On October 8, Survey USA released a poll for the U.S. Senate race in South Dakota. The results: Republican Mike Rounds 35%; independent Larry Pressler 32%; Democrat Rick Weiland 28%; independent Gordon Howie 3%; undecided 2%. See here for more detail. This is the first poll to have shown Pressler in second place. Thanks to Political Wire for the link.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
C’mon Larry!!! I may have to make another contribution to your campaign.
My dream world is that after election the results are:
48 Dems
48 Reps
4 Ind (King,Sanders,Orman,Pressler)
The indpendents form an “Indpendent” caucus, knock McConnel and Reid’s heads together, and make strong demands for pragmatism and extract major concessions from the eventual “majority” party that the Ind Caucus hand picks, and the Indies demand a firm participating hand in senate legislation and rules.
Brad M: Yes, such a 48 Dems, 48 Reps, 4 Indies setup in the Senate would be very interesting indeed.
As far as this particular senate election, which candidate is the GOP establishment supporting? Rounds or Pressler?
If we could get Orman & Pressler elected to the Senate, Overby elected to the house, and good results for alternative candidates elsewhere, it would completely shake up the political establishment, and maybe begin to set this country on the right track.
Jed: Richard probably can tell us the exact number, but I don’t think we’ve ever had 4 Independents in the United States Senate in the history of this nation. Now that would “set this country on the right track.”
I know the old American Party of the 1850’s had several U.S. Senators at one time, but at the moment don’t know of any other 3rd party that has had more than 1. The last being Dean Barkley of Minnesota Independence Party, and then he was only appointed and served about a month.
After attempting to recall my history, the Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota might have had 2 U.S. Senators sitting at the same time, and I think the Wisconsin Progressive Party had 2 U.S. Senators sitting at one time.
Correct me Richard, if I’m wrong.
Don’t forget the Progressive (Bull-Moose) Party! If memory serves correctly, they had 5 Senators at one time, though all were Republicans who had switched over, and after just a few years switched back. The Populist Party may have had a few Senators 20 years earlier.
DSZ: Yep, forgot about the “Bull Moose” Progressives and the Populists. And what about the Greenback Party? I know they elected several House members, but not sure about members of the U.S. Senate. Thanks for reminding me about the “Bull Moosers” and the Populists.
Remember that until 1916, senators were elected by the legislature of each state, so would reflect the political division of the state. If there were a division between the two chambers over who to elect, there might be a compromise candidate elected. But sometimes states would simply not elect anyone.
And the federal parties could influence state elections. The Lincoln-Douglas debates were not intended to get votes for Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln, but to get votes for legislators who would in turn vote for Lincoln or Douglas.
There are a few elections that are showing some promise for good alternative candidate results, such as the Florida and New York Gubernatorial elections, the NY 21st Congressional district, and potentially the Illinois 12th Congressional district depending on how much voters are affected by the debate that just took place here tonight. Might see a few alternative candidates get double digit percentages of the vote.