NRSC Clearly Understands They Can Lose South Dakota, But Guy Cecil Is Still Filled With Poutrage

DSCC executive director Guy Cecil isn't thinking clearly... or doesn't give a shit if the Democrats keep control of the Senate or not. The battle over the Senate could well come down to one state: South Dakota... and Cecil, who rides roughshod over pathetic DSCC chairman Michael Bennet, refuses to play. When Beltway political reporter Alexandra Jaffe asked the question, Why Is Rick Weiland Getting Cold Shoulder?, there is never a mention of Cecil.

No doubt he was just too busy trying to worm his way into the Hillary For President Campaign taking shape, but its hardly a secret that Cecil is still furious that Weiland's entry into the race, wrecked Cecil's dumb centrist plan. South Dakotans defeated Blue Dog Queen Stephanie Herseth Sandlin in 2010 and replaced her with another nothing, Kristi Noem. Noem beat her 153,683 (48%) to 146,561 (46%), in large part because progressives just stayed home rather than vote for the conservative Herseth Sandlin. They didn't hold their noses and vote for her; they say home and grilled hot dogs and burgers. The following election saw a much bigger turnout-- presidential year-- but Noem, with no accomplishments under her belt, beat Democrat Matt Varilek with an even greater margin. He was a classic Steve Israel mystery meat candidate. No one ever knew what he stood for. That's the way the DCCC and the DSCC likes their candidates-- even though candidates like that usually lose.

So around roles the 2014 cycle and Cecil is tripping all over himself to recruit the pathetic Herseth Sandlin, the former chair of the Blue Dogs who was so certain she could never win a Democratic primary that she told Cecil she would only run if he could clear the Democratic field. Cecil gave his word and, sure enough, persuaded Tim Johnson's son, Brendan, to drop out of the race. Sandlin was beaming... until populist Rick Weiland jumped in. Herseth Sandlin stormed out of the race and Cecil-- as well as Harry Reid-- were furious. Cecil probably told Bennet, an idiot, to put on a sad face.

Now Weiland has been picking up a head of steam and has been endorsed by almost every Senate Democrat, including all the good Senate Democrats, from Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders and Jeff Merkley to Al Franken, Barbara Boxer, Brian Schatz, Mazie Hirono, Ron Wyden, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jack Reed, Patrick Leahy, Ed Markey, Richard Blumenthal, and Tom Harkin. No Reid, and, of course, no Bennet, who only makes endorsements when Cecil tells him it's OK. But can Weiland win? In South Dakota? You bet he can... unless Cecil sabotages his race. And right now... Cecil is sabotaging his race-- although that isn't what Alexandra Jaffe discusses in her Hill post.

The DSCC has consistently insisted it would have a strong option, likening the race to North Dakota in 2012, when the last-minute entry of Democrat Heidi Heitkamp delivered the party a winning candidate.

But with no other Democrats in the race, there are now no other options for the DSCC. And Weiland is certainly no centrist like Heitkamp. He’s the rare critic of ObamaCare who says it doesn’t go far enough; he opposes the controversial Keystone XL pipeline that remains popular with conservatives; and he has received the backing of Howard Dean’s Democracy for America, a national progressive group.

Critics say that strategy won’t work in South Dakota, with a voting population that’s 45 percent Republican and where GOP 2012 presidential nominee Mitt Romney won with nearly 60 percent over the vote.

Craig Lawrence, chairman of the South Dakota Republican Party, said he’s confident widespread opposition to the national Democratic Party will deliver the GOP candidate a win.

“How do you spell ‘Obama’? How do you spell ‘ObamaCare’? How do you spell, ‘our decline in image for the United States throughout the world’? How do you spell ‘Harry Reid’?” he said, when asked what he saw as the GOP’s winning argument in the race.

Weiland has, however, distanced himself from Obama on core issues, ranging from possible U.S. military intervention in Syria to the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent actions on ethanol. His adviser Mike Lux said calling his campaign “progressive” would be inaccurate.

“I think he’s running a populist campaign, and I think that a populist campaign has won most South Dakota senate elections in the last few years for Democrats. It’s not a conventional progressive campaign at all,” Lux said.

Lux said Weiland is framing his push for a public option as essentially support for allowing the public to buy into Medicare, which is popular with seniors, and that his opposition to Keystone XL is appealing to farmers and ranchers who know it could hurt their water supply.

Democrats say they’re further heartened by the contours of the GOP primary. They believe prevailing conservative discontent with Rounds, the establishment pick, as well as investigations into potential misconduct involving the state development office during Rounds’ administration, could cripple him for the general.

Lawrence argued there’s no direct connection between Rounds and the alleged misconduct: “There’s smoke but there’s no fire. It will not singe Mike Rounds.”

That could change, however, if national Democrats pour money into advertising pushing the issue-- and in a state as cheap as South Dakota, a small investment goes a long way.

They also believe the entry of Pressler as an independent candidate could split off votes from the GOP nominee and deliver Weiland a win, if the race tightens.

Lawrence predicted that Pressler could draw 8 percent of the vote but that Rounds-- whom the state party has not officially endorsed, but Lawrence and many others see as the clear front-runner-- will be too strong to overcome.

“Mike Rounds is so popular and the Democratic candidate is so comparatively weak that Larry Pressler would have to have an incredible amount of support” to leave an opening for Weiland, he said.

Maybe the DC Democrats are doing Weiland a favor by painting a picture that shows Reid against him. Reid is extremely unpopular in South Dakota and his backing won't do Weiland any good with the state's voters, even if it would with institutional Democratic Party donors. But Rounds has a worse roadblock than the 8% Pressler is bound to take away from the GOP. Meet Mike Rounds-hater, Gordon Howie, the teabagger who is going to deliver South Dakota to a full-fledged Democrat, not a Stephanie Herseth Sandlin or Heidi Heitkamp type from the Republican wing of the party. Craig Lawrence, chairman of the South Dakota Republican Party:

From the moment Gordon Howie filed his petitions for US Senate as an Independent, Republicans from around the state have been ringing our phones off the hook in anger that one of our own would set out to be the spoiler in the race.

Gordon called me this afternoon to ask if the State Party were challenging his petitions,  and I explained that it is not the State Party that may challenge, but that it is impossible for me not to know about or be involved in such a challenge in one way or another.  There is simply too much controversy surrounding his switch from Republican to Independent, and I am the Republican Chairman.

I suggested that if he were to get 12% of the vote as he has in the past, he could be the spoiler who gives the seat back to the Democrats. He said, “I expect to get much more than 12%.”

And the GOP effort to disqualify Gordon from the ballot is going to backfire on them even beyond the very slim odds of them being successful.

Gordon submitted 5200 signatures which is about 59% beyond the minimum requirement and the second largest margin of any candidate for office this year. His petitions, so we're reliably informed, tested in at about 84% accuracy which would mean the SDGOP would need to identify over 1,000 indivuduals on Gordon's petitions who had already previously signed U.S. Senate Candidate petitions this year. This would invovle cross checking each one of his 5,200 signatures against the 25k+ that were submitted previously and doing so by next Tuesday.

Most importanlty, if this were to evolve to a legal dispute, the South Dakota courts have a long and documented history of allowing candadites on the ballot even if they fall below the margin assuming it isn't by a terribly ergrious margin. What a mess! And all it does is drag the already badly wounded Rounds through the mud in the minds of independent voters-- while further infuriating Republicans who lean in a Tea Party direction. You can help Rick Weiland here-- even if Guy Cecil won't.