I suppose it might seem a little too esoteric to ask a question like this one. South Dakota is a state that carries only three electoral votes and has consistently voted Republican in every presidential election since Lyndon Johnson’s landslide in 1964. It’s not the sort of state that is generally thought of as “in play,” and it doesn’t carry enough weight to cause a presidential campaign to concentrate its resources on winning it.
However, an interesting thing happened in South Dakota in 2002. First-term Senator Tim Johnson, a Democrat, won reëlection against at-large Representative John Thune. It was a very close election, decided by about 500 votes, and capped off with the Thune campaign muttering something about Johnson having cheated, but declining to challenge the tally, even though state law would have permitted it, considering the size of the margin of victory. Sure, Johnson was a popular incumbent, but he was running against a popular opponent. Many South Dakotans would have been pleased with either one as a senator, from what I’ve read. Johnson did have Tom Daschle campaigning for him which, whether you like Daschle or not, you have to admit carries considerable weight in a campagn.
South Dakota garnered more national attention that it normally would have because some were billing this Senate race as a referendum on Senator Daschle, and furthermore, any Democrat in such a Republican-dominated state is on shaky ground to begin with. Out-of-state money poured into South Dakota, and TV spots were plenty, largely because the state is a very inexpensive media market. This leveled the playing field when it came to money, blunting the Republicans’ advantage. But a real Republican-blunter was the zeal of American Indians who turned out to vote. Indians in South Dakota were mobilized in greater numbers than ever before, and while most Indians still didn’t vote, enough did to make a difference and give Johnson a second term.
Now that American Indians proved they could wield formidable political influence, the question is: will they do it again? Could they turn the tide in South Dakota in 2004, helping Senator Daschle’s reëlection bid (presuming he runs again, and I have no reason to think he won’t.) Could they even hand the Sunshine State over to the Democratic candidate? I know, I know, it all depends on the candidate, but American Indians are uncharacteristically partisan for South Dakota, having voted overwhelmingly Democratic in 2002. In a state where the voters largely don’t seem to mind splitting their ticket between parties during elections, this could certainly make a difference.
So: is South Dakota a lock for the Republicans next year? Or will they have to fight for it? Elections seldom turn on the outcome of small states (though one could argue that 2000 turned on the outcome of New Hampshire, which is another thread entirely) but still, South Dakota could prove to be one of 2004’s biggest curiosities—and perhaps a harbinger of change in America’s western interior…