Posted on 11/06/2002 9:07:58 AM PST by KeatsforFirstDog
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. - Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson won re-election over Republican Rep. John Thune by a tiny margin in the unofficial tally Wednesday, and a recount was expected.
With all 844 precincts reporting, Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson had 167,481 votes, or 50 percent, to Republican Rep. John Thune's 166,954 votes, or 49 percent. Libertarian candidate Kurt Evans, who pulled out of the race nearly three weeks ago, had 3,071 votes, or 1 percent.
The race, considered a surrogate battle between President Bush and Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, remained too close to call until after 9 a.m. Wednesday.
The final margin was within the limit of 0.25 percent that gives the loser the right to a recount.
Thune campaign officials said Wednesday morning they were discussing a recount. Thune was not immediately available for comment.
"Every vote was counted, every vote was counted correctly," Johnson told supporters at a rally late Wednesday morning.
The final vote tally brings an end to "a long, tumultuous political campaign," Johnson said.
"The system works, and I think we can be proud of that."
As for a recount, "We'll deal with those issues when they come," Johnson said.
Secretary of State Joyce Hazeltine and Attorney General Mark Barnett did a good job overseeing the election, the senator said. "Everything that was done was in compliance with what the attorney general was telling us to do."
The election marked the end of a yearlong battle that started when the president recruited Thune, a three-term House member, to challenge Johnson, a first-term senator. Thune had been set to run for governor.
Bush visited South Dakota four times this year, twice in the campaign's last week, to boost Thune's chances. Negative television ads started more than a year before Election Day and flooded the airwaves for most of the campaign.
The race remained close throughout the unofficial vote count Tuesday night and early Wednesday morning. Neither candidate addressed his party's election night rally because the contest was too close to call.
Before Thune went home for a few hours sleep Wednesday morning, he said he expected his lead to hold up as the remaining precincts were tallied. "I guess we all knew it was going to be close."
Johnson, 55, was elected to the U.S. House in 1986 and served five terms. He took on incumbent Republican Larry Pressler in the 1996 U.S. Senate race and won.
He also has experience as a county prosecutor. In 1978, when he was 31, Johnson was elected to the first of two terms in the South Dakota House. Later, he was elected to two consecutive terms in the state Senate.
He and his wife, Barbara, keep a home in Vermillion. They have three children.
Thune, 41, grew up Murdo. He also lived in Pierre and moved his family to Sioux Falls after his election to the House in 1996.
Thune worked as an aide to Republican U.S. Sen. Jim Abdnor in the Senate and when Abdnor headed the U.S. Small Business Administration.
He returned to South Dakota in 1989 and worked as executive director of the state Republican Party, director of the state Railroad Division and executive director of the South Dakota Municipal League.
Thune was re-elected to the House in 1998 and 2000. He and his wife, Kimberley, have two children.
How many of those votes counted for you were illegal Mr. Johnson? I guess we'll find out won't we?
They might as well have voted for the Democrats.
For example ... Thanks to the Senate being in Dem control, Dashle passed a HUGE Farm Bill that cost a lot more than GOP alternative would have ... Republicans signed on so as not to lose in states like ... South Dakota, which we may lost anyway thanks to more Libertarian votes ... so thanks to Libertarian voters, we have BIGGER GOVERNMENT!
Go figure.
More importantly, why was his name still on the ballot if he pulled out of the race weeks ago? Why didn't the republicans take it to court. After all, the existing election doesn't seem to mean anything anymore with regards to polling hours, substitute cannidates and such, so even if it was "Too late" under existing law to remove his name, could it not be argued that those who voted for the non-existant cannidate were denied their right to vote for an active cannidate and thus denied equal protection. It worked in NJ and Arkansas, so why not SD? (Well SD judges can probably read the law, probably do read it, and might even understand it, something that seems problematic in other places)
You mean to increase his chances of winning?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.