-12-14 09:03

    Every South Dakota Democrat not holding office, isn’t a candidate or a delegate should be registered as a Republican.

  17. Lynn 2015-12-14 09:17

    Trump is an entertainer and that is about it besides his business interests. I would like to see Chris Christie emerge from the pack. New Jersey is a blue state with a long history of corruption and Christie has done pretty well given the circumstances.

  18. larry kurtz 2015-12-14 09:24

    Just as America is not ready for a Jewish president US voters are unlikely to elect an obese one.

  19. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-12-14 09:28

    Spencer, I promulgate no delusions, and I cast no votes for candidates whom I would not want to see win. I offer the questions above as practical considerations for Democrats. What effect would a Trump nomination have on voter turnout and candidates’ fortunes in South Dakota? Would a Trump nomination have any impact on our ballot measures, many of which can be interpreted as responses to South Dakota’s own political insiders’ failure to respond to the needs and wishes of the electorate?

    As I said to Susan Wismer at the Democratic Front Porch Conversation here in Aberdeen last month, I think Hillary Clinton would be a fine choice. Bernie Sanders would be even finer. Both would Preside much more in the interest of the general welfare than egomaniac fascist Donald Trump.

  20. Lynn 2015-12-14 09:29

    Historically US citizens have elected several larger or plus sized presidents.

  21. mike from iowa 2015-12-14 09:56

    If HRC is elected you will discover she is more Jewish than her Grandmother.Israek wikk have its preferred Potus,as well.

  22. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-12-14 10:03

    Richard, would the Bernie crowd really sit home and let Trump win just to spite Hillary? Trump and Sanders are both tapping anti-establishment sentiment, but I’d like to believe the Sanders crowd is not quite so delusionally self-destructive as the Trump supporters Wille encountered in the Luntz focus group.

  23. Porter Lansing 2015-12-14 10:03

    Mr. Heidelberger,
    Periodically running polls among your readers would be fun and revealing as to the mood, spirit and direction of SoDak voters. Our newspaper does one four times a week and it seems to move the electorate even though the DenverPost readers run about 65% Conservative. When the Republicans lean towards a liberal issue it’s quite telling.

  24. Rorschach 2015-12-14 10:40

    Well Cory, the Bernie crowd sat home and let Noem win just to spite Stephanie. Why wouldn’t they do it again on a national scale?

  25. Lynn 2015-12-14 10:45

    Sanders is un-electable. He has come off as pandering and pie in the sky on a few issues.

  26. larry kurtz 2015-12-14 10:53

    Christie is unelectable. He has come off as pandering and pie in the sky on a few issues.

  27. Lynn 2015-12-14 10:55

    Sanders is also viewed as weak on foreign policy.

  28. larry kurtz 2015-12-14 10:57

    Christie is viewed as weak on self-restraint.

  29. mike from iowa 2015-12-14 11:32

    South Dakota’s crooked pols need to watch Wisconsin. Brazen thug Walker and a compliant congress and Soopreme Court have taken only five years to completely mess up a decent state and make it it over in the koch bros image. That is efficient and they still have several years left to complete the change.

  30. Bill Fleming 2015-12-14 11:55

    LOL. Christie doesn’t want your sympathy, Larry. He wants the rest of your enchilada.

  31. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-12-14 12:02

    Talking about Christie’s weight is offensive. Spinning it as a self-restraint argument is cheap rationalization for not dealing with policy.

  32. larry kurtz 2015-12-14 12:05

    Obesity is a mental illness that should prevent those people from owning guns.

  33. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-12-14 12:07

    Ror, true. But would those Bernie voters see more at stake in a Presidential race than in a battle for one Congressional seat?

    I can see the Bernie point in South Dakota, though. If we nominate Clinton instead of Sanders, it will be easy for the anti-establishment Bernie people to say, “Why bother?” Their presidential votes likely won’t make a difference, and they may not see the connection between Bernie’s anti-establishment principles and our Senate, House, and Legislative candidates and the ballot measures we are offering. We need to get the Bernie crowd’s attention while the getting is good and get them interested in issues beyond the top line of the ballot.

    Hmmm… just how engaged are the Bernie supporters in other races and issues in South Dakota? If the Dems offer a Sanders candidate for Senate to challenge John Thune, will that be enough to keep the Sanders wing engaged through November?

  34. Monty 2015-12-14 12:09

    If you want to have an affect on how SD is governed, you should be voting in Republican primary elections. It is unlikely that any D will pick up South Dakota’s three electoral votes no matter the R nominee. But, the R’s in this state could use some RINO voters to push back on the Tea Party types in their party.

  35. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-12-14 12:10

    I do appreciate O’s advice: if the GOP truck is running down hill, we don’t need to rush out there and push. We have other trucks to help to the top.

  36. Bob Newland 2015-12-14 12:13

    Apparently Lynn’s threat to use her experience and ability worked about as well elsewhere as it does here.

  37. jerry 2015-12-14 12:18

    I think you may have nailed it Cory. Democrats need to put someone in the forefront that stands for something other than what we presently have. If you are going to put someone on the ballot that is the same old crap, why would you change from the crap that is already in?

    Get a candidate that will speak for the people and they will vote for you. Think Daschle, Johnson, Stephanie and the list goes on.

  38. larry kurtz 2015-12-14 12:20

    South Dakota hasn’t helped elect a president since W and that’s unlikely to change any time soon.

  39. Porter Lansing 2015-12-14 13:03

    You flatlanders are consonant deficient. There’s an “S” on the end of Clinton. No Ted Cruzes can shine their shoes.
    And, don’t forget to watch the last GOP debate coming up and hear Sen. Rubio brag about eliminating the risk corridors so big insurance can put small insurance out of the market and make your health insurance rates go up as much as 30% in 2016. What a benevolent and compassionate political party.

  40. Lynn 2015-12-14 13:47

    Governor Christie is more of a moderate and can work across the aisle to get things done as demonstrated with a full Democrat legislature in New Jersey where he also expanded Medicaid. Plain spoken but not in the negative Trump sort of way.

    Numbers dwindling the remaining South Dakota Democrats would have more of an impact by registering as a Republican and voting in the primary. It’s better than throwing away votes.

  41. Richard Schriever 2015-12-14 14:12

    Cory – – to answer you question about anti-Hillary Dems not voting, all you need to do is read the opinions of the likes of Mike from Iowa, just above that question. He says if HRC is the Dem nominee – he WILL NOT vote for her. His is a pretty common attitude among the Bernie supporters I engage with here and there. Same sort of black-mail Trump employs vs. the GOP mainstreamers.

  42. Les 2015-12-14 14:12

    Kay-aws in the chicken coop today, Cory. Get your blog opine in order and lead a charge. The fragmentation of this blog is typical of why the SD Dem party also holds responsibility for not electing someone who could step up to the plate and knock corruption out of the park.

    Ann is emailing me daily for support. I as a pub would support her to the finish line with that individual as I would if that person came from the indies or pubs. But she brings no names to the front. SD Dems need no flanking. There is nothing to flank.

    Back to my point, Trump is a businessman, though not a great one, Hillary’s money is as good as daddy’s money was. He is not smart enough to have built this platform on his own, remini’scent’ of primary ops in SD.

    That SD Dems would value their uneffective primary vote for the pres over state primary’d candidates is interesting to say the least.

  43. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-12-14 14:18

    Les, I don’t think iron-fisted discipline is as necessary or helpful to a blog comment section as it is to organizing a party or a campaign. Entrust me with management of either of those latter enterprises, and you will see a different management style. (You will also see trembling from both sides… though I can’t be sure whether from fear or laughter.)

  44. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-12-14 14:34

    Lynn, your agenda clouds your grasp of my point. I’m not asking if we should abandon the SDDP and work within the GOP. I’m asking if we should help the GOP destroy themselves by meddling in their primary, then working hard to capitalize on Trump disgust by promoting our outstanding ballot measures and our Legislative candidates. As O suggests, our sabotage may not be necessary, and we may do better to focus on rebuilding our own house and getting ready for all the refugees who will come looking for shelter from the Trump nomination. We have to keep readying that alternative. We make no difference if we just vote and donate Republican.

  45. Bill Fleming 2015-12-14 14:48

    “We make no difference if we just vote and donate Republican.”

    I think that’s debatable, Cory.

    If enough x-Dems vote in a GOP primary in local and state races in sufficient numbers, they will almost certainly influence who the GOP candidates are in the General. And, in the case where no Dems are running, they will be voting on who the winner of the office will be.

    In the General election, people can vote for whomever they please. It’s the GOP primary that excludes voters. And given that the winner of most races is Republican, who that Republican is makes a huge difference.

    All that said, I haven’t changed my registration yet, but I appreciate the logic of doing it, and am seriously considering it. The long and short of it is, we don’t have to have political parties to have a democracy. We just have to have the majority of the people casting votes.

  46. Lynn 2015-12-14 14:49

    Cory, My agenda? What is that? The present course the SDDP is on will most likely result in more defections and not much of a difference next November and/or it just gets worse for the party. Besides they hardly have any infrastructure or money. You can help support and vote for candidates within the state Republican party either thru recruitment, primaries or the general.

  47. Lynn 2015-12-14 14:59

    Good point Bill and that is partly what I’m trying to stress. It is still democracy and living in South Dakota one just adapts to the political climate to advance positive change.

  48. Les 2015-12-14 15:16

    Well said, Bill.

  49. Porter Lansing 2015-12-14 15:21

    Finally you bring it up, in context to the blog post, Ms. Lynn. What positive change do you Republicans see as necessary?

  50. Lynn 2015-12-14 15:40

    Porter Who resides in Colorado,

    Oh there are plenty of changes/improvements that could be made but the point I’m stressing as I have before is that in this political climate it would be a more effective vehicle for change. The SDDP is not the vehicle for change in fact it’s stranded on the side of the road, on blocks, stripped of parts, hood missing with one of those orange abandoned vehicle decals on the driver’s side window that is amazingly still intact and not smashed out.

    “You Republicans”? I’m more of an Independent.

    How was your trip to Missouri? Did you and Bill Dithmer get things settled?

  51. Porter Lansing 2015-12-14 15:46

    “Plenty of” isn’t anything but backstroking. You’re beating the “vehicle of change” mule and haven’t got even one example? I don’t see you Republicans as wanting anything new and better. Only status quo or regression. C’mon, Lynner. Something must need to be better. lol

  52. Bob Newland 2015-12-14 16:03

    Lynn’s grasp is pretty clouded generally, it seems.

  53. Lynn 2015-12-14 16:10

    crystal clear with clean air actually.

  54. Lynn 2015-12-14 16:13

    Seriously the the positive change needed here in South Dakota goes beyond party lines and it comes down to having the right vehicle to proceed rather than waste valuable resources and time.

  55. larry kurtz 2015-12-14 16:15

    An independent is someone who believes in nothing and can’t vote in a SDGOP primary.

  56. Lynn 2015-12-14 16:27

    Independents can register as Republicans which is basically the only party here in SD for the primary.

  57. larry kurtz 2015-12-14 16:32

    SDDP should nominate all their candidates at convention in part to shield them from DWC for as long as possible.

  58. Lynn 2015-12-14 16:40

    With the crazies in the party and the party’s misguided course sabotaging themselves with virtually no support system who would want to? I can’t blame them for not running.

  59. larry kurtz 2015-12-14 16:42

    Hell is icing over: Lynn and i agree on something.

  60. larry kurtz 2015-12-14 16:45

    Tom Daschle really is the only person who could energize SDDP right now.

  61. Lynn 2015-12-14 16:45

    They way it’s going let the SDDP be a fringe party of extremists and crazies and let the more balanced ones join the SDGOP where they could really make a difference.

  62. larry kurtz 2015-12-14 16:50

    There are no crazies or extremists in SDDP but there should be.

  63. bearcreekbat 2015-12-14 17:31

    Chris Christie is a real piece of work:

    “Under Christie, New Jersey has received a record-breaking nine credit downgrades, while coming in at 48th in the country when it comes to private sector job growth and suffering an unemployment rate well above the national average. America – this is what you’d get under President Christie and, as you can hear from the people of his state, it’s pretty terrible.”

    And CNN reports that: “New Jersey is frequently ranked as one of the worst states in the country for doing business, according to surveys of CEOs and the Tax Foundation. Overall economic growth has been lackluster — the state ranked 46th for growth in 2014.”

    No wonder 55% per cent of people polled in New Jersey disapprove of Christie. What sober individual could want this guy for President (unless she had an anti-marijuana agenda)?

  64. Lynn 2015-12-14 17:43

    Governor Christie inherited a mess. As I’ve said before New Jersey has had a long history of corruption and mismanagement.

    “Does Christie deserve all the blame for this mess? No. Democratic and Republican governors alike have failed to put enough money into the pension system going back to the late 1990s. The problem ballooned in the early 2000s when the dot-com bubble burst and tax revenues fell, and the Great Recession later in the decade did even more damage to state finances. Also, the state Legislature has been controlled by Democrats.”

    (Could a pro-marijuana agenda driving those who so against Chris Christie?)

  65. Roger Cornelius 2015-12-14 17:47

    The only reason Bernie Sanders is unelectable is because ignorant uneducated republicans equate socialism with communism.
    Donald Trump has said so numerous times when talking about Sanders.
    Many South Dakota republicans still hide under their beds with fear of the red menace.

  66. Lynn 2015-12-14 17:55


    Besides the socialism = communism take A couple of negative remarks people make is the “free college” and “marijuana” stances that Bernie supports. Free college? “Those kids will just party and never be responsible and graduate!” “Who is paying for this?” “Nothing is free!” “Let them pay their own way!”

  67. Bill Fleming 2015-12-14 17:57

    “Many South Dakota republicans still hide under their beds with fear of the red menace.”

    Roger, make that “Many socialist South Dakota republicans (on Social Security and Medicare) still hide under their beds with fear of the red menace.” Boggles the mind, right? ;-)

  68. mike from iowa 2015-12-14 18:07

    Tax revenues didn’t fall in the early 2000’s,they were slashed and slashed again. You know-to stimulate trickle down economics.

  69. mike from iowa 2015-12-14 18:09

    Bill F-they got their shooty guns to protect their SS checks,don’t they?

  70. bearcreekbat 2015-12-14 18:28

    Lynn has posted an informative link. It says:

    “But while the problem was created before he took office, Christie can’t sidestep at least some responsibility for what has taken place on his watch.

    Our ruling

    Brazile said that Christie led New Jersey to a record-breaking nine credit downgrades. Her tally is correct, Christie was the chief executive throughout and no other New Jersey governor has overseen so many reductions in the state credit rating. The previous record was six.”

    “. . . we rate this claim Mostly True.”

    Brazile – 1; Christie – 0.

    I will agree with Lynn, however, that Christie’s desire to deny sick people access to an herb that might improve the quality of their lives is a huge negative in his public policy positions.

  71. Lynn 2015-12-14 18:41

    ONE of the reasons I support Chris Christie is because of his stance against legalization of Marijuana. We have enough drug addiction issues in this country and don’t need more.

    Otherwise I like his “Telling it like it is” approach that is far more thoughtful and no comparison to the Donald.

  72. grudznick 2015-12-14 18:45

    Hmm. I have not been a big Mr. Christie fan although I don’t mind him. I may have to reconsider, if he is against weed because of all the ills it brings to the greater society.

  73. Lynn 2015-12-14 18:52


    Christie is more of a moderate and not one of the crazy ones on either side of the political spectrum. He is not trying to outdo the others to say extreme things to get headlines in a race to the bottom.

  74. larry kurtz 2015-12-14 19:40

    The hardest part for South Dakota Democrats would putting ones lot in with the crazies in SDGOP like Fred Deutsch, Lee Schoenbeck and Betty Olson just to monkey wrench an earth hater primary with a no-win outcome.

  75. Kathy Gustafson 2015-12-14 19:43

    Since SD is among the last of the primaries it’s rather moot, isn’t it?

  76. larry kurtz 2015-12-14 19:45

    As is often the case, with the exception of the 2008 primary, South Dakota is a non sequitur in picking the nominee.

  77. larry kurtz 2015-12-14 19:54

    As a voter in New Mexico it is comforting to know I’ll actually be part of selecting the next President of the United States.

  78. jerry 2015-12-14 19:54

    Chris Christie is a real swell guy. He is just corrupt as he can be so it is no wonder that he would be loved by South Dakota republicans, he is just like them. Christie hides documents, South Dakota republicans same. Christie is bloated on power, South Dakota republicans same again. Christie has mysterious deaths, whoa Nelly, South Dakota republicans again the same. The more you know about Christie, the more the mirror comes out and we see South Dakota.

  79. Lynn 2015-12-14 20:03

    Politically motivated charges and look forward to seeing him cleared once again.

  80. Porter Lansing 2015-12-14 20:04

    Good one, Jerry.

  81. Lynn 2015-12-14 20:07

    Christie said he intends to reverse Marijuana legalization in states such as Colorado. The pro-pot activists either addicts or those that have a huge financial incentive will go after Christie.

  82. larry kurtz 2015-12-14 20:08

    All charges are politically motivated.

  83. larry kurtz 2015-12-14 20:09

    Christie is a sideshow for the criminally obese.

  84. Bob Newland 2015-12-14 20:27

    Lynn said: “Christie said he intends to reverse Marijuana legalization in states such as Colorado. The pro-pot activists either addicts or those that have a huge financial incentive will go after Christie.”

    I just heard Lynn have an orgasm.

  85. Porter Lansing 2015-12-14 20:29

    You’ve little validity “parroting” the term addict in a state where over half the women have abused pain pills and alcoholism is rampant. But, our topic is party registration and following your weak attempt to change the subject shows your Republican lack of substance on change of any kind.

  86. Porter Lansing 2015-12-14 20:40

    Lynn, you are shallow furrow. If you choose to pursue the topic of marijuana, go start your own blog. Dakota Free Press isn’t interested in discussing pot when so many things need change.

  87. Roger Elgersma 2015-12-14 20:40

    Getting a good pres is important enough that voting a bad vote to manipulate the election is not being very patriotic.

  88. larry kurtz 2015-12-14 20:47

    The way Lynn capitalizes words that shouldn’t be like PP does is a little off putting.

  89. Roger Cornelius 2015-12-14 21:08

    Kathy Gustafson is right, with South Dakota being one of the last state primaries and our small size, with only 3 electoral votes, the party nominees will probably be chosen.
    The only time I recall when South Dakota was even relatively important or exciting presidential primarywas in 2008 between Hillary and Barack.

  90. larry kurtz 2015-12-14 21:09

    Newland, yer a student of syntax: is Lynn’s writing style reeking of PP or is it just an olfactory hallucination?

  91. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-12-14 21:32

    Larry, if I just tell you who Lynn is, will you stop cluttering the comment section with speculation that is irrelevant to the main questions of public interest?

    Lynn is a frustrated former Democrat who has chosen the wrong political path, for reasons I cannot comprehend. Lynn is a frustrated former Democrat who has decided to work toward the destruction of the SDDP under the mistaken impression that the conservative South Dakota GOP is a vehicle for change. Lynn is a frustrated former Democrat who advances her agenda by making phone calls and working to draw commenters off topic on this blog (although I asked for it on this thread, so I won’t throw the flag this time) to accumulate radical, nasty responses that she can then pretend characterize the “extremists” and “crazies” whom she pretends control the SDDP.

    Lynn is not pursuing truth or virtue here. Lynn is pursuing her political agenda, to distract, provoke, and mischaracterize the participants in this blog as things we are not.

    No further information should be necessary, Larry, to get you and everyone else to move on to matters of greater public interest.

  92. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-12-14 21:37

    Kathy, usually, you’d be right. South Dakota doesn’t matter much in Presidential politics in the primary or the general. I suppose we could all be surprised by a quick settling out of the GOP field. Cruz could prevail in Iowa, everyone but Trump would bow out, and then the two-man race would settle itself pretty quickly as 75% of Republicans would coalesce around their one guy.

    But if any of the talk of a brokered convention comes true, if it looks like a possibility at the beginning of April, we could see more activity here than Obama and Clinton brought in 2008. And if by that point the Democratic race has already been settled, Democrats might want to consider whether their votes can make a difference on the other side for the primary.

  93. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-12-14 21:40

    Now let me redirect to my original questions, to which I don’t think we’ve seen an answer:

    (1) Would Trump atop the GOP ticket produce the same effect in South Dakota’s races that Wille anticipates in the Presidential race—i.e., would people be so disgusted by Trump that we would see higher Dem turnout and greater willingness to vote for other Dems on the ticket for Senate, House, and Legislature?

    (2) Could Democratic candidates use Trump’s presence on the ballot to remind voters how much they don’t trust the establishment and turn at least a few more votes against the establishment incumbents in the Legislature?

  94. Bob Newland 2015-12-14 22:22

    Cory! Did we just see you lose yer cool fer a few seconds? Yay!

  95. Winston 2015-12-14 22:29

    I think the second one is more plausible than the first scenario. I am afraid Trump’s view of the world is more in common with many South Dakotans, (including those who come out of the woodwork to vote in presidential years only (many of them Dems)), than we want to know.

    If you look at American history since WWII, both major political parties have had their days in the sun. The Republicans enjoyed 1946, 1962, 1966, 1980, 1994, and 2010 in particular. The Democrats have fond memories of 1954, 1964, 1974, 1986, and 2006. These are all major congressional victories and both parities have had their presidential wins of joy as well, but the presidential cycle seems to be dictated by a comet style event beyond the control of either political party. This event or political reality reappears about every twenty to twenty four years, where an independent candidate or better yet the presence of a “I am as mad as hell and I won’t take it anymore” candidate theme seems to show up on the presidential horizon. We saw this in 1948 with the Dixiecrats and the Progressives both, in 1968 with George Wallace, and in 1992 with Ross Perot.

    However, this time we see this event personifying both in the candidacies of Sanders and Trump – one a socialist and the other in a lot of peoples estimations a fascist (1948 anyone?). But the big difference this time is that at least for now these candidates are found within the constraints of the two major political parities. I personally believe, if I was a betting man, that Trump has a better chance at the Republican nod than Sanders at the Democratic nod, but Trump would be more likely to bolt from his party than Sanders. Thus, the likelihood of Trump mattering next fall, regardless, are very high and his candidacy would help anti-establishment candidates of either party much as Perot did in 1992 in particular. Now the questions become, would a Trump Republican nomination lessen the voters of South Dakotas willingness to vote against the Republican establishment in this state while still voting for him, or would we rather have him as a independent Presidential candidate for the sake of the South Dakota Democratic party’s alternative relevance? I think the answer to that question is the latter, because a Republican Trump would only reassure the anti national Democratic feeling in this state, which the recent Democratic congressional defeats in South Dakota clearly demonstrate.

  96. Rorschach 2015-12-14 22:32

    1. Blue collar folks in SD who don’t normally vote will turn out and vote for Trump and Republicans down ticket. Moderate Republicans who don’t want Trump won’t vote for Hillary and will look for a third party alternative for President or simply not vote that race. Except there will be a gender gap. Female moderate Republicans will gravitate toward Hillary over Trump. Down ballot moderate GOPers will default to GOP candidates (with gender gap carrying to dems down ballot) but will be open to Dems if convinced, and particularly if the EB-5 scandal and other scandals blow up by then. Conservative Republicans will vote straight ticket. Gender gap will carry over to independents in the Presidential race will Hillary getting her share of independent votes (which may still not be a majority in SD). Male independents will go for Trump and lean Republican down ballot. Democrats will continue to bleed registered voters without a major registration drive, but will have a good turnout of however many are registered. Dems will vote for dems down ballot – if there are any on the ballot to vote for.

    2. Yes. 2016 could be a bad year to be a career politician. If Paula Hawks can find a way to paint Noem as a career politician and a typical Warshington politician that would be a good strategy. Thune is more the career politician, but I’d be surprised if he doesn’t get another term. And running unopposed he could even be caught in bed with Noem and not lose his seat. Somebody should run against Thune just to be there to pick up the pieces in case he destructs.

  97. jerry 2015-12-14 22:36

    I think the Donald just crashed down there in evangelical country Iowa. Now the crazy will be Cruz, just as bad as the Donald, but dumber.

  98. Winston 2015-12-14 22:41


    “I think the answer to that question is the latter, because a Republican Trump would only reassure the anti national Democratic feeling in this state, which the recent Democratic congressional defeats in South Dakota clearly demonstrate.”

    I think a “yes” is only true with the second question, because a Republican Trump would only reassure the anti national Democratic feeling in this state which would transcend down the ballot – a feeling demonstrated and primarily responsible for most of the defeats for the Democratic Party in South Dakota at the congressional and state levels in recent years.

  99. Porter Lansing 2015-12-14 22:41

    Good presentation, Winston.

  100. Porter Lansing 2015-12-14 22:43

    @Jerry … Is that a “new kind of crazy”? Called “CRUZY”? Nice.

  101. Roger Cornelius 2015-12-14 23:25

    While we are discussing the presidential election the republican stalwarts are working hard to derail the Trump campaign. Trump is upset that the GOP has not gotten behind him and hinting at bolting, if Cruz does win Iowa we may see that 3rd party.
    With Trump’s numbers crumbling in Iowa is seeing healthy number (42%) nationally.
    My point is that by the time our primary reaches us, the playing field may well be established and we won’t have to worry about crossover voting.

  102. Winston 2015-12-14 23:34

    Good point Roger! Thank you, Porter.

  103. Les 2015-12-15 00:06

    Patriotic South Dakotans voting for Pres. That’s a new one, Roger. Have we actually ever been a necessary part of a presidential win? Our 3 votes somehow part of the hanging chads in Florida’s 23 votes?

    We vote for the Pres because he/she is on our ballot along with folks we really can elect. Other than that we are dreaming, Alice.

  104. Winston 2015-12-15 00:37

    It did in 1976. Ford won SD by a mere 4500 votes. He lost Ohio and Mississippi by a total of 27000 votes. Had Ohio and Ms. had gone into the Ford camp that year, Ford would have had 272 electoral votes and the then 4 South Dakota electoral votes would have been all the difference for him.

    South Dakota was also a part of Dukasis’s “Hail Mary” candidacy at the end of his 1988 campaign. It was a close race in South Dakota with GHW Bush barely winning. Dukasis only carried 10 states that year, but South Dakota was definitely in play and would have mattered if Dukasis could have had another week to campaign.

  105. Bill Fleming 2015-12-15 00:49

    Trump will have to decide to run Indy by March, I think. Otherwise he won’t get on all the states ballots. Hard to imagine he’ll have coat tails, but hey, what the heck do I know?

  106. barry freed 2015-12-15 08:03

    Lynn’s distraction is germane considering anyone voting to approve Medical Marijuana, is not as likely to vote for a Republican. The exceptions being the older Republican voters who have cancer, Parkinson’s, arthritis, glaucoma, torn rotator cuffs, …ad infinitum.

    Will the Indy type vote for someone who is “Republican Light” or just get out of the booth and go do something fun or constructive?

  107. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-12-15 08:52

    Winston mentions Perot and Wallace. Trump seems to fuse those two candidates’ appeals—celebrity businessman + white supremacist. Can we say that Sanders taps a different disaffection, a less fearful, more educated disaffection among people more inclined to talk real policy?

    Ror sees two keys for Democratic progress: voter registration and beating up “career politicians.” Sentiment here seems to be that gains from an Operation Trump Change, Dems switching registration to put Trump over the top in June, are uncertain and minimal. Dems may do better to just focus on the basics, not give up any voter registration numbers to Trump Change, and keep those numbers as high as possible.

    I’m reminded of arguments we had in 2014 over whether Annette Bosworth was a plant for the Rounds campaign. I could see the logic, but in the absence of real evidence, I concluded that any sensible political campaign with X amount of resources to spend would get a greater return on investing X in straight-up campaigning rather than fringe games like hiring a plant.

    We don’t know if the Trump Change would benefit the party; we do know that a voter registration drive would. The party and candidates shouldn’t invest in getting Dems to switch registration for the primary; the question should not advance beyond the level of individuals deciding whether they want to temporarily switch to make mischief for the Republicans in June. Even at the individual level, the question becomes moot if there is any meaningful Democratic primary, Presidential or Legislative.

    Winston also mentions a Republican Trump reassuring the anti-Democratic feeling in South Dakota. I wonder: even if Wille says Trump would ensure a Clinton landslide, might Trump gain more traction among recalcitrant White South Dakota Republicans than among Republicans elsewhere? Might the negative Trump effect be least here? Trump’s an ass, but he’s an energizing ass. For every mainstream Republican who’d stay home, Trump might bring out an angry Republican who revels in the chance to stick it to sensitive Democrats by voting for such a loudmouth brute. No one else in the Republican field seems to be as energizing. Maybe South Dakota Democrats benefit least from a Trump nomination and would do better to have any of the other milquetoasty candidates (Ted Cruz, Presidential? Really?) leading Republicans limply to the polls while we bring the real fire.

  108. Porter Lansing 2015-12-15 09:15

    Trump is a Clinton plant? Bill would absolutely do that and even Trump can’t possibly believe the bile he’s coughing up. Either way, the thought of it scares the TeaCruzers and that makes liberals all warm inside.
    Q~Why do voters take an immediate dislike to Ted Cruz?
    A~It saves time.
    PS…don’t forget to watch Marco Rubio tonight bragging how he sabotaged the ACA by dismantling the risk corridors and allowing your premiums to skyrocket as much as 30% this year. (VOTE BLUE or these rates may never come back down)

  109. larry kurtz 2015-12-15 09:22

    Cory, you have dismissed cannabis as a voter issue, not “we.”

  110. larry kurtz 2015-12-15 09:29

    Rand Paul could distinguish himself as a leader tonight by talking about legal cannabis eclipsing the other sticks in the mud in Las Vegas even as Nevada is already moving forward with cultivation and distribution.

  111. larry kurtz 2015-12-15 09:39

    If South Dakota Democrats register as earth haters to vote for Donald Trump in the primary here’s what they would be voting for:

    The businessman and former reality television host supports medical marijuana but has taken conflicting positions on full legalization over the years. He appears to support the right of states to enact their own marijuana laws without federal interference. In 1990, Trump called for legalizing all drugs. “We’re losing badly the war on drugs. You have to legalize drugs to win that war,” he said.“

  112. mike from iowa 2015-12-15 09:41

    I doubt wordsmiths have come up with “the” word to describe bad loser Trump if wingnuts don’t hand him the mantle and kiss his butt to boot. Should be worth a box of popcorn to sit and watch.

  113. Lynn 2015-12-15 09:41

    Larry Who Resides in New Mexico,

    Rand Paul is about to drop out of the race. That subject won’t save him. He’s finished.

  114. larry kurtz 2015-12-15 09:43

    You don’t know spit from Shinola, Lynn.

  115. larry kurtz 2015-12-15 09:48

    Erick Erickson is even stupider than Pat Powers.

  116. Bill Fleming 2015-12-15 09:52

    Maybe Rand Paul should run Indy and trump the Trump. He has absolutely nothing to lose (except his Senate seat). ;-)

  117. Les 2015-12-15 09:54

    Absolutely, Porter.

    You guys bring Sanders with a Warren vp and you have Hillary by the short hairs. Trump is a spoiler but Hillary is as well, though to a much lessor degree. Warren would be just an aging heart beat or lack there of away from giving you the first woman Pres.

    Yes, Winston. I’ll keep throwing my presidential vote out there. Similar to the hundred year flood zone, waiting for Noah to come back and elect our next Pres.

  118. Les 2015-12-15 10:02

    Republican voters feeling the urgency to take the presidency with a Trump are no different than SD Dems pushing anyone they can drag out from under a rock rather than supporting a party be damned best man/woman for the job mentality.

  119. Porter Lansing 2015-12-15 10:02

    This thread isn’t about marijuana and you stoners (Lynn and Larry … they sound like a cute couple, huh?) just can’t get that through your relaxed and contemplative brains.
    PS – legal weed was on the CO ballot many times and failed. Not until it became so passe’ that no one even talked about it, did it pass. Mr. Heidelberger’s on to something, as usual lol

  120. Steve Hickey 2015-12-15 10:06

    Is it too early for me to call 2016 for Trump?

    I’m not saying he’s my choice, just that I think he’s going to win. Hillary should be in jail. Trump will eat her for lunch. People here in Europe loath Trump. But then again they were wetting themselves for Obama back in 2007-2008. I was among those in 2008 who invoked Godwin’s laws in every sentence related to Obama – the bizarre messianic swirl that was around him – my side saying that the nation would not survive him, etc, etc.. Now here I watch the left go down that same path with Trump. What I enjoy about Trump is that he is upending the tables on the political money machines (right/left) and the media, both of whom pick for us the President. Trump is no Saint to those of us who care about such things but even there his offensive, arrogance to me just may be confidence. I love how he handed the Saudi prince his rear end on a platter this week.

    Over Christmas I’m going to take a break from my reading schedule here and knock out these two titles by Roger Stone…. Jeb and the Bush Crime Family and The Clintons War on Women. I haven’t read Stone before but these two titles have my interest. This is the line that caught my attention for the first book: “After detailing the vast litany of Jeb’s misdeeds, Stone travels back to Samuel, Prescott, George H. W., and George W. Bush to weave an epic story of privilege, greed, corruption, drug profiteering, assassination, and lies.” Here’s the line that caught my eye on the second one: “This stunning exposé reveals for the first time how Bill and Hillary Clinton systematically abused women and others—sexually, physically, and psychologically—in their scramble for power and wealth.”

  121. larry kurtz 2015-12-15 10:06

    Jared Polis won in Colorado on a legalization plank, Porter.

  122. larry kurtz 2015-12-15 10:08

    Secretary Clinton is a shoo-in regardless of the GOP nominee.

  123. Bill Fleming 2015-12-15 10:17

    Hickey, you’ve been eating too much haggis over there buddy. Pretty much everything you just posted borders on the hallucinogenic.

  124. Steve Hickey 2015-12-15 10:21

    :-) Don’t plan to try haggis or the blood pudding. The life is in the blood and that’s why the Bible prohibits eating/drinking it.

  125. Steve Hickey 2015-12-15 10:22

    I have been imbibing a bit more, maybe that explains it.

  126. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-12-15 10:32

    Hold on—Steve, just you just disavow all the fascist doomcrying about Obama? Are you acknowledging that tyranny did not ensue? Are you suggesting now that we leftists are freaking out for no reason over Trump’s far more explicit calls for fascism? Even if we ignore the glare of hindsight, can you cite anything Obama said in the 2008 campaign that was as clearly fascist in tone and literal content as Trump’s conduct in this campaign?

    Newland, I didn’t lose my cool above, but if Steve goes where my questions suggest, it could happen. :-O

  127. caheidelberger Post author | 2015-12-15 10:35

    And Rand Paul? He’d be more fun than a majority of the GOP field, but he’s going Willie Horton on refugees. Dang Paul potheads must want to keep their stash to themselves and not share with their Syrian brothers and sisters. You poor selfish bastards. :-P

  128. Steve Hickey 2015-12-15 10:40

    Don’t go too far with my comment. Obama isn’t done with America yet. ;-) Sorry to disappoint all who visit here but I do think America is already captured operation and that the Muslim Brotherhood is very entrenched, even invited by BHO. America isn’t land of the free anymore. And I think banking interests control it all. Like I said, sorry. But again, Trump seems to be upsetting these powers that be.

  129. Porter Lansing 2015-12-15 10:40

    Jared Polis (the house just declined to investigate him, today) is a gay guy from Boulder. There’s never been a Republican elected from The People’s Republic of Boulder. A democratic ham sandwich could win there.
    @Hickey – Bill Clinton not Obama beat Romney and he did it with one sentence about Romney’s plan to bring the USA economy back from the ditch the Republicans put it in. “The numbers don’t add up.” The Clintons would destroy Trump but Cruz will be the candidate and he faces the same fate. The White House will be a Blue House for eight more years and USA will have our first female President. About damn time, huh ladies?

  130. Les 2015-12-15 10:41

    Seems Obama did speak of his personal police force which he now says he can’t federalize every police force in the country. If we can believe that. Just what a good fascist leader needs though, his own police.

  131. Rorschach 2015-12-15 10:45

    It’s not about Clinton destroying Trump or vice versa. They are working together to weaken and split the GOP for Clinton’s benefit. Trump will be sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom on Hillary’s inauguration night.

  132. larry kurtz 2015-12-15 10:50

    Luntz is on the Diane Rehm Show right now. He’s a whack job.

  133. Les 2015-12-15 10:52

    It will be another blue house, Ror. If so I prefer a Sanders/Warren host.

  134. Porter Lansing 2015-12-15 10:56

    Steve Hickey commenting on women’s abuse is like Michael Vick promoting dog’s rights. You’re projecting, Hickey.

  135. Steve Hickey 2015-12-15 10:57

    No, Huma would be in whispering in Hillary’s ear and her known muslim brotherhood family members would be in that Lincoln bedroom. Carlos Danger and Mr. Bill would be off teasing the intern girls. Nothing with regard to any of these people is virtuous.

    Back on track… Sibby says I’m a fascist and so is Daugaard. Now we have the good professor in Aberdeen SD inferring it for Trump. The term becomes meaningless. My point is from my vantage point the present rhetoric on the left against Trump sounds like the 08 rhetoric against Obama.

  136. larry kurtz 2015-12-15 11:00

    Porter Lansing commenting on South Dakota politics is like Pat Powers commenting on the Atkins Diet.

  137. Porter Lansing 2015-12-15 11:16

    Thanks, Larry. I’d love to make you cry, again but the snow’s about 8″ deep already and that means it’s time for fun. Headed your way, flatlanders. :)

  138. jerry 2015-12-15 12:19

    How can a billionaire like Trump be against his brotherhood in the banking industry? They go together like peas and carrot tops…er carrots.

  139. Roger Cornelius 2015-12-15 13:30

    Sounds like Hickey is about to fall off earth, AGAIN

  140. Les 2015-12-15 14:09

    Now now, Roger. After all it is Christmas. If Revvy brought you two good ideas out of ten and ran them in the legis, it is a better attempt than most if not all of the SD Dems did for ya.

  141. Rorschach 2015-12-15 14:40

    Now Hillary is for the Muslim Brotherhood? I thought she was a shill for Israel.

    Trump better keep an eye on his wife around Mr. Bill. Mr. Bill better keep an eye on Chelsea around Carlos Danger.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.