Wait a minute—co-executive directors of the Democratic Party?
In 1992, the South Dakota Democratic Party evidently had co-execs. Steering the party with Erpenbach was his fellow SDSU/Binnewies alumnus Steve Hildebrand. In 1992, the Democratic Party held Tom Daschle’s seat in the Senate and Tim Johnson’s seat in the U.S. House. It also won 20 seats in the South Dakota Senate, its last majority in either chamber.
Co-directors… Senate majority. The logical conclusion is obvious.
Erpenbach now runs the SDSU Foundation; Hildebrand now runs Josiah’s Coffeehouse in downtown Sioux Falls. They probably aren’t looking for political gigs.
But if we can just find two passionate campaigners with the same first name and a shared history and geography to run the party, South Dakota Democrats could win some seats!
So, who else named Ann went to college with Ann Tornberg?
1992 won’t ever happen again here.
And you won’t ever win a SD election either.
My, what a prickly pear Pearson is. Bitter much?
I expect South Dakotans will eventually tire of the corruption and ineptitude, and Democrats will return to leadership roles in the state.
The period in state history that ushered in the 1992 election and several years after was when I was lobbying in the Legislature, and involved in citizen activism. I’m not saying I had anything to do with winning that election, but it does take an active grassroots to make political change. There was a lot of citizen activism, and it wasn’t all directed against Republicans. There were many Republicans upset with the direction of the state. The solid waste, mining and corporate farming issues were being mishandled by Republicans, and had been mishandled for years. The time had come when the public got upset enough to make a change.
Of course, having Daschle and Johnson at the top meant funds would flow a little easier and drive turnout. That helped a lot.
What I loved about that period was that women came forward to run, and run hard. The group of Democratic and some Republican women legislators were absolutely fantastic. And you also had great men, like Nick Nemec and Frank Kloucek. And the veteran leaders who did such a good job running the Senate.
That was the most productive time in the Legislature, and it showed how our system can work. I give Gov. Mickelson credit for some of that, too. Not that I agreed with everything that passed or didn’t pass, but bills got a fair hearing and the big stuff got compromised out.
I fully realize the facetious nature of this article, and it is pretty funny. If you are truly looking for answers to how Democrats can regain some clout in SD, though, I think it’s more relevant to take the “big picture” into account.
Democrats have been gradually losing support in the upper Midwest for decades. I think it has more to do with the general shift in party focus. Urban vs rural issues. Racial identity politics. Party identity politics. Single-issue voters and wedge issues like abortion, guns, immigration, etc.
For Dems to have success in SD today, you have to be able to diffuse the wedge issues and embrace kitchen-table politics that matter to rural South Dakotans, like battling corruption, strengthening education, and supporting AG and small businesses. Those issues don’t have to be partisan.
JMO
Bringing out of state waste to be buried in South Dakota was a big issue in my 1992 election. Walworth County was pushing a plan to build a huge landfill on the bluffs overlooking the Missouri River southeast of Mobridge. My opponent had previously supported legislative plans to build a huge out of state sewage ash dump in Fall River County, and had expressed support for the project devised by his buddies on the Walworth County Commission. I made sure the citizens of Walworth and the surrounding counties knew this and knew where I stood on the issue.
Quick someone track down Briggs Tople. We got this.
Nick, I had forgotten about that proposal in Walworth County. There were a number of such proposals that came in quick succession because the Republican elite were rushing to turn good South Dakota land into dumps for New Jersey. It was great that issue helped you into the House, and ended the garbage rush. Thinking about running again?
I remember ’92. I think the majority of Democrats in the Senate were women. Or was that ’90? It does make a difference when women run, but this year many Democratic women ran hard, but unsuccessfully. I wonder why they didn’t win? Lack of party support? Orange Imbecile at the top? I don’t know. They were good candidates.
Briggs + Briggs—you have my total support.
Again, environmental issues come up as a way to break through partisan labels. Dems haven’t run hard on environmental issues lately, have they?
1992 was a golden year for the SDDP. It was run by two of the four brilliant Steves from Mitchell. And 1992 was the only time the Democrats took over a chamber of the legislature, while the Republicans had control of the Governors Mansion.
Steve Erpenbach and Steve Hildebrand worked hard that year and their efforts with a credible GOTV are the reason the Democrats in South Dakota took over the State Senate that year. Democrats took 20 of the 35 Senate seats in 1992. The SDDP did targeting of races, polling, and canvassing of targeted senate races to take control of the State Senate in ’92. They did not just rely on a “Blue Wave,” or a compelling message to win, rather they won the way McGovern always won and the only way Democrats will ever win in this state, and that’s to be organized with a credible GOTV. Because it is the math more than the message… Fore, the messaging is merely the icing on a cake made from a sound GOTV effort if one wants to win in politics as a Democrat in South Dakota.
In fact, there were times back then when the Party’s coffers were not rich enough to pay the Steves on a regular basis, but they still plugged ahead and won for the Party.
So the real lesson that can be learned from that era in SDDP history more than anything is that the Party needs to get back to a credible GOTV effort, but until it does, our purple state will continue to be red.
Give ’em the meat; the message will follow?
We are defined by a national image. No state political party can overide that. It must accept the universe it exists in and maximize the vote; and that maximization is done by an effective GOTV, which is further fed by yes, the “meat.”
I’m addition to GOTV, we need some serious personality to overcome such widespread, statewide, modern day anti-liberal biases.
Most every non-voter NEEDS to register to vote “because the Republicans are obviously and ridiculously awful and out-of-control.” And then, they need their hand held (nearly), while they are sufficiently encouraged to vote EARLY. Once they go through the motions once, they will feel far more comfortable doing it again in the future – on their own.
It all starts with inspiring a person to vote because there is one issue (besides becoming an anti-Republican) they care about the most. Only then can they open their mind to two issues, and then three or four.
Non-voters are a nationwide solvable [IMO] problem. Find the one issue that matters most to each of their micro-demographics’ daily struggles (their lives) and today’s political stalemates can be broken.
Adam, that’s what Pootiepublicans have been doing with their manufactured issues of guns and ending a woman’s autonomy, and it’s been effective.
I’d say the plan works, but Democrats need to use Real Issues like healthcare, fair wages and other items from the kitchen table. They proved effective nationwide earlier this month. But I don’t know what it will take in states like SD, so deeply corrupted by Pootiepublicans.
‘The Plan’ as I laid out is just simply how the human brain works. No one can change that. It’s like reinventing the shape of the wheel -can’t be done.
It’s important to remember that one of the biggest reasons that the Democrats did so well in 1992 was because of an extremely generous donation of $250k from Tom Daschle’s campaign to the SDDP (that would probably be close to $500k in today’s dollars). And what made it even more generous was the fact that Tom knew that it was likely that Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-ME) was likely not to run for re-election (which he didn’t), thus leaving the leadership job open. Daschle could have used that $250k to make substantial contributions to his Senate colleagues, always a popular move, but instead of doing that he contributed that money to help elect Democrats in SD–something he got a lot of crap for doing from some of his GOP contributors. Several of us (Pete Stavrianos, Bill Fleming, Jody Severson, and the two Steves, and maybe others) spent the last 7-10 days in the basement of the SDDP in a jerry-rigged “war room” writing radio ads, direct mail pieces, etc., all of which led to the end result that Cory mentioned. Had Tom not made his very substantial contribution, there is no way that we would have won all of those races, pure and simple.
Drey, what was the content of those last-days advertisements? On whom did they focus? And how were you able to draft, print, and mail those items (paper letters? post cards?) in ten days?
On GOTV versus messaging: I spoke with some of the new Americans in Aberdeen in October and got them registered to vote. They didn’t need messaging. I didn’t make any speeches or mail anything to them. One of them told me of his subgroup of voters, “We are all Democrats.” They needed someone to walk them through the voter registration form, to take that form to the courthouse, and to show them where, when, and how to vote.
That outreach takes time and people… particularly people who can work through language differences. That half-million Drey mentions would help.
Drey is right — Tim Johnson and Tom Daschle both made a huge difference in 1992. That was the year I first went in the legislature.
The two Steves were outstanding as well — but also credit should be given to Rick Hauffe, who I believe created the legislative messaging and was a key to taking control of the senate.
The women elected to the S.D. Senate that year made a tremendous difference in South Dakota over the next two years. The old men of the senate — all good guys and friends of mine — were quite taken aback that they had to spend so much time on environmental legislation and children’s issues. But they adjusted.
We had a lot of late nights, wrangling with the GOP House. But many lobbyists and Pierre observers said it was the best two years of legislating in decades. And we haven’t seen anything like it since. Gov. Mickelson and GOP House leader Larry Gabriel deserve some credit also, as they recognized they needed to work with the Senate and they did.
Inactionable nostalgia.
“The old men of the senate — all good guys and friends of mine — were quite taken aback that they had to spend so much time on environmental legislation and children’s issues.”
Wouldn’t it be nice if more men felt those issues deserved a great deal of time and emphasis? Sigh.
Do doubt many talented people played a part in 1992, but the germane issue or personalities of this blog piece have to do with the impact of an executive director or directors on that year, and when you look back at ’92, you quickly understand that it was about an effective GOTV. A GOTV that consisted of targeting, polling, and the phone canvassing of voters, in order, to elect a Democratic State Senate, which the two Steves were constantly in the war room of back in ’92…..
State Democrats today do not understand how a GOTV works or even looks. They have by default allowed a gloried leaflet drop to be passed as GOTV.
Sutton would be governor-elect today, if the SDDP had a real GOTV in 2018, but he isn’t, because Democrats today run campaigns of image and try to run Republican campaigns against Republicans, which will never work.
We have a lot of good Democrats in this state, but most quite frankly do not have a compelling story, but all of them would or could be better served by a credible GOTV going forward, however.
There is one person, in South Dakota, who I would trust with just about ANY GOTV effort, and that person is Silvia Christen. At the very least, she’s the best around at that particular thing.
Cory: The content of our ads varied depending on the candidates–we didn’t do “one-size fits all” ads, they were specific to the candidates in each district. I didn’t work on the print and mail ads (that was Jody and Bill’s area), what I worked on was writing and producing radio ads, which you can do up to a few days before the election.
I definitely was negligent in not mentioning Rick Hauffe, and probably forgot some other folks, too–that was 25 years ago, after all…
But it’s worth mentioning that Tom Daschle never received much credit for financing this effort, and that was really wrong and unfortunate.
Best two years of legislating—Bernie, why didn’t voters see that? Why don’t voters recall that peak performance and seek to replicate by bringing divided government back to Pierre the way national voters so frequently do to DC?
JKC, what does it take to re-establish a GOTV focus?
Drey, how did you target those Legislative candidate mailings? How many mailings went to each targeted district? How specific were those mailings to their candidates? Did they raise specific district issues? Did they attack the Republican opponents?
Cory, I think the answer is new leadership in the SDDP, or at least a statewide candidate who is as interested in jump starting an authentic GOTV as they are in getting him or herself elected; and can run a campaign which other Democrats can benefit from through political coattails regardless of what the SDDP does or does not do.
Now, the latter suggestion may be wishful thinking, but we need statewide candidates who are willing to use their organizations to build the Party overall and not just their own political persona; and not candiates who try to fool the voters with right of center positions as Democrats, rather we need candidates who ignite the base and build upon it with a growing and developing GOTV infrastructure… It’s the math, not so much the message….
JKC, you make good sense. In states with D primaries, the first question D voters ask themselves and each other is, “which one of these D candidates do I like the most?” And then, secondly, “whom do I think non-D voters would like the most? – so that the candidate I vote for could actually get elected” Most voters are prepared to compromise on their most pristine ideals. SD is different as not many D primaries and rising radical conserva-culture successfully intimidates moderate, thoughtful, passionate folks out of running for office.
We just need more moderate thoughtful passionate people to rise up, grow a pair, and stand up for what’s right. If you can’t find a leader, or a team, doing what you want to see done, then become that leader and build your own team. Unfortunately, people like that are ‘go getters’ who tend to look for surroundings with genuine opportunity – which would sort of lead people like that somewhere besides SD politics to make a lasting and authentic difference in this country or world.
Gosh darn how people are.
Cory–as I said, I just worked on radio ads in targeted districts (and someone else picked out the targets–probably the two Steves and Hauffe, but that’s just a guess). I do remember that the issues we raised were specific to the candidates (pro and con) and their districts–making it specific is almost always much more effective than raising general issues. And some of them certainly attacked the Republicans in the race–in a very fair way, of course!
Thanks, Drey! I think swinging the stick at some puffy Republicans is a vital part of the 2020 strategy.
Adam, we do need more moderate, thoughtful, passionate people to stand up. But at a deep level, they will have to shed their moderate natures. To counter the Republicans, Democrats who want to win will have to campaign like radicals, like rebels. They can’t whisper. They have to shout. They have to push one radical message: that South Dakota Republicans are really lying SOBs. Pick any Republican talking point, and its core, there’s a lie. There is no way to make that point moderately, but that point must be made to shake people out of their R-branded stupor.
Republicans have made Democrats ashamed to call themselves Democrats. We must reverse that. We must make Republicans ashamed of their party affiliation.