If there is one thing I have learned about Steve over the years, he is no dummy, and he certainly doesn’t jump to conclusions without evidence. He is very seasoned at running campaigns, and he holds no punches back. Whether you believe Steve or not about the ‘No on everything’ campaign, he would not have gotten ahead of this if he didn’t have solid information;
Hildebrand would not say who told him the party is planning the ad campaign.
Of course Steve isn’t going to release his sources. If I told everyone on this site where I get some of my information, I wouldn’t have a site, because I no longer would have sources. As if Steve was going to give them those sources because a couple of green horn TV reporters asked him for it. LOL.
Either way, the idea in itself isn’t too far fetched. The Republicans know they have a pretty good chance of defeating 22 but ‘V’ will probably pass easily. That’s the one they fear the most. So grouping all the amendments as trouble is an easier way for them to get people to vote against ‘V’. They could care less if the technical schools get it’s own board or if Marsy’s Law fails. Amendment ‘V’ scares the living dog crap out of them, because they know it will change the makeup of the state legislature virtually overnight, and their over 40 years of a fascist grip on lawmaking in this state will finally end.
V is a dud. It’s not going to pass. I have read 22 a bunch of times and cannot figure out how the hell this thing is funded and who gets/gives the credits. It’s just stupid or poorly written.
Who started and what is the purpose of 23? It’s gotta be some special interest that cant charge some special fee.
Never mind. 22 is too F’ed up to pass and 23 is union horseshit.
https://sdsos.gov/elections-voting/assets/2016%20BQ%20PamphletCover.pdf
I have read 22 a bunch of times and cannot figure out how the hell this thing is funded and who gets/gives the credits.
I had no problem at all figuring 22 out lj. I have to believe you didn’t either. Anytime I see the koch brothers injecting millions of dollars into states voting initiatives, I smell a rat.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/88824694/
“Vote yes on Amendment R,” Daugaard said in a press conference to launch the campaign Tuesday afternoon. “You can vote no on all the others if you want to, but at least on Amendment R, vote yes.”
http://www.argusleader.com/story/news/education/2016/06/28/gov-vote-yes-amendment-r-you-can-vote-no-all-others/86478408/
Why would you say “V” is a dud?! Why would anyone be against it? If passed this would allow voters to see the true agendas behind people’s campaign. It would weed out Party servants and create Public Servants for once. As an informed voter I would love the opportunity to vote for IDEAS and not PARTY. I want the best candidates to choose from come election time.
A lot of people seem to be opposed to 22, because they do not like the idea that their tax dollars will be used to fund the campaigns of politicians.
However, when they mention that, I always ask them would they rather have the politicians take the money from them or special interest? When I ask that question, they seem to open up and become more receptive to the intent of 22.
Do doubt “V” scares the bejeebers out of the established GOP from what I have heard*, too, but the average voter regardless of party affiliation should not fear it at all. If it passes, it means that in Pierre we will most likely no longer be sending people to Pierre to talk about bathroom usage, but there will be more sophisticated discussions about how we fund education, however. Instead, of allowing a fiat whimsical increase in the state sales tax system be allowed as a form of indifferent and lazy solvency.
One could argue, that the GOP overall should actually embrace “V.” Look at California right now, the Democrats are the very dominant political party in that state and the two final candidates for the US Senate in California are Democrats – and this is happening with a current political system like the world “V” would create in South Dakota for the dominant Republican Party here.
Now, should South Dakota Democrats be alarmed because of the California reality? Not really, because one, our statewide candidates do not win any more and seem to hover around a new low of 29% support. And two, if the Democrats are going to reemerge as a force in this state they will most likely do it with the politics of moderation, which is a very marketable tool in a world where “V” rules and all of the candidates run in one big beauty contest…
* A reliable source has told me, that recently the South Dakota GOP establishment all met at the Minnehaha CC to figure out how they were going to defeat all of these measures. So the establishment is scared, but the voters should not be. This is the age of Trump or at least the Trump voter (like it or not), and a grand coalition of Democrats and Trump voters (oddly as that may seem) have the potential to override the wishes of the country club crowd, which wants continual funding of campaigns by special interest dominance and a majority in Pierre, with the help of the right (in the absence of a “V” reality), so that they do not have to have a honest discussion on tax reform in this state; which the recent increase in teacher pay and how they did it, and not the fact that they did it, is a classic example of this, in my opinion…
I support 100% transparency of donors and believe pac money should be illegal, but the proposed 22 law is just stupid and has no chance of winning.