Polls

See this list of South Dakota polls for some idea where the Daschle v. Thune race is at the moment. Roughly a year ago, Daschle was winning 46%-45%. In March, after Daschle's criticism on the eve of war, Daschle was losing 46%-44%. A July poll had Daschle winning 47%-46%. Then the Daschle ads began running. A November 2003 poll and an early February 2004 poll showed Daschle ticking up to 50%. The most recent poll shows Daschle backsliding: Daschle 48%, Thune 45%. For all intents and purposes, Daschle is right back where started from before he started running ads and spending $5 million of the $10 million he hopes to raise. Are South Dakotans numb to ads? Are Daschle's ads that in-effective? Is Daschle's maximum possible support 50%? What does it say that Thune hasn't even organized yet? Should Daschle have saved his ammunition for later?

Comments

[Colorado Conservative]

Thune has to be very careful in his strategy. Acknowledge what Daschle has done IN THE PAST in bringing home much-welcomed pork for the state BUT underscore that it is now time for change. Time for South Dakotans to have a Senator in the majority Republican party to increase its clout so it no longer loses on such matters as the ethanol subsidies in the energy bill, time for South Dakotans to take sides on the war on terror on social issues such as abortion and school vouchers and gun control, etc.

Hammer home that South Dakotans, by and large, are much better aligned with the national Republican party than the Democratic Party and that Daschle is indeed the party of the Hollywood left, of East Coast Liberals like Kennedy, Schumer, Rangel, Dean, Leahy, ad nauseum.

[Godot showed up]

Did Daschle Commit a Tactical Blunder in Supporting Clarke?

The post title is my thesis. Here's what I think: I think that by coming out and openly supporting Richard Clarke against the White House, Daschle even more closely identified both his party--and more importantly, himself--with Clarke. Now that Clarke has zero credibility left, this may have been a huge mistake, especially for Daschle. The question that has to enter even the lowest-IQ voter at this point is, "Why is Daschle, known to be an outspoken Democrat, especially in his criticism of the White House [I'm putting it in "soft undecided voter terms"; we would say superpartisan obstructionist reflexively anti-Bush Dem], sticking up for this guy? Answer to self: because he's a Democrat stooge." Now, we know this, but it becomes even more transparent when a significant Dem player openly sides with him--and IMO, it's no coincidence that this occurred while Kerry was on vacation. He wanted to maintain maximum distance from the event, even though the Beers connection came out early, but that may be a bit subtle for the low-IQ voter (sorry, but that's something we have to accept; some voters are just stupid; voters are a subset of people, and some people aren't very bright, so they need to be banged over the head with something before it gets through).

My concrete point is that with the senate race neck and neck in South Dakota, Daschle may have hurt himself.

If I'm right, we should see a drop in the polls for Daschle by the next poll, whoever conducts it. I won't be able to prove a causal connection; I wish I could do some more in-depth polling there, in SD itself, and ask "did you change your mind about whom to vote for in the Senate race recently? If the answer to the last question is yes, did Daschle's support of Richard Clarke influence your decision in any way?"

It would be so SWEET to be rid of Daschle.

[Godot showed up]

Did Daschle Commit a Tactical Blunder in Supporting Clarke?

The post title is my thesis. Here's what I think: I think that by coming out and openly supporting Richard Clarke against the White House, Daschle even more closely identified both his party--and more importantly, himself--with Clarke. Now that Clarke has zero credibility left, this may have been a huge mistake, especially for Daschle. The question that has to enter even the lowest-IQ voter at this point is, "Why is Daschle, known to be an outspoken Democrat, especially in his criticism of the White House [I'm putting it in "soft undecided voter terms"; we would say superpartisan obstructionist reflexively anti-Bush Dem], sticking up for this guy? Answer to self: because he's a Democrat stooge." Now, we know this, but it becomes even more transparent when a significant Dem player openly sides with him--and IMO, it's no coincidence that this occurred while Kerry was on vacation. He wanted to maintain maximum distance from the event, even though the Beers connection came out early, but that may be a bit subtle for the low-IQ voter (sorry, but that's something we have to accept; some voters are just stupid; voters are a subset of people, and some people aren't very bright, so they need to be banged over the head with something before it gets through).

My concrete point is that with the senate race neck and neck in South Dakota, Daschle may have hurt himself.

If I'm right, we should see a drop in the polls for Daschle by the next poll, whoever conducts it. I won't be able to prove a causal connection; I wish I could do some more in-depth polling there, in SD itself, and ask "did you change your mind about whom to vote for in the Senate race recently? If the answer to the last question is yes, did Daschle's support of Richard Clarke influence your decision in any way?"

It would be so SWEET to be rid of Daschle.