Aug 5
Gallup: SD turning blue
By Denise Ross
Reliably red? Not any more, according to Gallup, which last year had South Dakota as “competitive.” Now, we’re blue. (I swear it’s true.)
There’s nary a red state left, with our neighbor Wyoming holding fast. After polling from January-June, Gallup now lists South Dakota as “Leans Democratic,” one step away from full-on blueness.
While one cannot discern this from examining our state Legislature and Governor, it does add a great dinner party topic as we head into 2010. Who knows, maybe even John Thune will have a contest.
Says Gallup:
Only four states show a sizeable Republican advantage in party identification, the same number as in 2008. That compares to 29 states plus the District of Columbia with sizeable Democratic advantages, also unchanged from last year.
So much for that permanent Republican majority? For now, at least. I mean, look at the South. Even 4 of the top 10 Republican states show a dead heat or a slight advantage for Democrats. (See that chart and the full report here.) As Hunter S. Thompson would say, “My God, man.”
For South Dakota, Gallup lists 46 % of registered voters as either all-out Democrats or independents who lean Democratic, while 40 % are all-out Republican or lean that way.
The Democratic Party continues to hold a solid advantage in party identification in most states and in the nation as a whole. … The deck is clearly stacked in the Democratic Party’s favor for now.
Even in South Dakota, I guess.
10 Comments so far
Leave a Reply
I think what we’re seeing here is due to Democrat voters–as usual–continuing to drink the poison Koolaid their party puts out. Average Republicans, however, have been pretty disgusted with their party for several years now, and frankly feel very little party loyalty. So in the absence of strong loyalty on the Right side of the house, and continued liberal drunkenness on the Left side of the house, South Dakota looks “blue.”
The Republican Party should take notice, pull their heads out of whatever dark place they’ve stuck them for several years, and start acting like Republicans instead of “Democrat Lite.”
Unfortunately, SD’s not a blue state & won’t be in the midterm election of 2010. Opportunities for Democratic gains in the legislature are hard to find. Where specifically would Dems gain any legislative seats? Aside from the possibilities in the governor’s race, what other statewide offices do the Dems stand to pick up? Will Dems even run credible challengers for the statewide offices?
Though alot can change between now and November 2010, Dems need to build some buzz for non-federal candidates and hope for some breaks to go their way. There are issues if Dems can capitalize.
My favorite is Indiana. Indiana? Solidly Democratic, really?
Look at it this way: come 2012, the GOP has to win all solidly Republican states, the lone lean-Republican state, all competitive states, all lean-Democratic states AND THEN they still have to take a few solidly Democratic states. ‘Difficult’ doesn’t even begin to describe it.
Bob: opposing everything the Democrats do doesn’t make you Democrat-lite. Or what, the fact that 2 Republicans voted for the stimulus rather than 0 means they’re Democrat-lite?
Get real, Republicans could not be more opposed to the Democrats. They’ve even began attacking Clinton for going to North Korea to get those journalists.
How can anyone possibly be in favor of a party that wants people to snitch on other people’s e-mails to the White House (which BTW is completely illegal, unethical, and honestly scary; reminds me of a certain European country prior to and during WWII), or support a person like Pelosi who claimed that people simply voicing their opinions at town halls are nazis or astroturf or highly funded or well-dressed? This is so beneath any person of her position that it borders on schizophrenic. We are in danger of losing our freedom of speech when being falsely labeled as she is doing and when the White House itself is promoting illegal “snitching.”
This probably a more accurate analysis,http://cookpolitical.com/
Katzer is one Krazy Kat.
Asking for examples of ludicrous attack e-mails and propaganda is not asking for “snitching” unless the e-mails and other data is criminal…which I assume it is not even if grossly wrong, misleading, deceptive, absent any valid information, based on false premises, etc. etc.
While SD Republicans regularly attack Democrats for being disconnected from South Dakota, when a Democrat requests better connections and communications and provides an option for it, they go stark-raving nuts.
Sorry, Wiken, asking one person to snitch on another and report emails to the White House is not better communications regardless of how you want to spin it. It is unethical, plain and simple.
If the Dems want better communication and connections with their constituents in SD, then have some public meetings and meet us face to face. That is how democracy works. That is your responsibility.
And another example bordering on criminal was the “agreement” that was on car dealers logging onto the cars.com web site when doing a cash for clunker deal. This stated that their computer was then property of the fed gov’t and that that all their information could be shared with anyone, foreign or domestic. That was taken down when exposed. That truly is frightening to people who value the principles this nation was founded on.
The ratio of Dimocrats to Republicrats may be rising, but it’s not because of an increase in the number of Dims. As the (former) Republican party moves left, more conservatives are registering with other, small parties or as independents. The party of Lincoln is committing slow suicide, trying to become “Democrat Light”.
It is possible to copy the fallacious text of a message and e-mail that text without identifying the actual sender or in most cases the forwarders who get the propaganda from one or two sources of such dribble across the country.
If the text of e-mails, etc being sent aren’t corrupt or fallacious, there is no “snitching” involved. Senders of obvious humbug are sending a message about themselves to all their recipients just as are defenders of the fraudulent propaganda.
Perhaps Obama will use the information to generate support for putting more money into mental health since there may be some serious problems exposed in the attack messages and in being willing to believe them.