Maybe that is what the Democratic party in South Dakota needs, to hit almost rock bottom before coming alive again. They lost 4 legislative seats this year and are now down to 16 (which could easily turn into 15 depending on the outcome of Nesiba’s case).
This afternoon the local Democrats had a public meeting at the downtown Sioux Falls library (we hope to have video in a couple of days). Many great ideas were thrown around, and a lot of finger pointing was also done.
Here’s some things that the Dems realized they may have lost on;
• While supporting education funding is good, it was probably a major mistake to vote for a Republican governor’s plan (that will probably be repealed or gutted this session). They should have voted it down and presented their own plan.
• While gay rights, abortion and teacher pay are important issues, they don’t resonate with a lot of South Dakotans, especially conservative voters. The message coming from Dems should not always be an ‘elitist’ or ‘special interest’ message, but one that resonates with all, like worker rights (all workers), wages and fair taxes.
• In light of Measure 22 passing, it is evident that Dems need to also focus more on ethics and corruption the one-party system has inflicted on us.
What is the solution to fixing the party’s brand in South Dakota?
• The resounding consensus at the meeting was having a unified message that resonates with ALL voters. And having actual solutions to those problems, like corruption and low wages and regressive taxes.
Not sure what that message will look like, but the message so far isn’t working for the party. Legislative candidate Michael Saba said it best, “We have to stop letting the Republican Party in this state brand us! We need to brand ourselves!”
Something that happened at the beginning of the meeting really had me thinking, and I even blurted out someones name. One major complaint is where are the past Democrats with high profiles these days? Only one was mentioned, Tim Johnson, who gave $20,000 towards 20 different candidates from his PAC. But the bigger question was where were Herseth, Johnson (both of them) Daschle and Hildebrand during the campaign? Why are they not assisting in rebuilding the party? I even blurted out Mayor Huether. That’s a good question no one had an answer to. It goes back to the elitism that exists in the party. I especially find it ironic that the Mayor leaned on the SDDP to get him elected, and organized labor, and now he is no where to be found. He even convinced the SDDP to help out the city council campaign of a Republican, De Knudson. On second thought, maybe we don’t want his help.
There also seemed to be this desire to control the message of the media. Folks, not going to happen. First off, that is not how the Fourth Estate is supposed to function, and secondly we don’t even have a very good functioning media in this town. Our TV stations are more concerned about sick kids at the Sanford Castle and the weekly work out routine then they are about real news. And our local newspaper has been flailing and flopping like a fish out of water for several years now.
As was determined in the meeting, come up with a solid message, solutions, and hammer it home, day after day, and the media will start to take notice. Trump won because he had a message, you may not agree with it, I certainly don’t, but he repeated it over and over.
The Dems can pull out of this, and they must do it now, especially with Trump haters who are very angry right now and want some relief. Start with them, and work your way out.
Elitism good way to put Slick Mike.
As was determined in the meeting, come up with a solid message, solutions, and hammer it home, day after day, and the media will start to take notice. Trump won because he had a message, you may not agree with it, I certainly
With very few exceptions, this place one of them, the media is corporately owned. They will only notice when what you’re selling cuts that corporation a profit. trump won because the “media” wanted a horse race. They got that…and much much more. They have material to work with for years to come. $$$$ over ethics.
The SDDP is such a mortally damaged brand here in SD the best thing to do is start a new unique to South Dakota political party.
The elitist attitude really turned many potential swing voters and especially moderate Democrats away. One candidate was very elitist and over confident in getting elected and going to Pierre. That candidate was clobbered and is a prime example. That candidate is tone deaf and will run again. Let that candidate stay in the walking dead SDDP and get clobbered again while a new party rise up and be a true opposition party that many South Dakotans are desperate to have.
Mike Saba was my vice-chair when I chaired the SD Commission for National and Community Service, and I remember gaining respect for him as we talked for hours in the car between Sioux Falls and wherever the Commission was holding its meetings (usually Pierre or Chamberlain).
Any organization or company’s brand is ultimately determined by the marketplace. Whatever the organization or company would like its brand to be, however much it spends on promoting its brand, people outside the organization or corporation have the ultimate say.
One way to move toward congruence between the organization’s or corporation’s branding self-concept and that of the public is for that brand to: 1) have integrity; and 2) be communicated with integrity. Truth and consistency are two key elements of integrity as I use the word here.
What does this mean for the SDDP? That’s up to its members and leaders to decide. Ideological purity will give a small core of zealots, but too much flexibility will attract yawns from most and skepticism (or animosity) from the zealots. Focusing on solutions may alienate those not already convinced of the need to solve a particular problem, much less the virtue of the specific solution.
Will the SDDP find leaders able to address the big questions of vision and mission in such a way as to attract sufficient members, volunteers, donors, and voters to change both the state’s electoral mind and math?
As a South Dakota Republican, I hope it can. South Dakota needs two strong political parties that challenge each other fully and fairly. Principled competition improves performance all around.
Wyland, that is my contention as an Independent, a one-party rule system in SD is NOT good for anyone, Republicans or Democrats. Heck, I would be happy if the Dems at least controlled 35% of Pierre, at least they would have a hold out on 2/3 majority laws.
Fresh Start, don’t think an opposition party hasn’t been thrown around. I think the first step is to clean house.
i work with someone who is a higher up in the county democratic party. this person said that hildebrand has something to do with stephanie herseth’s lack of involvement, although they didn’t elaborate.
13wis, Too much damage has been done to the SDDP to ever be taken seriously again. The same nutballs will be there including one with a God complex who will run again and will most likely be defeated by an even larger margin next time because he just annoys the hell out of people.
Time to start fresh. It would be a hell of a lot of work and need money but this new party would not have the baggage from the chronic failure of the SDDP.
I suggest all the “hair on fire” responses to IM22’s restriction on lobbying be grandfathered in until the new ethics commission can review each individual situation (without the threat of a penalty). Nothing absolutely horrible is going on and allowing the status quo until a review, is proper. Or, are Republicans causing this upheaval to create excuses because they’re about to do something very wrong? Repeal the will of the voters.
Or… maybe liberals are just doing what they do best. Lose.