Ranting On...the South Dakota Senate Race

Sens. Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Harry Reid (D-NV)

I've been kind of avoiding saying this, because it's been so much fun to write about for months and months, but the race for the majority of the Senate is basically over.  Barring a series of major scandals or mishaps, the Republicans are going to win the Senate.  Sens. Mary Landrieu (LA), Mark Begich (AK), Mark Pryor (AR), and Rep. Bruce Braley (IA) all are behind in the polls, and Sen. Mark Udall (CO) is getting there, and while one of these Democrats probably will make a comeback and win (my money would be on Landrieu or Udall at this juncture), they would need a comeback in three of them, and that ain't happening.  It's still important to vote (keeping in mind that holding one or two of these seats will desperately matter in two years when the Senate map favors the Democrats by a significant margin) and the margin will probably be close in most of these seats, but the reality is that the Democrats are going to lose the Senate.  Band-aid=ripped off.

That being said, part of the reason this is happening is because three seats were pushed past the wayside earlier in the year, being labeled "unwinnable:" Montana, West Virginia, and South Dakota.  For the most part, this is right.  State Rep. Amanda Curtis (MT) did the Democrats a solid when she volunteered to be the sacrificial lamb in Montana, replacing scandal-plagued incumbent John Walsh, but she's set to lose in a landslide.  The same can be said for Secretary of State Natalie Tennant in West Virginia, though let's be honest-her campaign has been a bit underwhelming for a holder of statewide office, and I kind of think the star is a bit too tarnished at this point for Tennant to make a comeback in future statewide races outside of her current position.  South Dakota, though, has been a politically saucy race that I'm kind of curious what the hell is going on there, as two of the Democrats' biggest leaders have been in a contest over who has the biggest ego, and part of me is wondering if the Democrats are leaving a seat that they desperately need on the table as a result of someone not getting his way.

For some background on the race, the seat is currently held by three-term Sen. Tim Johnson (SD), a relatively popular guy who is probably most noted for having a stroke while in office, putting the Senate majority in jeopardy for a year or so while he recovered.  Johnson is one of those senators you are glad you have because he gives you a stronger majority, even if he rarely is out in the press and is pretty much the definition of a backbencher.  His recent retirement wasn't particularly surprising, as it seemed pretty obvious he was going to have to run a very close race, something he didn't have to do in 2008 and quite frankly may not have been physically up for doing.  Mike Rounds (R), a bland but popular former governor, quickly stepped in for the Republicans and they had their top-tier challenger.

Rick Weiland (D-SD)

The Democrats had a bit more of a pickle on their plate, though.  First off, they had not one but two A-list candidates to run for the seat: Sen. Johnson's son Brendan, a U.S. Attorney for the state and former Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, who lost in a nailbiter in 2010 but remains relatively well-liked in the state.  Both candidates were being flirted for the seat, but it was Johnson who dropped out first, largely leading the way for Herseth Sandlin to run.  This seemed like the smarter of the two choices: Herseth Sandlin had led four successful runs across the state and knew how to deliver a win, something no Democrat other than Sen. Johnson has been able to do in over a decade in the Mount Rushmore state.  Then came the giant bombshell that no one in Washington quite saw coming: Rick Weiland, aide to former Sen. Tom Daschle, entered the race before Herseth Sandlin had made up her mind, encouraged by the former majority leader to run (Daschle remains a kingpin of South Dakota Democratic politics, even though he's been out of office for a decade).  Herseth Sandlin, not wanting to run a damaging primary against a more liberal challenger, dropped out of the race, and Sen. Harry Reid was fuming mad.  It got bad enough that Daschle and Reid have publicly taken swipes at each other, with Reid essentially saying that Daschle cost the Democrats the South Dakota seat, and Daschle saying that Reid was letting his ego get in the way of the Democrats winning with someone who wasn't Reid's preferred candidate.

Largely, I have been on Reid's side in this debate.  Herseth Sandlin, as I have mentioned and complained about multiple times, is the best candidate the Democrats had here.  She was moderate, bordering on the conservative, but she can run in a tough year (she won reelection in 2004 and her margin in 2010 was surprisingly tight in comparison to other Democrats losing in red territory that year), and most importantly she knew how to win and hold this seat.  Plus, in a year where Democrats increasingly have relied on strong female candidates as part of their fundraising push, she would have been another strong female candidate for the DSCC and Emily's List to back.

However, I'm also starting to see Daschle's point in the polls.  Don't get me wrong-he was wrong to do this, and if the Democrats lose the Senate majority in November by one seat, it will be in large part his fault, but Reid is clearly holding too much of a grudge in what is becoming a very interesting race.  In a cycle where the Democrats are losing ground in a number of races, Rick Weiland has actually started gaining pretty quickly thanks to some weird dynamics in this race.  For starters, Gov. Mike Rounds has run a lackluster campaign, and is being hit by both ends, with both Weiland and (most importantly) former Sen. Larry Pressler (was a Republican, now running as an independent) hitting him hard on a variety of issues.  The Pressler situation is why this race has become so fascinating-he consistently is polling right around 20% (and another independent, Gordon Howie, is occasionally hitting the high single-digits).  With that much of the vote already off the table, the threshold for Weiland to win is getting lower and lower.  I'm not saying that Weiland is the frontrunner (he's not, at all), but I am saying that the Democrats are being foolish about this race.  Weiland is still a theoretical vote for a Democratic majority (even if he isn't a vote for Harry Reid at this point), and he isn't even listed as a "donate to" candidate on the DSCC's page (where even longshots like Travis Childers in Mississippi and Shenna Bellows in Maine are listed).  The most recent PPP poll had Weiland down only by seven-there are polls in Iowa that have shown Bruce Braley down by more and no one would dispute that's a race worth pursuing.  Harry Reid needs to realize that this may be a seat that his party could take with a little bit of time and effort (Weiland is closing the gap with almost no money and organization), get over his ego, and send in the troops.

Those are my thoughts, what are yours?  We'll get a little bit more in-depth into the Senate battle later this weekend (I'll be discussing perhaps the only trump card the Democrats have left: turnout and GOTV), but in the meantime-what are your thoughts on the South Dakota Senate race?  Do you think Harry Reid is letting his personal feelings get in the way of the Democrats picking up a crucial Senate seat?  Share your thoughts in the comments!