Noem Leads Herseth Sandlin by 5 Points

I might not be doing Kristi Noem any favors by pointing out that she ranks number one at Politics Daily among "The Next 10 Women to Watch in Politics." PD's Capitol Hill Bureau Chief, Patricia Murphy, might or might not be doing Noem a favor with this comparison:

One look at Kristi Noem's biography makes it tough not to compare her to fellow frontierswoman Sarah Palin. The 38-year-old mother of three is a Republican trying to unseat the Democratic incumbent, Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, for South Dakota's at-large House seat. When Noem isn't running for office, she breeds Angus cattle and runs a hunting lodge with her husband on her family's ranch. (Can't we just assume she can field-dress a moose?)

Well, maybe an elk.

I wrote previously that Kristi Noem's 12 point lead in the first post-nomination poll seemed unrealistically high, even as a bounce. Well, the bounce has subsided. Rasmussen has a new poll out for the South Dakota race.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in South Dakota shows Noem with 49% support, while Herseth-Sandlin picks up 44% of the vote. Four percent (4%) favor some other candidate in the race, and three percent (3%) are undecided.

Given the power of incumbency and the fact that four months remain until Election Day, these figures indicate the race is clearly in the Toss-Up category.

Rasmussen is being responsible here. A five point lead is indeed a tossup, probably not much outside the margin of error. Still, when an established incumbent is five points behind in July, that usually means she's in big trouble.

That impression is confirmed by these numbers:

Herseth-Sandlin picks up 76% of the Democratic vote while Noem wins 74% of Republicans. Noem now leads among voters not affiliated with either major party by a 50% to 35% margin.

I think that's a little weak for Noem, and about what I would expect from Democrats who are not all so enthusiastic about SHS. But there are more Republicans than Democrats in the Rushmore State, so three quarters of the former wins on its own.

If SHS is really fifteen points behind among the "unaffiliated", she is very unlikely to survive this election. Unfortunately for my friends who comfort themselves by dismissing the Rasmussen polls, these numbers are in accord with the recent Gallup poll showing President Obama's approval rating at 38% among independent voters. I make no predictions. But I am guessing that my friend the Election Shaman, when he gets back from lecturing at his old alma mater Shaman U, will call this one.

Comments

[William]

There are many days left until the election, but it's beginning to appear that this is more Kristi's race to lose than it's Stephanie's race to win.

Aside from her "name recognition" race against Bill Janklow, Stephanie has benefited from incumbency, a big war chest, name recognition and a failure of the SD GOP to provide well funded "media-genic" candidates to oppose her. The Democratic Party was also "on the rise" during most of her term in office.

Most, if not all, of those advantages are neutralized this year.

This will be Stephanie's most difficult challenge and it will be interesting to see how she handles it. Was bringing Steny Hoyer to South Dakota REALLY a wise political move?

[Andrew]

I'm not convinced by Noem. I'm sure she's a great person, and I thank her for her work on the South Dakota legislator. However, I feel it is misleading that she presents herself as a champion for balanced budgets and fiscally responsible choices without opening an honest dialog on what this means. According to Farm Subsidy Database, her ranch has acquired over three million dollars in subsides since 1995. That is the exact sort of wealth redistribution from profit-making ventures to favored sectors that needs to be examined more closely. Subsides to certain sectors are not in and of themselves wrong. Some support national interests that, although not economically viable in the marketplace without state support or direction, are so vital as to justify state action. National defense projects, high-tech research, and many infrastructure projects are good examples of situations where state action in favor of special industries may be appropriate. Private enterprise toll roads, for example, would not produce a sufficient national transportation network. By building a network of public roads, we lower costs for transportation companies but doing so serves a compelling national interest. I realize farm subsides play a large role in South Dakota's agricultural framework, but I believe that it is about time we had an honest discussion about under what circumstances agriculture presents such a vital interest to the nation as to justify the taxing of productive economic sectors and redistribution of that wealth to less profitable economic sectors in the form of subsides. My hunch is that Angus beef for sale at high-end grocers and steakhouses will not meet this criteria.

[Erik]

KB: I'm out of my research cave for now (first book out soon, Next Gen Librarianship: Tales from an Unclassified Generation from McFarland). As always, I appreciate the analysis. The Palin factor (she is the GOP's Obama) is making this an interesting year. Just south of my border, the Palinesque candidate got the GOP nomination---this can only be good for our political system. BTW, have you thought of attaching "like" buttons on your blog? Check Slate and there is a way to install them. I'd like to link directly to my FB page.

[KB]

William: I see it as you do.

Andrew: I am not endorsing Noem here. I am handicapping the election. I wouldn't be too hard on the Noems for accepting Federal money. I would like to see subsides disappear, but they are part of the business. I keep thinking about all those guys who get money for not farming. I figure I am as qualified as anyone to not farm.

Erik: Thanks. I will look into it.

[Ka]

Ken you are probably right about the Palin remarks not helping.