« November 7, 2004 - November 13, 2004 | Main | November 21, 2004 - November 27, 2004 »

November 20, 2004

Daschle's Farewell

story.daschle2.ap.jpg

Sen.Tom Daschle, right, shakes hands with doorman German Vasquez as he leaves the Senate.

From the CNN report:

Daschle didn't address his defeat in his 20-minute farewell address, but he offered a litany of accomplishments made during his years on Congress on behalf of South Dakota and its citizens, as well as reminiscing fondly about his trademark annual car trips through each of the state's 66 counties.

He also told his colleagues that he was "proud of those moments when we found common ground."

Dave Kranz of the Argus Leader has this reportThe New York Times is the only paper I can find which is noting what Lautenberg said:

In the Senate, the Democratic leader, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, who lost his re-election bid, delivered a poignant farewell speech that brought him a standing ovation.

"It's had its challenges, its triumphs, its disappointments," Mr. Daschle said of his 26-year career in Congress, which included a decade as the Democratic leader. "But everything was worth doing."

Mr. Daschle is the first Senate party leader in more than half a century to lose a re-election campaign. His emotional talk, in which he also urged his colleagues to find "common ground," was attended by nearly all of the Senate's Democrats, who gathered him in their arms and hugged him afterward.

But only a few Republicans showed up, and Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, who broke with Senate tradition to campaign against Mr. Daschle in his home state, South Dakota, did not appear until after Mr. Daschle finished speaking. The scant Republican showing provoked Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, to speak out. "I don't know why, why in the closing days, some element of comity, some element of grace, some element of respect for a human being, could not have gotten some of our friends out of their offices," Mr. Lautenberg said.

November 19, 2004

Quote of the Day

"We had...five drunks or six drunks when I came here. There's nobody drunk in the United States Senate. We don't have time to be drunk."
          --Ernest Hollings, retiring after 38 years in the U.S. Senate

More Factors From The Mailbag

I just received a very thorough analysis of the election from a South Dakota high school history teacher which was great.  Keep the thoughts coming.  Also, here's another factor I don't think anyone has mentioned before from yet another reader:

Another factor that I feel was significant in the Daschle defeat was the Hutterite vote.  I helped to register the people from our colony (most of whom had never voted before), and I know they voted for Bush/Thune/Diedrich.  I also heard that there were several other colonies who allowed their people to vote for the first time.

For the uninitiated, there are number of communal colonies of German-speaking (at least until recent years) Hutterite farmers in South Dakota.

Farewell

Here's an AP story on Daschle's farewell.  It sounds like it was quite nice.  On the other hand, I'm getting emails from people saying they saw it on C-Span and Senators Dayton (D-MN) and Lautenberg (D-NJ) were getting rather nasty.  Please email if you have a transcript.

National Journal: during election, "a 'siege mentality' took over" Argus Leader

Sorry for the slow posting, but I've been working on the book.  Anyway, apparently Senator Daschle gave/is giving is final goodbye on the Senate floor today, so watch for that.  Also, I hope you have had a chance to read through the 26 factors that helped determine the final outcome of the Senate race (I'm looking for more, so keep sending in your thoughts).  Number (16) relates to the Dakota blogs, which are featured in a lengthy story in today's National Journal (subscription only) entitled "Bloggers Targeted Daschle and the Press," which discusses how "an unprecedented assault" was "launched" on the Argus Leader.   Here are some excerpts:

South Dakota Republicans opened a new and potentially powerful front in the war over public opinion during their successful bid to oust Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle in the November 2 election. Not only did they orchestrate a highly effective, Internet-based campaign against Daschle, but they also targeted the state's largest newspaper and primary news source, the Sioux Falls Argus Leader.

***

The effort, which could test the limits of federal campaign finance regulation of Internet activities, played a crucial role in shaping the news coverage of the race. Commenting on the bloggers, Argus Leader Assistant Managing Editor Patrick Lalley said, "I don't think there's any way to say they didn't" affect the paper's coverage of the election.

Well, that's an interesting and brave concession from Lalley.  The NJ doesn't review the blog criticism of Lalley, but oh well.  He deserves credit for making a difficult admission.  The first sentence, however, seems like some kind of veiled threat about the FEC shutting down political blogs, which is an absurd idea.  But that would be another wonderful coda to this race--Daschle and his team of eve-of-election-lawsuit-filing lawyers riding in not to prevent any GOP poll watchers from watching the polls on election day, but trying, this time, to prevent websites from criticizing the Argus Leader that has been so kind to Daschle over the years.  While the whole idea is laughable, it's an interesting glimpse into the totalitarian mind of someone--not sure who, exactly, because the article doesn't say--who thinks it's a good thing to try and shut down political websites.  Here's more:

South Dakota Republicans have long chafed at the Argus Leader's political coverage, complaining among themselves that the paper has too liberal a slant for an outlet covering politics in a heavily conservative state. Their anger was magnified by the fact that the newspaper is the proverbial 800-pound gorilla in South Dakota's media room; virtually all of the state's other, smaller newspapers and television outlets essentially follow the paper's lead.

Almost every election cycle in South Dakota over the past two and a half decades has spawned its own media-bias complaints, including charges during the 1990 Senate race that led to a spate of stories, including items in the The New York Times and Roll Call, questioning the Argus Leader's objectivity.

Yeah, you'd think the Argus would do something to address this chronic criticism.  But Beck fiddles while a Gannett monopoly-market cash cow burns.  If all the people who say they have cancelled their subscriptions actually have then that can't make Beck's Gannett overlords happy.  Anyway, here comes--at long last--an important concession from Dave Kranz:

But then, this past spring, Van Beek unearthed a series of memos from the 1970s that, according to Van Beek and Gannon, showed that Kranz had consulted on press strategy with aides to former Rep. James Abourezk, D-S.D. In the memos, aides refer to Kranz as a "good Democrat" whom Abourezk's office should work with.

The publication of the memos, as well as growing attention to the Daschle-Thune race by national bloggers and conservative media outlets, prompted an angry response from Argus Leader Executive Editor Randell Beck. On a radio call-in show, Beck defended Kranz, called the memos "crap," and accused the bloggers of being part of an organized right-wing effort looking to damage the newspaper.

Kranz, who declined to talk during the race about the blogger attacks, acknowledged in an interview that he has known Daschle for many years. "I'm not going to sit here and say that some of the connects on me didn't have some truth to them," Kranz said of the blog postings. "But a lot of them didn't."

Kranz also said he was approached during the campaign by some state Republican officials who felt he was being attacked unfairly. He says he rejected an offer from these GOP officials to try to quiet down the bloggers. Although he refuted many of the accusations against him, Kranz said it would be inappropriate for a reporter to try to silence a critic. "That is what our job is all about -- protecting freedom of speech," Kranz said.

Um, well, Mr. Kranz, why, pray tell, DIDN'T YOU SAY SO??  If's there's "some truth" to the blog criticism, why wasn't that disclosed to all your readers??  "GOP officials," eh?  Count me as skeptical.  Let's just say that the emails roll into this site from GOP "officials" who love every bit of criticism of the Argus on the blog.  Kranz and the Argus have burned a lot of people over the years and sometimes I get the feeling that they all read the blog.  They want justice, after lo these many years.  The article also says that Kranz "refuted many of the accusations against him."  Oh really?  When was that exactly?  Let's hear the defense.  And let's hear a response to actual criticisms made and the documents uncovered.  Let's put this thing to rest.  Why were Democratic operatives and staffer Tom Daschle saying in Abourezk office memos in the 1970s that Kranz is a "good Democrat" and will do some digging and reporting to help The Cause?  Why would they say that, exactly?  And what about the other memos?  By the way, I thank my lucky stars that Kranz did not set out to "silence" me and fought for my "freedom of speech."  Whew!  While this whole maudlin and dramatic response will just keep on giving in the fresh material department, it does get better.  The NJ was forced to rely on an "Argus Leader source," which I'd bet the farm is executive editor Randell Beck:

"What it came down to was a disinformation campaign waged by the Republican Party in concert with Dick Wadhams," charged an Argus Leader source, who asked not to be identified. "The strategy seemed to be to use the Internet to disseminate the message and manipulate public perception under the guise of some sort of public groundswell, and then affirm the message in debates and other public pronouncements."

Argus Leader reporters said the pressure from the blogs increased until a "siege mentality" took over at the paper, according to one source. Complaints flooded the paper's office, and anti-Argus Leader pieces became a regular feature of the letters-to-the-editor section.

How about answering the specific criticism?  The blogs have asked for that all along.  But what do we get?  It was a "disinformation campaign."  Well, that's helpful.  What was WRONG in the criticism?  What was misinformed?  And why, when making such a sweeping charge, are you afraid to do so publicly?  What's with the demand for anonymity?  This, from a newspaper constantly preaching about "openness," "accountability," and the "public's need to know."  It sounds like a statement from someone who has said one too many foolish things publicly and not liked the result.  And it sounds like someone who refuses to admit it's possible for the Argus Leader to make any mistakes.  It sounds like someone who might just make up something about what the Argus had "covered" and then refuse to issue a correction.  It sounds like somone, like Randell Beck, who would say that criticism of the Argus was "crap" and driven by a "violent" internet "cabal" of "yahoos" and "jokers," who are full of "hatred" and "vitriol" and lacked "guts" because they hid "behind their computer screens" and wouldn't face him "man to man."  But hey, I'm just guessing.  By the way, Beck's line about people "hiding behind their computer screens" is all-of-sudden doubly amusing.   

The story ends by noting that the Argus felt shamed into finally writing a story about Daschle's homestead exemptions because of the bloggers and notes the "key role" of the bloggers. 

Then, when TalonNews ran stories on Sen. Daschle's decision to claim a special tax credit on his home in Washington, the Argus Leader decided it had to write its own story, too. Because the tax credit applies only to a primary residence, it fit perfectly with the "out-of-touch" theme that dominated bloggers' criticism of Daschle. Earlier Argus Leader stories had mentioned the issue [edit: they didn't mention the homestead exemptions certainly, so I'm sure what this sentence refers to--Roll Call and Talon and Bob Novak had reported it earlier, however]. Said an Argus Leader source, "I didn't think where he lived deserved its own headline, but I also don't think we ignored it." Still, the TalonNews piece "forced our hand. I can't deny that," the source said.

Although no one believes that the Argus Leader flap was the deciding factor in the race, the state's bloggers and media sources both said the campaign against the newspaper played a key role in the GOP's message-control effort to persuade voters to elect Thune over Daschle.

The piece also notes that some bloggers, including me, were Thune consultants.  Fair enough.  But that's not the point really.  The point is the complete unwillingness to answer the specific criticism, which the Argus still hasn't done.  It's worth noting that the editor's radio appearances soon stopped after the criticism and the Argus "blog" flopped in about a month.  The editors were supposed to answer reader comments and criticisms about political coverage but they soon decided that actually trying to come up with a response to legitimate criticism was a difficult task.  So they didn't respond at all.  The reporters at the Rapid City Journal, on the other, hand are happy to answer criticisms and offer commentary and the RCJ blog.  You know, "openness" and "transparency."  The Argus hunkered down, however.  And that speaks volumes about the legitimacy of the blogger criticism. 

And note this from SDP--the NJ text is first, followed by SDP's comments in italics:

As the election entered the homestretch, Thune was clearly making inroads with the help of his campaign's relentless attacks on Daschle's ties to official Washington. The blogs and conservative pundits took Daschle to task over his wife's lobbying activities in the House, and they accused the Argus Leader of ignoring the story -- despite the fact that the newspaper's Washington reporter, Mike Madden, had written a lengthy front-page piece months earlier on Linda Daschle, a lobbyist in Washington with the firm Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz. Still, the Argus Leader published a second story on Linda Daschle -- a story that, sources say, was a result of the bloggers' criticisms.  [The chronology here is wrong.  The blogs did not accuse the AL of ignoring all of Linda Daschle's lobbying activities after Madden's report in June of 2003.  The blogs did consistently criticize the AL for consistently burying a report that Linda Daschle had lobbied on behalf of Schering-Plough, while Kranz falsely implied that John Thune lobbied for pharmaceutical companies in one of his columns.  In a telling example of the AL's pro-Daschle bias, the AL published a Los Angeles Times report on relatives of lawmakers being lobbyists as a companion piece with Madden's report on Linda Daschle.  The AL's editors actually changed the text of the LAT story to make it less damaging for Daschle.  Furthermore, the AL needed no prompting to publish two front page stories about Thune being a lobbyist, and in the waning days of the campaign, Daschle relentlessly attacked Thune for "getting rich" from lobbying, and falsely implying that Thune lobbied for pharmaceutical companies.-ed] 

November 18, 2004

Senator Dole Hits Daschle on Legacy of Obstruction

From today's Washington Post:

"Led by Minority Leader Daschle, these recent years a number of important issues for America have been stymied -- certainly a comprehensive energy policy, asbestos litigation reform, medical liability reform, class-action reform, welfare reform, the nominations, confirmations of many important judicial positions," Dole said.

Asked whether her remarks were in keeping with the spirit of civility, she said: "I'm just stating the facts of where we've been in terms of a number of important issues that have been stalled."

Daschle's spokesman, Todd Webster, called the comments "shameful and classless" and said they mischaracterized Daschle's position on energy legislation, which he strongly supported. For much of the past year, the legislation was blocked by internal Republican disagreements over liability protections for makers of a widely used fuel additive.

Well, that's simply not true.  The Republicans DROPPED those MTBE requirements that Mr. Webster refers to and the Senate STILL blocked the energy/ethanol bill. See "The Ethanol Moment" for all the details. 

Johnson

Senator Tim Johnson is on the Senate floor right now talking about Senator Daschle's career.  UPDATE: President Bush just spoke at the dedication of the Clinton Library.  Now Bono is singing.  Ain't C-Span great!  UPDATE II:  Now he's singing one of the greatest songs in the history of rock-n-roll: "Bloody Sunday."  If you've never been to Derry, you need to go.

How Thune Won: 26 Factors

Previously, I listed 18 different factors that were important in the outcome of this Senate race.  I've re-listed them below with additional elaboration and more links and I've added 8 more factors to be considered: 

(1)  POPULISM:  We're still a populist state in many respects, i.e. we question cultural and economic elites and their lifestyles.  Daschle's mansion and Jaguar hurt him in this respect, as did the fact that he was the biggest recipient of Hollywood money this cycle.  Also, to the extent you subscribe to the "too big for his britches" theory, that is essentially a populist throw-the-bums-out sentiment.

(2)  DASCHLE's ADS:  Forget about the misleading nature of some (think of Daschle's COOL ad here, which was completely untrue) for a moment and just think about their quality.  They weren't great.  And that hunting ad was simply terrible.  Hunters, the target audience, thought Daschle looked ridiculous.  And it's amazing how LONG the Daschle campaign ran the ad.  The ad seemed to reinforce the "phony" charge (as the comments to the Argus/KELO Mason-Dixon poll indicated). 

(3)  THE POLITICS OF AVOIDANCE:  In any battle, it's nice to have allies.  And Thune could rely on Bush, talk radio, the internet, Guliani, Mrs. Dole, and others, or at least not have to avoid them.  But Daschle was basically alone.  He wasn't playing up his connections to Kerry, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, and Daily Kos, four defining figures in the Democratic establishment this year.  He had to avoid them, which is hard to do as the titular head of the party.  Who Daschle did or didn't hug also fits in this category.  "Huggate I" and "Huggate II" involved Daschle's denial that he hugged Michael Moore and Daschle's ad of him hugging President Bush, his chief nemesis in recent years. 

(4)  CLOUT:  This was Daschle's only argument.  And it wasn't that compelling, especially when he's in the minority in a Republican town.  But let's just say Daschle was no Karl Mundt or Francis Case, who could point to two interstate highways, a massive dam system, and other big projects.  When Daschle ran an ad saying he got some money for the Brandon library, it almost made him seem smaller or less consequential.  And if Daschle was so powerful, where's the ethanol bill, the neutrino lab, etc...  Also, remember that Daschle ended up in being criticized by the Mitchell Daily Republic last spring when one of his ads made it seem that Mitchel Vo-Tech was promoting him when he actually voted against a final bill that helped them.  Also, Daschle's claim that he was instrumental in the state's distance education program also blew up on him when 50-some state legislators said the state had a lot more to do with the program than Daschle ever did. 

(5)  DEBATES:  Thune did extremely well, it seemed to me.  And Daschle had to play defense.  And he looked weak always trying to find a reason why he couldn't debate.  But more than anything, it confirmed that Thune was a very strong candidate with a command of all the issues.  Note Rapid City Journal reporter Kevin Woster's comments on the RCJ blog:

Thune really emerged as a tough candidate in the debates. He did better than I expected, starting with the first debate under the big tent at Mitchell. And he more than held his own with Daschle facing questions by Tim Russert.

I think you could argue that Thune really became senatorial in those debates. They shaped him for voters in ways the millions spent in advertising couldn’t.

(6) ABORTION: Despite what Denise Ross might say about the Daschle campaign's failure to "manage" this issue better for the candidate, there's simply no avoiding the NARAL and Emily's List work that Daschle did, especially when the "In His Own Words" ad featured Daschle going on about choice being "sacred ground."  Remember that last winter the legislature voted to ban abortion in the state.  As other emailers have noted, Daschle's refusal to answer a reporter's question about whether he was pro-choice then elevated the issue beyond the confines of his position on abortion to one about his duplicity on the issue, confirming the line of criticism about him saying one thing in DC and another in SD.

(7)  DASCHLE'S BASE:  Some of the independent polls showed Thune winning as much as 18% of the Democratic vote (while it was probably less than 18%, Daschle simply couldn't afford to lose Democratic votes).  Some of this erosion probably has to do with cultural issues, one imagines.  But one also wonders if some of Daschle's traditional voters stayed home because of his hugging-Bush ads.  Let's face it, one thing many base Democrats don't like is President Bush. 

(8) DASCHLE REPUBLICANS:  Johnson won 20% of Republicans in 2002, but Daschle only won 18% (according to the only exit poll that I've seen on the race).  If you do the math, that means the Republicans voting for the Democrat declined from 40,000 down to 36,000.  Also, after the accident Daschle either wouldn't or couldn't rely much on his relationship with Governor Janklow.

(9) HISTORY:  More generally, one could say that history caught up with Daschle.  The abortion issue is the perfect example here--he told ministers in 1986 it was "murder" but now he's on the NARAL/Emily's List team.  If one looks back at 1986, Daschle was pro-life, anti-gun control, anti-income tax increase, and pro-balanced budget amendment.  He changed on all these issues in 18 years.  His old history came back to haunt him.  The chickens came home. 

(10)  EAST RIVER RURAL COUNTIES:  If you look at the numbers East River, Thune won some counties he didn't in 2002 and cut his losses in a large number of small rural counties.  In my home county of Lake, Thune's vote went up from 41% to 44%.  In neighboring Moody, his vote went from 38% to 41%.  And on down the line.  He also lost Minnehaha County by 1,000 votes less than he did in 2002.  He actually won Codington and McCook, which he lost in 2002.  All the reasons listed above could account for the better showing in these counties.  I visited with an editor in McCook recently who he thought the "It's time," "Daschle is out of touch," and moral issues helped Thune in that county. 

(11) THE CORN CROP:  My relatives and friends who farm in Lake and McCook counties say they will probably have their best corn crop ever this year.  My research into McGovern's first win in 1956 and Daschle's first Senate run in 1986 indicate that Corn Matters, i.e. when the farm economy is shaky it helps Democrats. 

(12) FUNDAMENTALS:  Daschle said on NPR a couple of years ago that he was a "dedicated liberal" or something like that (something he never said when he first ran for Congress) but he said in his book that most South Dakotans are conservative.  Well, I think he was right on both counts.  Those two warring facts hurt him. 

(13)  LAWSUIT:  The filing of Daschle v. Thune on the eve of the election based on the weak testimony of one Deaniac about such matters as aggressive "eye-rolling" did not impress many South Dakotans.  Could it have been decisive to 500 or 1,000 fence-sitters?  Perhaps.  It was all over talk radio the next day. 

(14)  GUNS:  This is related to Daschle's ridiculous hunting ad, but deserves additional emphasis.  Daschle got an "F" from the NRA while his fellow Democrat Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth had their endorsement.  That contrast hurt, especially when the NRA reminded voters in the final weeks with ads about the "F."  They also noted how, in the past, Daschle said he opposed all gun control.  So this factor relates to Daschle's liberal votes in recent years, the "gone Washington" argument, the "say anything necessary" to win sentiment, and, once again, the chickens. 

(15)  HERSETH:  As noted above, she didn't help Daschle.  In addition to guns, she supported the flag burning amendment and the gay marriage amendment, both of which Daschle opposed, creating a contrast that didn't help Daschle (Senator Johnson also supported the flag amendment and opposed some gun control measures that Daschle voted for).  There was also a poll last summer showing that 25% of voters were also less likely to vote for Daschle because the SD delegation was all Democratic. 

(15)  INDIAN VOTE:  While Daschle got 1,000 more votes in Shannon County, home to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, than Johnson did in 2002, Thune more than doubled his vote from 2002, from 248 to 564.  His 6 trips to Pine Ridge helped, as his vote went from 8% in 2002 to 13% in 2004.  Thune's vote in Todd County, home of Rosebud Indian Reservation, went from 19% in 2002 to 21% in 2004.  While Daschle won more raw votes than 2002, Thune showed some respectable gains percentage-wise.  Noting the extra votes Thune won, the AP said "If Thune had received those 628 extra votes two years ago, he already would be a senator. Johnson defeated him by 524 votes statewide."  There was another story from the AP about Daschle's efforts on election day in Pine Ridge, where he was hoping for 60% turnout with the help of radio broadcasts from Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Jesse Jackson, what one observer called a "Democratic takeover" of the airwaves.  Actual turnout was 57%.  That Daschle did not call on Kennedy, Clinton, and Jackson until election day highlights the Politics of Avoidance, i.e. Daschle didn't trumpet their support until it was too late for the press to make the connection.

A commentator on the Rapid City Journal blog also noted the following about Thune and the Indian vote:

Add this to the list: the “jump shot factor.” Indians have historically supported Thune at a greater margin than other Republicans running for office in Indian country. In large part, that’s because they’ve seen him. He’s not an Indian, doesn’t pretend to be an Indian, but was born and bred in that shortgrass country that had him shooting jump shots in every Indian gym in the State. And well.

That counts for something. Republicans all too visibly shudder sometimes around Indians, as Diedrich so often did. A fish out of water. Not Thune. The “jump shot factor” peeled enough Indian country votes, maybe a difference of a typical Republican (10 per cent), up to twenty-two, twenty-three percent in places that’ve seen him play. That’s the “jump shot factor,” I think. You connect with Indians, they’ll vote for you. More often than not, Thune’s jump shot connected and he became a star. Thune’s kind of connection counts for something in Indian Country, maybe a little more than in some other places. In any event, his shortgrass connections served him well in Indian Country, if only to the tune of peeling back the percentage normally enjoyed by Democrats.

I tend to agree with this.  Thune had a very warm welcome at the basketball game he hosted on the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation last spring.  And he spent lots of time in Indian Country, including 6 visits to Pine Ridge.  When was the last time the GOP had a campaign office in Pine Ridge Village?

(16)  BLOGS:  There have been lots of emails about the impact of blogs on the race.  A University of South Dakota political science professor said after the election the blog impact was "huge."  And the blogfather, Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, also singled out the Dakota Blog Alliance in a post-election column.  Former KELO-Land anchor Steve Hemmingsen also thought blogs had "a lot of clout" in the Senate race.  There will be a National Journal story tomorrow discussing this factor too.  We'll have to analyze this more in coming days. 

(17) WADHAMS:  The steady leadership of Thune's campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, was also critical.  He has received enormous praise for his work.

(18) GIAGO:  Denise Ross of the Rapid City Journal noted the Giago factor in one of her post-election pieces:

When Daschle met with Indian newspaper publisher and would-be Senate candidate Tim Giago in April, the Daschle campaign let Giago make all the public statements about what transpired during that meeting. By the time the two met with tribal and congressional leaders in a closed-door session Sept. 25, buzz that crossed racial lines enveloped the state. People remembered that Giago had intimated big promises from Daschle, and they didn't like being shut out of the Sept. 25 gathering. By then, the buzz drowned out Daschle's assertions that he had not promised Giago anything.

This is one of the stories, by the way, that the Argus Leader systematically ignored, but it did get some attention West River.

(19)  WAR:  I should have mentioned this before, but issues of war and peace also intruded on this Senate race in a way that's uncommon for SD election contests.  In my research on past federal election battles, it is usually a secondary issue at best.  The central focus in this race was Daschle's comments on the eve of war, which said he stood by in late 2003.  During this race, however, he backpeddled.  The GOP Senatorial committee also ran ads featuring Daschle's comments along with similarly bitter comments by Kennedy and Kerry, reminding voters of his comments and his association with the anti-war, or at least critical-of-war, left.  That Zogby poll in late October showed that 60% of South Dakotans supported the war.

(20)  GOTV:  There has been a good discussion on the Rapid City Journal blog about what some see as the holes in the Democratic get-out-the-vote effort but, more importantly, highlighting the successes of GOP GOTV.  They got the Pennington County vote out.  It was 80% this fall, whereas it was 65% in 2002.  Also, they registered 3,000 more voters for this fall than did the Democrats.  How effective GOP GOTV was this fall has not received nearly enough attention.  The GOP GOTV also relied almost exclusively on South Dakotans, whereas the Daschle camp relied heavily on out-of-staters, prompting recollections of the Deaniac "perfect storm" during the Iowa caucuses, which didn't work out very well.  That a Deaniac testified during Daschle's eve-of-election lawsuit hearing also underscores this fact.

(21)  OBSTRUCTION:  This factor re-inforced other factors, but deserves some attention on its own.  Thune used Daschle's activities in the Senate to frame the race.  With it he could list the litany of bills that Daschle had opposed which had support in SD.  That mid-summer Wall Street Journal editorial entitled "Daschle's Dead Zone," which was re-run in some SD papers and was used extensively in the Thune newspaper ads, also crystallized this issue.  Senator Frist's visit also highlighted this factor.  One also wonders if certain Perot-ista strains of thought about making our institutions function and getting-the-job-done didn't hurt Daschle because of his obstructionist tactics.  Many South Dakotans are pragmatists.

(22)  BUSH:  Again, this relates to several factors, especially (21).  But Bush won by 22 points.  Daschle had never had to run a competitive race in a Presidential year and it hurt him.  What made it doubly damaging was his position as chief-opponent of President Bush since 2000. 

(23)  DASCHLE's RUN FOR PRESIDENT:  Again, this is related to other factors, but it re-inforced his image as someone who had gone national.  And it's Daschle's preparation to run for President which surely prompted the NARAL boot-licking.  It also prompted several liberal publications to highlight the lobbying of his wife.  Articles from Slate, the Washington Monthly, and LA Weekly were much more stinging than similar articles on conservative magazines would have been.  I also recall polls at the time indicating that South Dakotans were not supportive of Daschle running for President. 

(24)  HUBRIS:  Pride goeth before the fall, as they say.  And the Daschle campaign was certainly confident.  Trying to fix the homestead exemption by getting Mrs. Daschle to sign it (after some scrutiny from Talon News and Roll Call) and not telling people about that little transition probably fits in this category, as does the absence of full disclosure on the Giago meeting, which then triggered differing assessments of the "deal" from the Daschle campaign and Giago himself.  Some reporters have told me the Daschle campaign burned up a lot of credibility with these and other incidents. 

(25)  VICTIMHOOD:  The Daschle campaign's constant screeching about "negative attacks" really wore thin.  The critical moment may have late August and early September when the national Chamber of Commerce became the first group to really lay a glove on Daschle on the issue of tort reform.  The Chamber is about as mainstream and establishment as one can get in many South Dakota towns and there was tons of evidence proving Daschle opposed tort reform, so the Daschle campaign's denunciation of the Chamber's "extremist agenda" seemed extreme itself.  When the Daschle campaign then ran ads denouncing Thune's "lies" when it wasn't even his ad and which featured a trial lawyer Daschle had himself touted, it backfired.  They overplayed their hand.  And it looked ridiculous to many. 

(26)  MORAL ISSUES:  In one of the more absurd moments of the campaign, Daschle started running a TV ad touting his opposition to abortion and gay marriage.  When the claims were analyzed, it was clear that Daschle was playing fast and loose with the facts on such claims.  More importantly, it gave those issues, which liabilities for Daschle, tremendous visibility in the final weeks of the campaign.  Of the 25% of people in exit poll who said "moral issues" were their most important issue, 82% went for Thune. 

Well, those are the main factors as I, with a great deal of help from readers, see them.  I'm still interested in your thoughts on these and other factors which were important.  Again, many thanks to the readers of DVT. 

The “jump shot factor"

Here's another person's thoughts--via the Rapid City Journal blog--on a potentially interesting factor in the race:

Add this to the list: the “jump shot factor.” Indians have historically supported Thune at a greater margin than other Republicans running for office in Indian country. In large part, that’s because they’ve seen him. He’s not an Indian, doesn’t pretend to be an Indian, but was born and bred in that shortgrass country that had him shooting jump shots in every Indian gym in the State. And well.

That counts for something. Republicans all too visibly shudder sometimes around Indians, as Diedrich so often did. A fish out of water. Not Thune. The “jump shot factor” peeled enough Indian country votes, maybe a difference of a typical Republican (10 per cent), up to twenty-two, twenty-three percent in places that’ve seen him play. That’s the “jump shot factor,” I think. You connect with Indians, they’ll vote for you. More often than not, Thune’s jump shot connected and he became a star. Thune’s kind of connection counts for something in Indian Country, maybe a little more than in some other places. In any event, his shortgrass connections served him well in Indian Country, if only to the tune of peeling back the percentage normally enjoyed by Democrats.

See this on the basketball game that Thune hosted and played in on Cheyenne River Indian Reservation -- I took lots of pictures.

PBS

We're lucky that SDP is following all of Thune's stops on the national media circuit.  I haven't done the best job on that front because I'm working on the final Why Thune Won article.  Speaking of Why Thune Won, here's what he said on The News Hour last night:

GWEN IFILL: You ran for the other Senate seat against another Democrat two years ago, yet you lost by 542--524 votes, very narrow. What was different this time?

Sen.-Elect John ThuneSEN.-ELECT JOHN THUNE: You know, I think this time around, obviously there was a presidential race which I think helped with turnout. We did a much better job of getting the vote out this time than we did two years ago. And I think in this race there was real definition on the issues, a lot of contrast, two years ago maybe not so much so.

And I think that between Sen. Daschle and myself, we had a lot of difference on the issues and I've always maintained that elections are about differences. And I think this year in South Dakota we gave people a very clear choice. And I also think that for better or worse, by virtue of his position as a national Democrat Party leader, Sen. Daschle had to block things on the agenda that people in South Dakota were very supportive of.

So I think the whole issue of obstructionism was a key central theme throughout the course of our campaign, and I think in a lot of races around the country, that was also a theme that a lot of Senate candidates sounded.