Barbour for Daugaard: Here Comes the Fox News Money!

Update 2010.10.27 08:59 CDT: That's what I get for wishful thinking. I review Daugaard's pre-general filing, and sure enough, there's RGA PAC, in for $51, 456.60, about the same as the $50K Heidepriem got from the Democratic Governors Association. Haley Barbour also stopped in Wyoming to stump for Republican Matt Mead, who is ahead of Democratic challenger Leslie Petersen by at least 30 points. So much for worry.

-----------original wishful post-------------
Republicans must be getting nervous if they feel the need to send to send Republican Governors Association chair Haley Barbour all the way out to South Dakota to stump for Dennis Daugaard. Perhaps they timed this visit to change the narrative from what they perhaps anticipated would be a really bad KELO debate for Daugaard against hard-punching policy aficionado Democrat Scott Heidepriem. (I haven't seen the debate yet, but Bob Mercer calls it a "clear victory" for Heidepriem.)

Or maybe Barbour and Team Denny timed the visit to keep RGA's Fox News money off the campaign finance books for as long as possible. Reviewing Daugaard's pre-general and supplemental campaign finance filings, I saw no sign of donations from the Republican Governors Association. RGA gave the Rounds-Daugaard campaign $100,000 in 2006. RGA also has a million dollars from Fox News to spread around the country for Republicans in need.

Heidepriem and Daugaard each reported a quarter-million cash on hand for the last week of the campaign. Actually, amazingly, Heidepriem reported just about $10,000 more cash available for the last push than the GOP favorite who started raising cash three years ago. Daugaard has already burned up his cash advantage, and in debates, Heidepriem is taking a mighty swing at showing Daugaard does not have the policy-wonk advantage one might expect from a sitting liuetenant governor. I still get nervous about wishful thinking, but Haley Barbour's last-minute visit, and the RGA/Fox News money he may bring, may show Daugaard really, remarkably, unexpectedly, is a Republican in need.

---------------------
Don't forget, kids: If Mr. Barbour does bring Fox money, you need to tell us about it within 48 hours.

RMA Gov Poll Questions Pushy Compared to Rasmussen

I mentioned yesterday the RMA Research poll that shows South Dakota Democratic candidate for governor Scott Heidepriem within six points of Republican Lieutenant Governor Dennis Daugaard, with over 20% of likely voters still up for grabs. That prompted a friend of mine who also happens to be a fervent Daugaard supporter to contact me. This friend received one of the phone calls from RMA Research for the most recent poll. Below are notes my friend took during the call. The questions asked make clear RMA Research was conducting a push poll geared to test messages for Team Heidepriem.

How likely are you to vote?

Pick what issue is most important to you in this election cycle:

• Jobs and the economy
• Decrease in Education spending
• No bid contracts to political groups
• some others (mostly anti-Dennis)

How's South Dakota's economy?

How's South Dakota's economy compared to other Plains states?

Who are you supporting? [CAH note: Whom. Rephrase the question as a statement: You are supporting ____. Direct object goes in the blank. You are supporting whom? You are supporting him....]

When did you decide who[m!!!] you were supporting?

• After the June Primary
• In the past 2 weeks
• in the last week

How strong is your support? [My friend replied "strong," but a later question repeated my friend's answer as "somewhat strong"—check the script, kids!]

Impression of these people?

• Daugaard
• Rounds
• Heidepreim
• (Bill) Janklow

Job Performance?

• Rounds as Gov
• Dennis as Lt. Gov
• Scott as Minority Leader
• Obama as President

How do these issues affect whether or not you're voting for Dennis?

• Raises to top executives who and then those executives contributions to Dennis.
• Increased spending and adding FTE's.
• 10 state airplanes that Dennis and Rounds use at their will, and Valhalla which Dennis and Rounds use as they please and was remodeled with taxpayer money.
• Decrease in education spending under Dennis' watch.

[The individual polled says each of the above items came with at least a paragraph-long description. The poll then asked if each item made the subject less likely, more likely, or had no effect on the subject's decision to vote for Dennis.

Rate the 4 previous issues on a scale of 1-4 if they make you really less likely to vote for Dennis, somewhat less likely, no effect or more likely.

After this information are you still somewhat strongly supporting Dennis? [This is where the pollster misquoted my friend's "strong" support cited earlier.]

For Secretary of State are you voting for Ben the Democrat or Jason Grant? [My friend says this was the question word for word.]

Compare RMA Research's questions and order with those used by Rasmussen, which last week found Daugaard leading Heidepriem 55% to 36%:

1* If the 2010 Election for Governor of South Dakota were held today would you vote for Republican Dennis Daugaard or Democrat Scott Heidepriem? (Please note that we split the survey to rotate the order of the candidate names, so while half will hear the Republican candidate first, the other half hears the Democrat mentioned first.)

• Dennis Daugaard
• Scott Heidepriem
• Some Other Candidate
• Not Sure

2* I’m going to read you a short list of people in the News. For each, please let me know if you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable impression.

• Daugaard
• Heidepriem

3*A proposal has been made to repeal the health care bill and stop it from going into effect. Do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose a proposal to repeal the health care bill?

4* The health care plan passed by Congress requires every American to buy or obtain health insurance. Do you Strongly Favor, Somewhat Favor, Somewhat Oppose, or Strongly Oppose a federal law that requires every American to buy or obtain health insurance?

5* Should individual states have the right to opt out of the entire national health care plan?

6* Generally speaking, how would you rate the U.S. economy these days? Excellent, good, fair, or poor?

7* Are economic conditions in the country getting better or worse?

8* Do you consider yourself part of the Tea Party Movement?

9* How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President… do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he’s been doing?

10* How would you rate the job Mike Rounds has been doing as Governor… do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he’s been doing?

Both polls are what they are. Looking just at the questions, Rasmussen's poll is trying to find where people stand on the candidates and the issues, while RMA's poll is trying to find the messages that may get people to move toward their candidate.

Polls Drastically Diverge on SD Governor's Race

Someone is doing really bad polling on the South Dakota gubernatorial race. Republican-run Rasmussen Reports finds Republican candidate Dennis Daugaard remaining above 50% against Democrat Scott Heidepriem. The specific numbers: Daugaard 55%, Heidepriem 36%, undecided 7%. Those figures do show a slow, steady, but far from cork-popping uptick in Heidepriem's numbers. Team Daugaard has cited internal polling done by Glen Bolger of Public Opinion Strategies pegging the race at 58–30 in favor of their guy.

Democrat-commissioned and local RMA Research releases numbers finding Daugaard's lead has actually shrunk to six points. After the eyebrow-raising 45–32 Daugaard–Heidepriem margin found by RMA several days ago, Team Heidepriem now touts RMA numbers showing the race at 41–35, advantage Daugaard. Another poll from Sioux Falls-based newcomer Nielson Brothers polling finds the governor's race even tighter, 43–40 for Daugaard.

These polls appear to be looking at different realities. The differences from Rasmussen are enormous. In nine days, someone is going to be seriously egg-faced.
----------------------
Some interesting details from Rasmussen:

1. Republicans are more solid behind Daugaard (77%) than we Dems are behind Heidepriem (63%). Given that Republicans outnumber Democrats here, Dems can't win if they don't line up behind their guy.
2. "Fifty-nine percent (59%) of voters who say the economy is improving support Heidepriem. Daugaard has the backing of 71% of those who feel it is getting worse." That seems odd: the lieutenant governor, the optimistic quasi-incumbent, gets more support from the pessimists. The Democrat voice of change wins a majority among those who think the economy is on the right track.

----------------------
Update 14:35 CDT: The Nielson Brothers poll on the Congressional race finds Stephanie Herseth Sandlin leading Kristi Noem 41.5% to 40.0%. That's within the margin of error; it's also within the margin of Marking—i.e., Indy B.-Thom, who gets 1.8%. NBP finds 16.5% of the electorate undecided on the Congressional race.

Republicans Backing Heidepriem and Herseth Sandlin...

...any Dems going red?

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Scott Heidepriem has won the backing of some high-profile Republicans, including Republican State Senator Stan Adelstein, Don Frankenfeld, and Russ Janklow. GOP State Senator Gene Abdallah has expressed his approval of Heidepriem's leadership on the issue of competing with the Larchwood, Iowa, casino.

Democratic Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin has traditionally pulled lots of Republican votes, and even in this tight year, she's able to tout a growing list of GOP endorsers, including former state legislator Casey Murschel and former Mickelson and Miller chief of staff Frank Brost. (And Brost endorses SHS and hopes for a Republican majority in Congress—go figure!)

Just curious: can anyone show me comparable Democrats crossing over to vote for the Republicans? As viewed from behind my partisan lenses, I can see plenty that our two top Democrats have to offer Republicans that they won't find in their own candidate: in Heidepriem's case, specific plans, real fiscal conservatism, and leadership; in Herseth Sandlin's case, specific plans, less partisanship, and the ability to articulate positions beyond the party talking points.

But what can Democrats find in either Dennis Daugaard or Kristi Noem that (a) they can't find in Heidepriem or SHS and (b) would actually appeal to Democrats?

Voting for Daugaard? Ah, So You Like Cheating Kids...

Hey, all you folks giving Dennis Daugaard 70% favorables: are you paying attention to the status quo?

I generally don't like to give letters from the campaigns much space, but the following statement from Steve Jarding, Scott Heidepriem's campaign manager, gives a pretty straightforward assessment of the damage done under Mike Rounds's watch. Can we expect more of the same from a Governor Daugaard? Do you really want to take that chance?

Of all the misplaced priorities of the Rounds\Daugaard Administration, perhaps none is as alarming and inexplicable than their legacy with regard to our children. From the time Mike Rounds and Dennis Daugaard took office in 2003 through 2008 (before the national recession took hold) child poverty in South Dakota rose over 20 percent—we know it has continued to rise since then and likely has risen dramatically—official numbers for 2009 are not in yet. On top of this, South Dakota leads the nation in percentage of working moms and in the percentage of wage earners who hold multiple jobs. Many of these workers have no choice. They are trying to make ends meet with little support from Pierre.

One area of support for these children, these moms and these parents would have come in the form of the Birth to Three program. But Mike Rounds and Dennis Daugaard inexplicably did not support this program. Nor did they support the Pre-K program in South Dakota. Yet, literally every empirical study shows that these programs are arguably the best investment a state can make. Kids who have access to Birth to Three and Pre-K programs stay in school, get better grades, are healthier, are less likely to get in trouble, graduate in higher numbers, make a better living—the list goes on and on. But Mike Rounds and Dennis Daugaard do not support them—but they did support giving $38 million to TransCanada to build an oil pipeline they were building anyway. But they won't sell one of their taxpayer funded airplanes. But they won't give up their taxpayer funded vacation house in Custer State Park. But they will give their 19 top executive staff a $533,000 pay raise (of which Dennis Daugaard collected $63,000 of it back into his campaign coffers), and they will raid federal funds given to South Dakota for education and the poor, sticking the money into the general fund to spend covering up their debt -- all while our child poverty rate skyrockets.

We have to take South Dakota back. The lives of thousands of South Dakota's children are depending on it. Literally [links mine; text from Steve Jarding, campaign e-mail, 2010.10.12].

Would anyone care to point out which of Team Heidepriem's arguments here are wrong... or why you'd be willing to take four more years of this kid-unfriendly governing from a Daugaard Administration?

Heidepriem on Economic Development: Think Local, Think Miner County!

Economic development policy is much more than magic phrases. But Democratic gubernatorial candidate Scott Heidepriem has said two magic phrases that signal he's my guy on economic development.

Phrase #1: "Smokestack-chasing"... as in don't do it. Heidepriem recognizes that the Toyota lottery doesn't pay off. He wants to refocus South Dakota's economic development efforts on retaining and expanding our native talent and resources. In an interview in Monday's print MDL, Heidepriem says "we need to get away from the idea of hitting a home run and instead think about getting a series of singles and doubles." Heidepriem sees more solid growth coming from retaining and expanding businesses that already call South Dakota home. Compare that to his Republican opponent in the governor's race, Dennis Daugaard, who wants to keep throwing incentives at footloose businesses to get them to relocate to South Dakota. (I still think you're asking for trouble when you build your business strategy around luring owners who will leave a community just to shave a fraction off their taxes.)

Phrase #2: "Miner County"... as in do what they're doing. Miner County is not the biggest or richest county in the state. But Miner County is doing economic development right. Miner County doesn't pin all of its hopes on landing one big factory or call center from who-knows-where. Miner County focuses on economic gardening, on building human capital among their own people through education and entrepreneurship, as epitomized by the broad, holistic economic focus of the Rural Learning Center. Miner County's developers try to be inclusive and open to conversations, as epitomized by their blog, Reimagine Rural. Miner County also makes an effort to learn from and share the lessons from other rural communities around the state and beyond, as shown by Reimagine Rural's regular attention to Heidepriem's hometown of Miller. (To his credit, Daugaard mentioned something about "small-town specialists" in his economic plan last spring.)

Economic development for rural South Dakota (and that's most of South Dakota) requires something more than the same old "We'll work hard for peanuts and not tax you" thinking that rules now. Heidepriem's economic plan suggests that he understands the need to develop our rural human capital in creative ways.
--------------------
Bonus Economic Development Plans: Daugaard says he'll throw another $60 million in the Revolving Economic Development and Initiative (REDI) Fund. He says he'll order a thorough review of the state's books to identify land and buildings we could sell to raise that money. I would think that, having been Lieutenant Governor for eight years, he might already have a pretty good idea of prime properties for the state to unload. And what if he does that review and finds we don't have $60 million worth of mostly useless property? Whither his plan?

Another party-line irony: while Republican Daugaard wants to put more state money into the REDI Fund, Democrat Heidepriem wants to privatize it, having private lenders float the loans while the state guarantees a portion of them. Heidepriem says that's how the Small Business Administration and USDA Office of Rural Development do it.

Lake County Dems Watch Heidepriem TV Together -- You're Invited!

It's not dinner and a movie, but how about potluck and a pitch? The Lake County Dems are hosting a little get-together for local Dems and other interested voters to watch, cheer, and discuss gubernatorial candidate Scott Heidepriem's big half-hour TV broadcast tomorrow night. The party is bringing hot dogs, burgers, and lemonade; we'd like other guests to bring a salad or dessert to share.

If you're interested in political marketing and conversation, come to the Parsley Barn at 103 N. Liberty here in Madison Thursday, suppertime October 6. Chow starts around 6 p.m.; show starts at 6:30.

And yes, the Nebraska–Kansas game will still be on afterward.

Heidepriem Cites Keystone Leaks; Daugaard Digs Dollars Über Alles

Jon Walker wrote up our gubernatorial candidates' views on energy in that Sioux Falls paper Monday. Among other important issues, Walker asked the candidates whether they support TransCanada's Keystone pipelines.

Democrat Scott Heidepriem, who represented South Dakota landowners in their fight against TransCanada's eminent domain effort, hits all the right notes—not just green notes, but red-blooded South Dakotan notes:

Heidepriem: I can't argue it's a good thing particularly from the three leaks. Land was disrupted. It took a lot of fertile farm ground with almost no jobs created. They used a heavy hand to do that with eminent domain. That's not being a good corporate citizen. There should be no incentive on contractor excise and sales tax. Why does South Dakota feel the need to hemorrhage citizen tax dollars? [quoted by Jon Walker, "On Energy, Candidates for Governor Vow to Be Strong Voice," sidebar, that Sioux Falls paper, 2010.10.04]

Hey, Scott! Where'd you first read about those three leaks? Oh yeah....

Republican Dennis Daugaard apparently isn't worried about oil leaks, continued addiction to dirty fuel, weak job production, tax refunds for foreign oil corporations, or violations of South Dakotans' property rights. He thinks those property tax dollars make everything hunky-dory:

Daugaard: It's good. It allows us to reduce our dependency on oil from unfriendly nations. Most landowners I've spoken with are happy to have the pipe under their property. ... They still pay us $25 million a year in property taxes [quoted by Walker, 2010].

Pay close attention, fellow voters: the Republican here is saying something is great because it pumps more money into the government coffers, while the Democrat is speaking up for individual property rights instead of tax breaks for foreigners.

Does anyone else smell irony there?

Heidepriem Trailer: Another Example of Medium over Message

We have a governorship to win. I should not be writing movie reviews.

But the Scott Heidepriem campaign seems to think it's making movies. Whoever the magic marketers are behind the Democrat's gubernatorial campaign, they continue to put medium over message.

The latest misdirection: the campaign releases a trailer for Thursday's half-hour Heidepriem campaign commercial.



The first two lines are great. Heidepriem speaks of needing to leave no regrets. Republican Don Frankenfeld says we face a choice between "eight more years of complacency, or are we going to have decisive action." Ding! Pow! Nice one-two of the eager, earnest leader and the hard attack.

But then the trailer gets fuzzy. In an apparent effort to overdevelop the theme, the kids in marketing dilute a series of pretty good attacks and endorsements from other pols with a scattershot blast of disjointed personal comments from Heidepriem. His statements make little sense without context:

• "It was a wild summer" with high soybean, corn, and cattle prices... but we don't hear which summer, or what that has to do with state ag or tax policy.
  
• Heidepriem chokes up recalling a funeral... but we don't hear whose, or when.
• "By the time we were a few songs into it, the crowd had evacuated..." from where? into what? Was the State Senate singing lieder in the middle of a bomb scare?
• "She was a rock star, and I was a security detail..." Who was she? where? And what does this have to do with anything?
• "...the balance that I thought was so important for South Dakota had vanished..." getting back on message, probably referencing the Legislature.
• "You can see that arrow point up dramatically, then flatten for a generation..." and that arrow would be... what? the average income of South Dakotans that your economic development policies will rescue from stagnation? the amount of funding for education that you will increase? the percentage of healthy baby deliveries on the reservation?
  

Compare that mostly meaningless hodgepodge with the good lines Heidepriem's endorsers get:

• Scott Abdallah (I think that's him) gives a good line about things not getting done because of too much partisan politics.
• Ann Tornberg gets a decent line about education not getting another dollar until we get our priorities straight, although there's a pronoun without an antecedent that obscures the argument.
• Russ Janklow offers a quote from his dad (that would be Governor, Congressman, Republican icon and ex-convict Bill Janklow) that could get huge mileage encapsulating the Rounds/Daugaard Administration's drifting, visionless governing through the economic downturn: "Anybody can be governor on a good day, but sometimes we don't have that many good days."
• Frankenfeld comes back with the cookie jar line, which we know has to do with state government balancing the budget with stunts and stimulus money, not Bob Mercer in the press hospitality room.
• Former Governor Harvey Wollman returns with the "put in a new team" line.
  

I can just imagine the brainstorming session with the filmmakers. They said they needed a theme. Someone said, "We need to show this campaign ad is different." Someone else said, "Let's show that it's personal as well as political." Another gal said, "And let's build excitement by leaving people asking questions!" Some dude with donut crumbs on his shirt says, "Yeah! Do a fast montage, strip the context, get people excited to watch the movie!" And the policy wonk with the 17-inch laptop in the corner considers mentioning the need to include some notes about the Heidepriem-Arndt plan to retool the state economic development loan fund, but decides to keep quiet, knowing how temperamental these artsy types are.

Now maybe the creators of this shiny little trailer will complain, "We're not making a campaign ad! We're making a movie trailer!"

No. Horsepuckey. This ain't cinema school. You are working for a candidate for governor. When you brush your teeth, it's a campaign ad. Every communication that comes out of your office must add value to the campaign by screaming "Vote for Heidepriem!" Every communication you issue should stand on its own as a campaign statement.

This trailer fails in that regard. In its Youtube version, it doesn't even sell the advertisement it advertises by telling us when to tune in. The trailer thus wastes viewers' time, and that's really, really bad marketing.

But far be it from me to complain without offering solutions. Here's how to turn this disjointed video into a butt-kicking campaign ad:

1. Cut all the personal Scott moments.
   
2. Move Heidepriem's line about the loss of balance to come right after Abdallah's.
   
3. Keep that "arrow" quote, but tell us what the heck the arrow is!
4. Insert captions for each endorser so every viewer knows exactly who these impressive people are.
5. After Wollman's line, splice in a nice video of Heidepriem and Ben Arndt shaking hands before a cheering crowd.
6. Then fade to Heidepriem and Arndt looking straight at the camera: "I'm Scott Heidepriem." "I'm Ben Arndt." "It's time for a new team. That's us."
   
7. Over that last ten seconds, you display the campaign URL in very clear letters.

Scott, it's time to get the kids with the cameras back on message. We have 29 days until the election. There isn't time for anyone spending your money to say anything that doesn't end with the words, "Vote for Heidepriem!"

Daugaard Policy Armor Cracks; Heidepriem Primed for Offensive

South Dakota GOP candidate for governor Dennis Daugaard must be reading too much War College. Daugaard apparently believes the propaganda that the campaign is over, it's a blowout, it's hopeless for Heidepriem... believes it so much that he's starting to slip.

First Team Daugaard puts out an ad so doggedly designed to deny reality that even mild-mannered journalist Bob Mercer, not the most obviously liberal journalist in the state, felt obliged to point out that the ad outright lies when it claims we balanced our state budget without raising taxes. Mercer catalogs a few tax and fee increases propping up our state budget; contact your local county commission and school board to learn the tax hikes they've had to pile onto your local assessment to make up for the state's budgetary neglect.

Then Daugaard tells nursing homes that they probably won't get the $21 million in medicaid stimulus Washington sent them. "We need to guard against the increasing tendency to look for the government to save us," Daugaard lectured the nursing home workers' convention in Sioux Falls Wednesday, even as he defended Pierre's pouring that stimulus money into the general fund to save our budget. That's the same shell game Daugaard and his boss are playing with the $26.3 million in education stimulus approved in August, diverting it from its intended purpose and guaranteeing it won't have the stimuluative effect lawmakers intended.

Now Daugaard skips a great opportunity to defend his record and his plans on a major state policy issue. Tonight's Inside KELOLand (10:30 p.m. CST) will discuss the recent Zogby poll, sponsored by the Associated School Boards of South Dakota, on South Dakota voters' views of K-12 education. Democrat Scott Heidepriem will be there. So will an ASBSD official. Daugaard was invited, but he won't be there. Team Heidepriem is telling supporters that Daugaard said he doesn't want to debate this issue with Heidepriem. Maybe Daugaard, like fellow Republican Kristi Noem, is just getting tired of having his indefensible claims challenged and thinks he can coast to victory in November with fluffy ads and nice hair.

Whatever Daugaard's reason for skipping this discussion, Heidepriem gets free shots for a half hour on the highest-rated TV station in the state. And what will those free shots include? Paraphrasing the latest Team Heidepriem e-mail, Heidepriem will likely cite various expenditures the state has incurred even while breaking its promise to schools and shorted K-12 education this year:

• Rounds and Daugaard happily sent TransCanada an extra $10.5 million in tax refunds to incentivize a pipeline TransCanada had already built through our state.
• The current administration has given over $533,000 dollars in pay raises to their top 19 executive branch staffers... who have turned around and given Daugaard over $62,000 in campaign contributions.
• They've refused to sell any of the state airplanes.
• They closed the Black Hills Playhouse while spending over $200K to renovate "Valhalla," the historic Peter Norbeck cabin just up the trail that Governor Rounds has turned into his personal playground.
  

Tonight's KELO broadcast is the beginning of what could be a big media week for Heidepriem. His big 30-minute documentary is already making the rounds at Dems events and hits the airwaves on all the major South Dakota channels this week Thursday. And by dodging a discussion of education and papering over bad policy with cheery optimism and plainly false claims, Daugaard may be making it that much easier for Heidepriem to grab folks' attention and make the big push for November.

Scott/Steve, Don't Hype the Ad: Hype Frankenfeld and Janklow for Heidepriem!

Democratic candidate for South Dakota governor Scott Heidepriem has a new TV ad up. My one problem with this ad: it spends too much time pitching the next big ad, Heidepriem's half-hour program coming up next week, and not enough time pitching the candidate. I've noticed that problem in a number of the communications from Team Heidepriem: they tell me their ads are historic and unprecedented and are getting great reviews. I really couldn't give less of a hoot how good the ads are: we're trying to win an election, not a Pollie. Heidepriem's marketers seem to have overread or misread Marshall McLuhan and think that the man is the message is the medium.

Either that, or they're just full of themselves.

That said, the new ad has the elements of an even better, truly rock'em-sock'em ad: apparent endorsements from former Republican legislator Don Frankenfeld and Republican attorney Russ Janklow:



Holy cow! Getting Frankenfeld and Janklow fils to endorse the Democratic candidate for governor is pretty strong cheese. Or at least I think they're endorsing Heidepriem. They're in the ad—they must like him... right?

This ad shows us Frankenfeld and Janklow telling us South Dakota has a huge fiscal problem. But only former Democratic Governor Harvey Wollman makes the sale, saying we need to "put in a new team." But none of those guys says the magic word: Heidepriem, Heidepriem, Heidepriem.

If I had money for 30 seconds of TV time, and I had video of Don Frankenfeld and Russ Janklow saying good things about me, I'd fill that thirty seconds with every word I could from those big name endorsers. And I'd leave no doubt as to whom those guys were voting for. I'd make darn sure I included the tape of each of those heavy hitters saying my name and saying they're voting for me.

I hope that's what we'll hear in next week's half-hour extravanganza. Direct endorsements from such prominent Republicans really would be newsworthy.
---------------------
p.s.: Take this blog post and even the headline as textual metaphor for the marketing argument. Imagine how much better (for Team Heidepriem) this post would be if it started off with the real news—Frankenfeld and Janklow Endorse Heidepriem! Instead, in an ad-centered world, the marketing analysis gets the lead, and the juicy stuff gets second billing.

Heidepriem Buys Half-Hour Blocks for TV Documentary

Democratic candidate for South Dakota governor Scott Heidepriem is going big on TV time. On Thursday, October 7, is buying 30 minutes on Sioux Falls television stations KELO, KSFY, and KDLT and Rapid City stations KOTA, KNBN, and KEVN to tell South Dakotans why Heidepriem should be governor. The show will run at 6:30 p.m. Central on the Sioux Falls stations, then 6:00 p.m. Mountain on the Rapid City channels.

Now when I first heard about the broadcast, I thought maybe we were in for a good old-fashioned Ross Perot-style presentation, 30 minutes of the candidate talking directly to us and flipcharting his way through what's wrong with the status quo and how he'll fix it.

We might get a little of that, but it sounds like we're in for more of an exercise in creative marketing. Here's the campaign's description:

On October 7, 2010, our Campaign will make modern South Dakota campaign history when we air a powerful half-hour documentary on Scott Heidepriem and this fall's crucial South Dakota gubernatorial campaign. The documentary will air statewide on local networks -- KELO (KDLO and KPLO), KSFY and KDLT television in Eastern South Dakota and KOTA, KNBN and KEVN television in Western South Dakota.

The documentary centers on a very personal conversation Scott Heidepriem had last March with a small group of friends and family in his living room. In this wonderfully candid, funny and sometimes painful stroll documenting his life, Scott introduces himself to this small group of friends like he has never done before. He discusses his South Dakota roots and values, his father's war experiences in World War II, his life growing up in small town South Dakota, his experiences writing his book, on the history of Hand County, his family and the painful death of his brother, and finally, he talks about why he feels so strongly about the need to change the direction of politics and policy in South Dakota.

The group filmed the conversation not knowing at the time exactly what, if anything, would ever become of it. When the video surfaced several months later and they saw what they had, they wanted to share it with all of South Dakota. So do we.

The rhetorical/artistic concept sounds like good storytelling. I like the literary feel of working from one conversation and tying together the strands of a lifetime that lead a man to where he is. Given GOP opponent Dennis Daugaard's heavy reliance on his nice-guy hard-scrabble-farm story, Heidepriem is certainly entitled to weave personal narrative into his campaign effort. And while I prefer the policy debates, the reality of campaigning requires reaching a lot of people with the warm fuzzies.

Alas, unless the leaves fall and let the digital signal through the shelterbelt to my house, I probably won't get to watch. Will anyone else? If you do, let me know if Heidepriem breaks out at least one flipchart.

Education: Daugaard Hopes and Wishes, Heidepriem Offers Practical Policies

I feel another elephant-in-the-room commercial coming on... although Mr. Sanborn disagrees.

Dennis Daugaard's new education plan is a lot like the impression I've gotten of Daugaard himself during the gubernatorial campaign: decent, reasonable, mild... and missing the biggest point. Ask any teacher, administrator, or school board member to name the biggest problem facing South Dakota's K-12 system, and I'll bet nine times out of ten, the answer will be "Funding." Yet as Rutland's Dr. Fahrenwald observes, the Daugaard plan does not address the heart of the funding problem.

Oh, Daugaard does mention funding. His "Commitment to Funding Education" gets a full page and spillover. He speaks of hope and consider and scrutiny and conversation. He even recognizes the basic market fact that we may need to pay more to recruit and retain the best teachers. But Daugaard never says what practical policies he would pursue to put more money into our schools. Daugaard plays my old Republican line: he thinks everything can be solved by magic. Cut regulations, don't raise taxes, wait for the economy to recover, and presto! the problem will solve itself! (What is it this year with Republicans and magic tricks?)

Daugaard ignores his own administration's raiding of new stimulus assistance to reduce state expenditures on education this year (Dennis, M. Mike: if you want to recover from the recession, you have to spend the stimulus dollars in addition to already allocated spending). Daugaard doesn't even really commit to increasing funding. Instead, he defends the Legislature's decision this year to deny our schools the funding increase they were promised by law while giving a foreign oil giant TransCanada $38 million in tax breaks.

Daugaard's challenger, Democrat Scott Heidepriem, is all over the Republicans on this issue. Heidepriem sets some clear funding objectives: he plans to restore education funding to Janklow-era levels of 39% of the general fund, up from the 31% to which the Rounds Administration has let it drop. Heidepriem then tells us where he'll get the money to make that happen:

1. Require the State’s Education budget to be adopted by the midpoint of each legislative session.
2. Close the Loophole in the Contractor’s Excise Tax and restore TransCanada’s $10.5 million for education.
3. Reduce the size of state government in several ways including the elimination of “phantom” state FTEs (Full Time Employees).
4. Sell the State’s unnecessary “surplus” airplanes.
5. Eliminate “no-bid” contracts where state business is currently doled out without a competitive, free-market process [from Heidepriem campaign press release, 2010.09.15].

Now this release doesn't guarantee those numbers add up to the 39% level. Passing the budget earlier only shorten the procrastination period and move the rush back four weeks. Selling the planes will provide mostly a one-time savings, though there will still be ongoing savings from maintenance. But shutting the tax loopholes and making TransCanada pay its fair share are definite winners for education. And where Daugaard's faith in the free market excuses him to sit around and do nothing, Heidepriem actually applies free-market principles to government contract procedures to save us money.

On education, Daugaard is offering stale free-market fundamentalist wishes and dreams. Heidepriem is offering a practical plan. Advantage Heidepriem.

Daugaard on Education: Repeal Forced Consolidation and Reserve Limits

Nice of Dennis Daugaard to rejoin the local-control chorus. His just-released education plan includes a promise to repeal the 100-student minimum and forced consolidation imposed on South Dakota's small school disticts. (Munsterman lives!)

Forced consolidation came to us courtesy of our Republican-controlled State Legislature in the form of House Bill 1082, signed into law by Daugaard's boss, Governor M. Michael Rounds, in 2007. But this isn't a purely partisan issue. Two of my favorite Republicans, Kristi Noem and Russell Olson, voted against HB 1082 in an earlier form when the minimum district size was 130. Alas, they jumped in to vote aye with most of their State House colleagues once the minimum was cut to 100.

Plus, Daugaard's opponent in the gubernatorial race, Democratic Senator Scott Heidepriem, and fellow prominent Dems Jerstad, Turbak Berry, and Nesselhuf supported HB 1082.

Another remarkable assertion of local control in education on Daugaard's part is his vow to repeal restrictions on reserve accounts. Daugaard deems it "unfortunate" that school reserves have become a political football over the years." One of the main players punting that football around was his boss, the Governor.

I am pleased to see the Republican in the race get back to Republican principles on local control. But on at least these two issues, Daugaard is certainly running away from positions his boss has supported over the last eight years.
---------------------------------
Bonus—This Is Only a Test: Unfortunately, Daugaard also calls for establishing more standardized exams, particularly in math and science. We're already spending $5 million at the state level on tests; couldn't we drop all the bubble-filling and direct that money toward useful teaching and learning experiences?

Heidepriem Casino Position Draws Republican Support on Leadership

I'm still not jumping up and down to wage casino wars with Iowa. Yet I note with interest a letter from State Senator Gene Abdallah, Republican from District 10, essentially endorsing the position of Democratic gubernatorial candidate and fellow State Senator Scott Heidepriem that South Dakota needs to address the Larchwood casino issue.

Senator Abdallah's critique still relies too much on scarcity thinking, arguing that Iowa's gain is our loss. However, his letter also hints at a leadership issue that can offer voters a reason to replace the current regime with someone new. Abdallah mentions legislation he and Heidepriem co-sponsored that would have directed the governor to negotiate with Iowa and try to work out a casino arrangement more amenable to all parties.

Now I'm not sure what leverage South Dakota would have in asking Iowa to consider our concerns with their economic development projects. Iowa has done the same on the Hyperion refinery, which will dump all sorts of externalities on our neighbors across the river, and South Dakota's response has been, Buzz off!

Nonetheless, Senator Abdallah's letter highlights a problem a lot of Republicans see with the current administration: a lack of leadership, an inability to get out in front of issues and bang the drum for South Dakota's interests. And Abdallah is a pretty prominent Republican, giving a pretty pointed shout-out to the Democratic gubernatorial candidate just as the campaign season hits full throttle.

Watch out: the Heidepriem campaign may be able to deliver more Republican votes than you think.

Heidepriem Wrong, Daugaard Thinking on Casino and Scarcity Mindset

Some days it's hard to be a South Dakota Democrat. Our gubernatorial candidate Scott Heidepriem has declared his first priority as governor to be convening a task force to figure out how to build a mega-casino in Sioux Falls to combat the purported economic drain that will be caused by the under-construction Grand Falls casino across the border in Larchwood, Iowa.

South Dakota's first priority: building another casino. I'm having trouble working that into a campaign slogan.

Heidepriem's proposal does tie together a whole mess of potential voting blocs. If you buy his argument, his fight-fire-with-fire proposal wins local Chamber of Commerce types, Sioux Falls event center boosters (Heidepriem says he'd direct casino revenues toward building that grand dream for Sioux Falls), and Native Americans who might run the Sioux Falls-area casino.

But I get a bad vibe from the proposal. If we're making a bigger pie, it's a gambling pie, and I don't care much for that pie as the staple of our economic diet. Much of Heidepriem's own reasoning is that gambling is bad, it causes social problems that we're going to have to pay for, so we might as well cash in on the revenue side, too. I have trouble getting up my ambition to fight to expand an industry that causes addiction and other social problems. (But I eagerly await riffs on this theme from Mr. Newland and activists of other flavors to advocate legalizing marijuana, prostitution, gay marriage....)

And if there's only so much pie (and that seems to be the competitive tenor of Heidepriem's "Don't mess with South Dakota" press release), then we're really gambling that as the two casinos compete, the one on our side of the border will win and drive those darned Iowans out of work. "Screw Iowa!" doesn't sound like a great rallying cry for the troops, either.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Dennis Daugaard is playing Mr. Mellow on this issue. He might also be playing Mr. Logical. He looks at a casino in Lyon County, Iowa, with a population hardly 6% the size of adjoining Minnehaha County. Daugaard may be thinking what I'm thinking, that an Iowa casino might not be a zero-sum game:

1. We're already seeing $7.5 million of the $50 million construction budget go to South Dakota contractors.
2. The casino will hire over 700 people. There are 788 people in Larchwood, and I suspect some of them are already spoken for jobwise. There are 5,595 people looking for work in the Sioux Falls metro area.
   
3. Suppose 100,000 out-of-staters say, "Hey! Let's go gamble in historic Larchwood, Iowa!" Do you think they're going to fly into Larchwood Metropolitan Airport? No. They're going to fly into Sioux Falls. They're going to rent a car in Sioux Falls. They're going to stop at the Sioux Falls Target to get the toothbrush and swim trunks and whatever else they forgot to pack. They're going to spend a day golfing and gambling in Larchwood, say, "Well, that was fun, now what?" And then they're going to come back to Sioux Falls to see a movie or a show at the Pavilion or whatever other brilliant entertainment a synergy-minded convention and visitors bureau can come up with. And for every visitor who wants to spend the night in tranquil, bucolic Larchwood, I'll bet we can find one or two who'd prefer to end the day with jazz and a martini under the sparkling downtown lights of Sioux Falls.
   

Heidepriem's thinking on casino competition sounds too much like the small-minded thinking of various small towns around South Dakota who think any gain for a nearby town is a loss for them (see Madison's and Hartford's small-minded reaction to Rutland's and Montrose's open enrollment success). Our neighbor's success doesn't mean we have to compete to take that success away. Think Sturgis rally: Deadwood and Custer and Wall and Mitchell don't try to outdo Sturgis with a bigger rally and put that event out of business. We all put up the "Welcome Bikers!" banners and offer drink specials and other events to cash in on the increased flow of visitors.

Once again, I can hear my fellow Dems telling me, "Ah, but this is the good political strategy! South Dakotans will eat this stuff up!" Yeah, maybe they will. Maybe raising a bold middle finger across the Big Sioux toward our dastardly Iowegian neighbors is just the thing to get the typical South Dakota voter fired up and ready to go Dem in November. And if Iowa flipped us the bird first, well, maybe they have a fight coming.

But I don't like it. Instead of trying to drive Larchwood out of business, we should focus on looking for other opportunities to build on the increased economic flow Grand Falls Casino will draw. If Iowa's building better mousetraps, let's fire up the cheese factories.

Think synergy, not scarcity.

--------------------
p.s.: There has been some bragging from the Iowa side about how the "vast majority" of Grand Falls Casino's revenue will come from South Dakota. Is it just me, or does anyone else think that building a business model on the promise of drawing lots of big-spending South Dakotans is... overly optimistic?

Why Yes, Ben Arndt Is a Dem. What Are You Republicans Afraid Of?

South Dakota Democratic gubernatorial candidate Scott Heidepriem sets the record straight on why his running mate, Ben Arndt, switched his registration yesterday from Republican to Democrat. No, it wasn't the law. Heidepriem and Arndt were happy and ready to offer South Dakotans the chance to vote for a bipartisan ticket for governor and lieutenant governor. But at 4:45 p.m. yesterday, the Republicans (I haven't gotten clear on which ones—Nelson? a litigious party chair?*) made clear they would block the certification of the Heidepriem/Arndt ticket based on Arndt's status as a registered Republican.

Now you can bet that Heidepriem scrutinized the law in much greater detail than I ever will. Heidepriem was confident that if the Republicans tried to stop the Heidepriem/Arndt ticket in court, the Dems would win and the Arndt nomination would stand. There is no law preventing us Democrats from nominating a Republican or an Independent or any other citizen who meets the legal qualifications for office.

But check it out: the Democrats and Ben Arndt just spared us taxpayers another unnecessary lawsuit. Ben Arndt said, no problem, I'll re-register.

As Jim Abourezk said this morning, "Ben Arndt didn't leave the Republican Party; the Republican Party left him."

And as Scott Heidepriem noted this morning, if the Republicans are willing to break out the legal trickery and obstruction already just to challenge our lieutenant governor candidate, they must really not like Ben Arndt... or what he brings to Team Heidepriem. "There's something about this guy that has the Republicans scared to death," says Scott.

Ah, I love the smell of Republican fear in the morning.

----------------
*Update 2010.06.27 08:22 CDT: Let's clarify: Team Heidepriem checked with two lawyers before announcing Arndt's addition to the ticket a month ago. They found no law or party rule under which Arndt's candidacy could be challenged. They checked with the Secretary of State's office, which said it saw no legal problem with certifying a mixed ticket. At 4:45 p.m. Friday, a tipster contacted the campaign, let them know the Republican chicanery afoot, and informed them that the Secretary of State had changed his position to say the law on this matter is not clear.

Ben Arndt Now a Dem? Not That I Mind...

Pat Powers and his commenters are having inordinate fun talking about Ben Arndt's rumored last-minute switch from Republican to Democrat. There's no mainstream confirmation yet... though I suppose I can ask Ben and his running mate Scott Heidepriem myself at the convention this morning.

If Ben has switched, I simply say, "'Bout time! Welcome to the party!"

But I would like some clarification: Powers is suggesting Arndt had to switch under state law to qualify for the ticket. I've perused state law, the state constitution, and the party constitution, and I see no clear requirement that the lieutenant governor register in the same party as the governor, or that a candidate has to belong to the party to receive the party's nomination (although as a party activist, I'd ask a non-party member some hard questions about why I ought to nominate him). But I'm also hurrying through breakfast, so I may have missed something.

Dear readers, your homework for today: find the statute or by-law requiring Arndt to be a Democrat. Also, let me know how much Ben Arndt's party registration matters to you.

Spinning Shoddy Rasmussen Poll: Where's the Bounce?

I've enjoyed reading some of the spin surrounding the post-primary Rasumussen poll showing Dennis Daugaard's lead over Scott Heidepriem remaining unchanged, even as Daugaard's primary victory changed the match-up from hypothetical to real. Mr. Dahle cuts through said spin and offers a lucid explanation of why Rasmussen's Republican-run robo-call polls aren't much better than my blog polls.

Perhaps we can achieve some balance by averaging Rasmussen's skewed results with mine: Lump Rasmussen's 500-person sample with my 628, and you find Daugaard ahead of Heidepriem by just two percentage points. For both campaigns, a tiny lead like that should make hair stand on end.

Mr. Mercer opened his discussion of the results by noting that Heidepriem "didn't make up any ground" since the preceding Rasmussen poll on May 26. That view is conceivably headline worthy, given that the poll interim included Heidepriem's announcement of Republican Ben Arndt as running mate. That announcement apparently didn't move the Rasmussen poll needle.

But at least equally noteworthy is the absence of a Daugaard primary bounce. Noem got a bounce, or at least a continuation of a climb since April. Daugaard got all sorts of happy press last week, video of him surrounded by cheering supporters. Yet his Rasmussen poll number ticked up just one point.

Now there has been some spin from the other side, with some arguing that Daugaard's poll numbers have stagnated. In classic glass-half-empty thinking, one observers says Daugaard, who enjoyed nearly every advantage, lost nearly half of the Republican vote in the primary.

But I can't quite cheer myself up with that spin. To get every other voter to pick you when they have four other choices is no mean feat. (Think restaurants: if half the diners in Madison went to Dairy Queen for supper while the other half split among Taco John's, Pizza Ranch, Skipper's, and China Moon, everyone would want to follow DQ's business model.)

As for stagnant poll numbers, well, if you believe Rasmussen, and if you had to be stagnant, wouldn't you like to be stagnant 16 points above your opponent, with only 12 percent left undecided?

Democrat Angst II: Two Republicans Run for South Dakota Governor

Too much angst? Maybe it's just the weather....

I confess my dismay with "Independent Democrat" Scott Heidepriem's campaign for governor. One fellow Dem said it took her more than one casual viewing of his TV ads to realize that he was not a Republican. Another notes that his Issues page is all about fiscal restraint. Alternative energy, education, and economic development, all issues where Democrats could make strong points about how three straight decades of Republican dominance have left us lagging, get a mere "More to come" at the bottom of the page. Reproductive rights and anti-discrimination laws get no mention.

And then there's his running mate, Ben Arndt. Instead of using his lieutenant governor choice to bring up a young Democrat and deepen the party's bench, Heidepriem selects a young Republican, a corporate executive, a transplant from Iowa with no political track record other than big donations from his father-in-law. Not exactly the kind of choice that makes me jump on a soapbox and shout, "We are Dems—hear us roar!"

Now Heidepriem is simply following a logical political strategy. Republicans have won 80% of South Dakota's gubernatorial elections. The surest way to win the governor's office in South Dakota is to campaign as a Republican. Heidepriem is doing that. You don't get to do good Democrat things in office if you don't win office in the first place.

Heidepriem can make the point that we don't get to pursue any Democratic objectives if we don't get our fiscal house in order first. He can make the point that a majority of South Dakotans aren't thinking about buolding a political party; they want to hear about fixing government, and budget cuts and ending no-bid contracts are the safest issues to tap that sentiment.

But South Dakota Democrats could use their sentiment tapped as well. They could use an assurance that their candidate will use his veto pen to stop any unconstitutional abortion bans. They could use an assurance that their candidate will fight to raise our rock-bottom teacher salaries. They could use an assurance that their candidate will stop Pierre's palling around with Big Oil, make TransCanada pay its way and respect landowners, and roll back Mike Rounds's red carpet for Hyperion.

Alas, we aren't allowed to declare our Democraticness. We need to keep our Democratic ideals quiet. We need to go along with the conventional wisdom, act like we are Republicans... hey, wait a minute: that doesn't feel like being an "Independent Democrat."

I guess if Democrats are looking for someone to fly the party flag in South Dakota, we'll have to turn to the youngest female State Senator-elect in our history, Angie Buhl of Sioux Falls. She's proved that you don't have to preface "I'm a Democrat" with any apology or adjective to win an election in South Dakota. The rest of our party should follow her lead.