Now, that's a weak excuse.

In today's Argus Leader, Dave Kranz relates the weakest justification I think I've heard yet from the D's on leaving the Gubernatorial race uncontested:
Post-Volesky strategy

It didn’t take some Democrats in the state Capitol long to come up with a strategy for their party after Ron Volesky withdrew from the governor’s race.

Even though it is virtually unprecedented to leave a candidate uncontested, they say it would be Rounds’ worst nightmare to have no one run against him. They offer that he would not be able to get people to contribute to his war chest. He would not be able to point to another huge victory as evidence of his popularity. There would be no victory speeches. The governor simply would declare victory early and go back to governing for another four years.
Read all of this lame strategy here.

Okay, the only problem with this argument is that someone was using recreational drugs when they came up with it. #1, Governors have never, ever, had difficulty in finding people willing to donate to their causes. And it isn't going to happen anytime soon.

And #2, Sorry, but the Gov. would be able to point to another huge victory as evidence of his popularity. Unpopular governors have strong opponents. Popular ones have weak opponents. And in SD, really popular Governors apparently have no opponents.

Like it or not, it's safe to consider 100% as a mandate.


Chad said…
I don't know who's saying this, but it isn't any Democrat that I know of.

Let's face it. Rounds is very popular. Probably almost as popular as Representative Herseth.

Any way you look at it, 2006 is shaping up to be a boring year at the top of the ballot.
Anonymous said…
I agree with Chad. I haven’t heard this rumor or anything like it. Since Ron dropped out I have been contacted by two different potential candidates who were considering the race. Either would be great. This will be a contested race and I believe it will be closer then the Congressional contest.
Anonymous said…
It will be much closer. How close depends on how willing the press and the democratic candidate are in letting the people of South Dakota know just how incompetent and inbred the GOP administration is Pierre actually is.
Bob Newland said…
Anon 1 and Anon 2: You guys are funny. No matter who the Ds run, it will be a 70-30 matchup (if the Ds are lucky and get some of the "undecideds").
Bob Newland said…
How about a contest: "What Democrat could beat 15% in the upcoming election, and why?"
Anonymous said…
Bob is off in his analysis again. This race could be very close. You've got to remember that Rounds is only popular because no one (democrats, republicans or the press) has really evaluated his accomplishments nor have they looked deeply into how he governs (or doesn't govern).

If the democrats pick a moderate who is willing to expose the problem areas of this administration, this could easily be a horse race.

The governor has not endeared himself to his base. The base is not excited and certainly will not be if thid administration is exposed. Democrats may be enthused by Stephanie and national democratic themes--they could be hungry!

Don't count the democrats out. They just have to be smart about recruitment and campaigning to make this a contest.
Anonymous said…
Last anon, are we talking about the SD Democratic Party? If so, fuggidaboutit. You've got 3 big names and that is it. No party structure, no financing since Tom has gone away and no hope. How many constitutional offices will go unchallanged? When Healy looses you'll have nothing left. Half your legislators are more conservative than Rounds anyways, you are a complete non-factor. Merry Christmas.
Bob Newland said…
Yeah, that Stephanie. Now, there's sumpinna be enthused about, eh?
Anonymous said…
Rounds will never get near 100%, Dem or no Dem. Both the Constitution and Libertarian parties are likely to have viable candidates. What matters is if the League of (some) Women Voters, the media, and the "major" candidates themselves are honest, principled, and inclusive enough to allow them to be heard.
Anonymous said…
Which one of the "viable" Constitution or Libertarian Party candidates are Democrats going to vote for if there is no Dem in the race? I think Rounds will set a record - not 100% but close - if he has 2 opponents, one each from the Constitution & Libertarian Parties.

I think Chad has it right on this one - boring election year on the ballot toppers...
eddie said…
why IS Rounds popular?
Anonymous said…
Because no one has ever seriously questioned his policies?
Bob Newland said…
What policies?

Popular posts from this blog

Why should we be surprised?

That didn't take long

Save the state GOP from taking a step backwards!