Aug 8
CQ on SD: A red and blue state
By Denise Ross
Congressional Quarterly weighed in this week on its predictions for South Dakota in November.
John McCain can count reliably on South Dakota. The state has gone Republican in the last 10 presidential elections. … few expect the Barack Obama campaign to put up much of a fight. “They’ll run ads, they’ll maintain an office, he may even visit the state briefly. But I would guess it’s not a high priority simply because he’s got other states that he’s probably more concerned about,” said Brent Lerseth, a professor of political science at Augustana College in Sioux Falls. …
South Dakota is far from entirely unfriendly to Democrats. The state’s senior senator, Tim Johnson , who was once viewed as a prime GOP target … is now an overwhelming favorite for a third term this fall. The state’s sole House member, Democrat Stephanie Herseth Sandlin , also has an easy re-election race.
And for the uber-geeks like myself, check out this nice set of tables that gives a great overview of our recent political history. Remember Kurt Evans from 2002? I’d call him the Ralph Nader of South Dakota, except Al Gore didn’t return in the next election cycle to claim an even bigger victory. So Evans is in some other category all his own.
3 Comments so far
Leave a Reply
the more interesting race in SD is Sen Steve Jarding-Johnson v Joel Dykstra. Sen Steve Jarding-Johnson is the one debating and speaking for us, about our senate seat in Washington. When are you press people going to stop the facade and make the person who really in our Senator, let us know where he stands on the issues. The historical record of the former senator isn’t what we are voting for. It is clear now that we won’t be allowed to hear the former senator speak out again, now it’s just Sen Steve Jarding-Johnson - when are you goign to come that travesty?
Uhhh, I refer you to two previous posts on this topic, here and here. Also I would note that “us press people” have no more authority over what Tim Johnson and Steve Jarding do than do you, Lee. We can beat our chests and wring our hands and that’s about it. I did notice a fair amount of that over the weekend. Feel free to submit lengthier pieces here to post as their own item. It is worthy of more debate, if you will. I expect we’ll get that. But I do believe your blame is misplaced. -Denise
Denise, reporters are by nature supposed to report, chase stories, get in people’s faces about issues etc. Sometimes that is what is needed in order to get the truth out. I do think that the newspapers are finally starting to question Johnson’s ability.
But I also feel, as does the poster above, that since many voters still depend on headlines or story lines in newspapers and on TV stories that you reporters should feel free to get more “in the face” of Johnson and Jarding and the rest of his campaign. If we rely on the Johnson campaign itself, we will never know the truth. And we voters have a right to know. We have a responsibility to know. And Johnson and his staff have a responsibility to show us.
The media and indeed the voters of SD have been very respectful of Johnson and his difficulties, but there comes a point where in order to make an informed vote, which is my and your right, we need to know exactly how well Johnson can perform, and we need to know from Johnson himself (not “Senator” Jarding) what his positions are at this point in time.
Please help us.
elie - I don’t disagree with your point. However, short of kidnapping the senator, we really don’t have any power over the Johnson campaign. Our embarrassing little secret, I guess. You might note a growing chorus of media editorials and letters to the editor criticizing Johnson’s decision to not debate. I see not debating as a strategic mistake for the campaign and have said so repeatedly. We can all keep repeating ourselves, but I don’t know exactly what “getting in someone’s face” really means or what the various interpretations of that action would accomplish - aside from ratcheting up animosity between a media outlet and the campaign. South Dakota’s collective media will continue to cover Johnson at events and in his official duty. I expect we’ll witness a bit of theater over the no-debate situation - an empty chair, an empty microphone, what not. And I expect Johnson will pay a price amongst voters - who are his bosses, after all. But I do remain baffled at those who think the media has some magic lever it might pull to reprimand the senator like a naughty child and correct his course. All we got is ink and paper. -Denise
I would advise all the media outlets to go to each and every one of Johnson’s 19 city “stops,” get interviews with him, get pictures of him actually engaging with any and all voters, report how many people attended, whether the event was actually open to any and all constituents. We have seen a few pics of Johnson and 5, 6, or so people around him. Get video footage of him. Take down the screen between Johnson and his constituents that has been put up ever since his illness and has been protected vociferously by Jarding et al. You can do it, and the voters would thank you. His campaign, of course, won’t, but that is not the issue here. The issue here is MY right to make an informed choice. For all Johnson know, I might actually vote for him if I thought he could do the job, and it would behoove him to give me that chance!
I can’t argue with that, especially the part about whether events are open to all comers or tightly controlled and scripted. We might all take note that often the general public hears about these things only after they’ve occured. Attendees get invitations, the media get “advisories,” and after it’s all over it shows up in the news. Nothing unique to this year’s Johnson campaign, just an old method of doing business and one that ought to be noted when it takes place. -Denise