Skip to comments.South Dakota Special Election Results (Live Thread)
Posted on 06/01/2004 5:27:06 PM PDT by presidentbowen
Here you go ya'll! If anyone has a better site to use, please put it on this thread. This is the best I could find. I love Free Republic! Go Diedrich!
I don't know if this one's better, but it's different:
TOTAL PERCENT PRECINCTS TOTAL
VOTES OF VOTE REPORTING PRECINCTS
(D) DEAN HOWARD 246 6 41 798
(D) KERRY JOHN 3201 82 41 798
(D) KUCINICH DENNIS 82 2 41 798
(D) LAROUCHE LYNDON 125 3 41 798
(D) UNCOMMITTED DELEGATES 233 6 41 798
U S HOUSE
(R) DIEDRICH LARRY 4825 46 40 798
(D) HERSETH STEPHANIE 5604 54 40 798
Herseth is kicking tail right now. Not a good sign for a conservative state like South Dakota!
This is sad, are there any other freepers taking interest in this race? We are getting beaten here...
But on the bright side, LaRouche is beating Kucinich.
(R) DIEDRICH LARRY 18452 47% 156 798
(D) HERSETH STEPHANIE 21112 53% 156 798
Herseth is very attractive and as we know, good looks count in elections. She is 33 years old. She gave Janklow a run for his money in 2002.
Looks close, 52-48, halfway through, right?
Yes, Diedrich needs to fill in the gap! This will be a humiliating loss.
476 out of 798 precincts:
(R) DIEDRICH LARRY 67344 49%
(D) HERSETH STEPHANIE 70613 51%
567 out of 798 precincts:
(R) DIEDRICH LARRY 83907 49%
(D) HERSETH STEPHANIE 88325 51%
DIEDRICH LARRY 111412 49%
HERSETH STEPHANIE 114843 51%
753 out of 798 precincts:
(R) DIEDRICH LARRY 115762 49%
(D) HERSETH STEPHANIE 118461 51%
Larry should have kept his mouth shut... his comments could have hurt his GOTV effort - all he needed was 2,700 votes.
758 out of 798 precincts:
(R) DIEDRICH LARRY 120585 50%
(D) HERSETH STEPHANIE 122683 50%
765 out of 798 precincts:
(R) DIEDRICH LARRY 121066 49%
(D) HERSETH STEPHANIE 124014 51%
Dead Indian vote just came in... it's over.
South Dakota "Republicans" have once again proven their
disloyalty to their party. Our edge in this state is large.
Yet in election after election, Democrats win statewide.
Real Republicans in South Dakota need to get through to these people, who are a disgrace to their entire party and
give South Dakota a bad name.
Tom Daschle must laugh his ass off every time a Dem wins
in this "Republican" state.
It ain't over yet.
That little carpetbagger, StepHillary, squeeked her way to six months in the House with a bare 1% of the vote (approximately 2,500). But the general election is coming up & Dietrich is still running for the seat.
It's disgusting she got there at all. But it will be great to see her butt booted out!
We'll see what happens in November. The voters of South Dakota have a terrible track record.
Thanks for the optimism.
Call it realism. I go by the track record and hard evidence, not rah-rah speculation.
Y'all in South Dakota have lots and lots of work to
do. Whatever you've done in the last few elections
hasn't been enough. Maybe it's the candidates' and
campaign staffs' fault more than the volunteers, but
someone isn't working in your unfortunate state,
and you have only a few months to figure it out.
It would be an absolute disgrace for a heavily Republican state to give us Tom Daschle for another six years.
He has done much to cripple Bush's domestic agenda.
Is this being communicated to S. Dak. Republicans
and independents? Or are our candidates just talking
about dams and soybeans?
There is no rah-rah speculation here. We have serious problems that we are working on. And we have tremendous opportunities we are trying to take advantage of.
John Thune was barely beat out through voter fraud in his 2002 Senate run. He's running a powerful campaign right now. Larry Diedrich started from nothing this year against an opponent who had been campaigning for years. He came up 30 points and almost took it. His campaign continues.
Both these candidates would have won if things had been run better. But they weren't. Some of us are trying to fix that. The opportunity to do so in November's general election is tremendous. That is when we try rid ourselves of the Daschle/Herseth stench.
You are welcome to help. But if you don't want to be part of SD's solution, then we have nothing more to talk about.
South Dakota is not a heavily Republican state, that is a myth that election results for the past few years have been able to substantiate. There have been entirely too many move ins from Califoria.
I doubt very much that large numbers of Californians
are moving to South Dakota. If they are, I doubt they are
Democrats or vote Democratic. Your problem is home-grown --
a welfare-state, entitlement mentality has taken hold,
and many otherwise "conservative" people vote for pork over principle. Also, some of these voters go by personality. In this day and age, with the very survival of our country at stake, both attitudes are inexcusable.
I appreciate the information about the poorly run campaigns and the determination to do better. I also understand that Diedrich started out far behind and made it very close. But my larger point stands. Judged by years of presidential, gubernatorial, and state legislative elections, South Dakota has many more Republicans than Democrats. Yet it
does not vote Republican for federal office. Your Senate and House races shouldn't even be close. Ultimately the problem lies with a certain slice of the electorate who should vote consistently Republican, but don't.
State patriotism is nice, but don't use it as an excuse
for years of political failure.
As for the inane demand that I shut up if I can't
contribute to the solution in South Dakota ...
Our obligation is to do what we can where we live,
not to fly halfway across the country. In addition,
I sent Thune a contribution several weeks ago.
If you won't listen to any advice that comes from
out of state, that's your problem, not mine. I'll
keep offering it for the benefit of those who do
want to read it.
I continue to wonder whether Thune is making an
ideological attack on Daschle, or just saying he'd
do a better job of "fighting for South Dakota."
(What about fighting for America?)
Can anyone answer this question? What is Thune
emphasizing in his campaign?
I'm not looking to blame anyone else for our problem. California's not exactly a good example of a Republican state. South Dakota at least elects Republican presidents consistantly. How about California?
Now, I'll agree that South Dakota's problem is partially homegrown, but I think you underestimate the impact national politics have on our state. It's easier to buy a seat in South Dakota than it is to buy one in, say, California and the DNC knows that, so they spend a lot
of money on Democratic campaigns here. Hometown farmers
can't compete well with that.
Now, we are trying as hard as we can to fix our problems.
If you have any suggestions for us, do let us know.
Meanwhile, fix your own state's problems. Or did you
want to be held accountable for everything Hollywood spews out?
Oh. By the way. I moved here from California sixteen years ago.
California recently did something quite extraordinary
toward "fixing its problems." If you don't remember,
we recalled our Democratic governor and replaced him
with a Republican -- not an all-out conservative,
to be sure, but at least a semi-fiscal conservative
who has done quite well so far. This was the first
successful recall of a governor, anywhere in the
United States, in some 80 years. In addition,
the two serious Republican candidates, Schwarzenegger
and McClintock got 62 percent of the vote between them
on the replacement ballot. This is simply extraordinary,
even with the advantage of a lousy Democratic candidate.
I was deeply involved in this recall campaign, even
before it became fashionable and while certain Republican
leaders were saying it's a bad idea.
Your reference to California fails on another count, as
well. Our Republican registration is only 35 to 36
percent. While it has improved very slightly, and
Democratic registration continues to sink (it's now
44-45 percent), "independents" in our state have trended
Democratic. While California Republicans have indeed done
a poor job of campaigning and grassroots organizing in
recent elections (until the recall, that is), we also have
less to work with than South Dakota has. With President
Bush getting the kind of margin he got in your state,
it is obvious that many people who based on their basic
beliefs SHOULD be voting Republican are not. California
has far more liberals than you have. I never said we do
a better job than South Dakota Republicans. I'm just saying that your state has a problem, just as California does.
Two more points:
I am not blaming any of the people who
posted on this thread. How would I know what you've done
or not done for the GOP in your state? For all I know,
all of you may be models of efficiency and hard work
and strategy. I am simply saying that there is a problem
with Republican voters in South Dakota, and that more work needs to be done. I doubt that any serious Republican activist would really disagree with this observation.
The fact that it comes from outside your state shouldn't
matter a damned bit.
Also, I have in fact offered a suggestion. I've suggested
that it might make sense to wage a campaign with a strong ideological element. Make it clear how liberal Daschle really is. My concern is that Thune might be focusing on
economic development and the like. If he is, he's playing the Democratic game and inviting voters to view the election by Democratic, not Republican standards. If
Thune shies away from issues like the Patriot Act, abortion, gay marriage, and judicial activism, he may not be doing himself, or you, a favor.
Oh, I remember. Instead of voting for the real conservative, your state elected a Kennedy Republican and the Kennedys all came out and stood smiling with him on stage.
See, our democrats are considered moderate democrats, but that's not enough for me. Neither is a liberal Republican.
Your registration and organization issues are your problems. Normally, I'd say all Republicans oughta help each other out and I might have some sympathy for
your state's plight or cut you a little slack, but apparently that's not hip these days.
You have more money. You have more people. If you don't have the percentage, well, that's where you've failed.
That we actually have Republicans who at least vote the right way in presidential elections says to me we're doing slightly better.
No one here was raving about your state's problems until you started shouting about ours. I wasn't seeing "You have problems just like us" comments from you. All I was seeing was a rather relentless attack on my state - But if that's the point you want to make, hey, no one is denying we've
got problems too.
It's very simple, "Sock." S.Dak. is one of the most
Republican states in the country, yet elects reliably
liberal Democrats to the Senate. California has not
been a strongly Republican state, in terms of voter
identification and most presidential results, since the 1930s.
We have also lost a significant part of our Republican
base, for three reasons that aren't the fault of those Republicans who remain: One -- older Republicans
are dying, as all old people do. Two -- they are not being
adequately replaced, in part because whites don't have
that many kids anymore, and in part because economic
and social trends in California have made it a less
attractive place for middle-class people. Many younger
Republicans or people who might vote Republican, and
quite a few older folks who are on our side, have
left the state in disgust. Three -- California, along
with several other states, has become Mexico's safety
net. These immigrants are growing in number and in political participation. They are Democrats.
I never attacked South Dakota as a whole. I attacked
a sizeable slice of your electorate who clearly have
Republican values, but still vote Democratic for the
Senate and House. I added that something must be done
to get through to these people more effectively. That
isn't an attack on South Dakota. Nor is a spirited
defense of my comments, or a spirited attack on your
small-minded defensiveness, an attack on South Dakota.
Why don't you worry a little more about your country
and little less about what you think someone is saying
about your state.
Well, you know, sir. If you really cared about the country and that was your motive behind attacking my state, you would be offering suggestions not slamming us and then telling us we were on our own. If you have something constructive to say, say it. But DakotaGator already said all that needs to be said in my opinion. See. We already knew we had problems. We admitted it and you kept bashing us.
But this is silly and I apologize. I shouldn't be screaming at another freeper.
I have made a suggestion, repeatedly, and no one on
this threat has addressed it, either pro or con.
Once again, it is this: Thune should use the wedge
issues, the hot-button right-versus-left issues,
more than I suspect he has.
If I'm wrong, either about the advisability of this
or about Thune's emphases in this campaign, someone
please tell me.
WHy is this? What is the problem? Ag subsidies? It is bizarre.
I don't know South Dakota. And any answer I might
give would bring down more wrath from certain energetic
South Dakota "state patriots." They have attacked me on
this thread for questioning the intelligence and political
maturity of a slice of their electorate. Who knows, perhaps
they identify with these folks more than with fellow conservatives.
But I do think your reference to "ag subsidies" is
on-target. Especially if the word "ag" isn't taken too
literally. It's a poor state and certain folks need figure
it needs all the help it can get. In addition, perhaps
certain people figure that anyone who grew up in S. Dak.
and professes to love the state must be a good guy? As a
native Californian, I have a hard time understanding
small-state psychology, but this is my guess.