Reckoning in the Dakotas

“It’s Time” – Slogan for Thune for Senate in the South Dakota Senate race, 2004

The Dakotas are sparsely populated and, by national standards, not wealthy.  They have large Native American populations and their industry is largely agriculture, small businesses and a few major military installations.  The workers are largely blue collar, fiercely patriotic, distrustful of government but sometimes dependent on farm subsidies and also skeptical of big business. They want down-to-earth politicians whose names they know and vice versa.  In short, the people of these prairie states share more in common with conservative Republicans than with liberal Democrats, but are very open to a sort of populist Democrat that is not afraid to rattle the Washington establishment for the benefit of the Dakotas, skepticism of government be damned. 

This sort of blue-collar populism has paid serious dividends for Democrats in the Dakotas in recent decades.  While North and South Dakota have gone Republican for President in every election since 1964, the Democrats have almost completely dominated the Congressional and Senate races for decades.  In North Dakota, Republicans have won no House races and only one Senate race since 1980.  South Dakota has been a little bit more back and forth, but there is no doubt that the Democratic Party has been in the driver’s seat, winning 12 out of 16 races for the House and 6 out of 9 races for the Senate since 1980.  As early as late 2004, Democrats controlled all four Senate seats and both at-large Congressional districts. 

This dominance is about to end.

Indeed, the pending demise of Democratic Prairie Populism would have been difficult to predict a few years ago.  Indeed, even a few months ago, such a collapse looked unlikely.  Now, however, nobody disputes that the Democrats’ power in the Dakotas is receding; the only dispute is if it will merely diminish or collapse almost entirely.

The signs point to an almost total collapse of the Democrats power in these prairie lands.  Currently, Republican Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the only Republican currently representing the Dakotas in Congress, who beat Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle in 2004 (and who holds the seat of George McGovern), is running for re-election unopposed. Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota is retiring and Republican Governor John Hoeven’s claim on his Senate seat is so strong that the Cook Political Report deems this currently Democratically-held seat as “Safe Republican.” 

The at-large Congressional seats in the Dakotas present difficulties for the Democrats as well.  Nine-term Rep. Earl Pomeroy, who has attained over 60% of the vote in the last two elections, is running double digits behind his opponent, state Rep. Rick Berg, in two recent polls.  The Republicans haven’t yet sorted out the primary to challenge to three and a half-term Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin, but the warning signs are there: Herseth-Sandlin has polled well under 50% in several polls taken in recent months, leading her likely opponent, Secretary of State Chris Nelson, by only 2%, 44-42, a statistical tie.

There are two major reasons for this shift, namely, the increased polarization of politics and perhaps even more importantly, the rise of new media, particularly bloggers and other internet activists.  Unsurprisingly, the Democrats achieved near total dominance of the Dakotas during the relatively ideologically muted period of the late 80s and 90s (during the Bush 41 and Clinton terms).  Populist Democrats like Byron Dorgan, Tom Daschle, Earl Pomeroy and Tim Johnson flourished. 

Things became more problematic, however, when times turned more polarizing and these populist Democrats were forced to choose between following the wishes of their constituents and following the wishes of the national Democratic Party.  For Dakota incumbents, the wishes of their party usually won out.  In truth, none of the longtime Dakota incumbents were as moderate as their image, but given the relatively less ideological times in which they achieved their dominance, their image was able to hold.  This strategy started to crack in the early 2000s.  Thune, who at the time was the at-large Representative from South Dakota, lost a race for Senate to Tim Johnson by 524 votes in large part by pointing out the inconsistencies between Johnson’s persona and his record.  It was close, but Thune lost.  Two years later, he managed to topple Tom Daschle, a more powerful, more popular Senator then Johnson.

What changed? 

The short answer is new media.  In 2004, local political historian Jon Lauck of South Dakota State University took it upon himself to start a very detailed blog on the Daschle-Thune race.  Lauck highlighted the inconsistencies that were not pointed out by South Dakota’s leading newspaper, the Argus-Leader (which, not coincidentally, was run by a college buddy of Daschle).  The effect of this particular blog cannot be overstated.  This blog was widely discussed and became a major part of the campaign, as did other forms of online communication about the race. (Lauck is now a senior aid to Senator Thune).  It was Daschle’s high profile stances against the national Republican positions, combined with a diminished ability to paper over these differences because new media was ready, willing and able to point out these inconsistencies and broadcast them loudly.

Many conservative activists immediately thought they could use this strategy to destroy the Democratic dominance of the Dakotas.  Conservatives instantly targeted Senator Conrad for defeat in 2006.  Ultimately though, this strategy did not work during the last two cycles for two related reasons:  first, because the national tide made voters less likely to listen to conservative arguments and, second, because no prominent politician with any real connection to the people or any resources stepped forward. Governor Hoeven declined such a race in 2006.

The national factors seem to have merely delayed the inevitable, however.  Obama’s push to the left and his demand for party loyalty have brought these prairie populists to a very difficult point.  Conrad, Dorgan, Johnson and Pomeroy have all supported the major planks of the Obama agenda, including the stimulus bill, the Obama budget and most of all, Obamacare.  If they maintain support for issues like guns or opposition to cap and trade, it is essentially irrelevant. They cannot maintain their image as moderate populists in the light of the new media exposing these positions and other positions that are so unpopular back home.

Dorgan realized that this would make his re-election extraordinarily difficult.  The rumor is that after a couple of bad polls showing him trailing Hoeven badly, Hoeven gave him a call and told him he was intent on running and allowed him to save face by retiring before any announcement.  Pomeroy, on the other hand, has been quoted as saying that he “might as well retire if we keep working on this health care issue.”  That was in January.  His ultimate vote for the final bill endeared him to liberal groups, but has led to a massive increase in support for his Republican challenger, state Rep. Rick Berg.  Berg quickly raised $230,000 since getting the nomination, 52% of it was raised online.  Berg has raised nearly half a million dollars so far. 

Again, this demonstrates the power of the new media.  Not only do the new media highlight Pomeroy’s votes, but it also helps raise funds for Pomeroy’s opponent.

Herseth-Sandlin is the exception to the leftist tilt among Dakota Democrats.  She is younger, attractive, and a true moderate and has the best chance of survival in this difficult environment.  But the fact that she’s so much more moderate than the old bulls just shows how the new media has shifted the debate in the Dakotas.  She’ll still have to defend a number of votes in favor of the Obama agenda, including the stimulus bill, but she does not have nearly as big of a gap between her image back home and her voting record.

This year is the end of an era in the Dakotas.  Without these longtime incumbents, the Democrats don’t have much of a bench in the Dakotas anymore. Johnson and Conrad should be glad they aren’t up for re-election this year, because it is very possible that the Dakota’s congressional elections, at long last, will match their presidential votes. 

To quote Thune’s slogan, “It’s Time.”

-Cliff Smith